That Slice of Social Justice Pie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Democrats think they have the issue of the 2016 election: income inequality. The theory is that so few Americans control so much of the wealth in the country that the rest of us, the “99 percent,” will rise up and demand “fairness.” It’s jealously, plain and simple. And its success, as much as there has been, is based on ignorance.

Bill Gates is worth more than you or I ever will be. Actually, he’s worth more than you, me, and pretty much everyone we know ever will be. But he’s not rich because we’re poor. In fact, we’re not poor at all.

Gates made his money, created it. Before Microsoft existed the value of Microsoft didn’t exist. It was created and grew from nothing, or a relatively small investment. It also grew from hard work and a risk. Gates left Harvard to start the company; he didn’t rob a bank, he bet on himself, his vision and ability. And he won.

Unless someone literally stole from someone else, no one is poor because someone else got rich. That appears to be a difficult concept for many to understand, particularly the “social justice warriors” who obstruct traffic demanding their slice of other people’s pie.

But they do understand it; they just hope others don’t. The chanters against the “1 percent” play on the ignorance of their misguided flock. That ignorance runs deep.

The unenlightened narcissism and greed runs deeper.

That it is fiction that you have less because someone else has more is but one basic concept people should have learned in school. Thanks to the Democratic Party’s indentured servitude to teachers unions, such basic concepts have been replaced with sensitivity conditioning and diversity training.

And how you’re entitled to other people’s money, especially if you’re not white.

The idea that Mark Zuckerberg being worth $34 billion means you were denied your slice of that pie is absurd (unless your last name is Winklevoss or Saverin). That a political party, or any decent human being, would perpetuate that lie is worse.

It’s not often I’ll quote an actor to make a political point, at least the actual actor and not the character he played. But I recently heard something I think captures the American spirit, or what it used to be, so perfectly that it is worth repeating.

The actor is Terry Crews, star of “Brooklyn 99,” and while talking on Adam Carolla’s “Take A Knee” podcast, Crews talked about how he became the successful man he is today. Crews told Carolla, “Everybody says they’re trying to get their piece of the pie. They don’t understand that the world is a kitchen. You can make your own pie.”

That is true, to one degree or another, in most corners of the world. But it is truer in the United States than anywhere else. Yet one political party, aided by the media, is committed to convincing millions of their fellow Americans that they can’t get ahead, that “the deck is stacked against them,” or “the game is rigged.” Nothing could be more un-American.

But more Democrat.

Democrats and the media obsess on “income inequality,” but outcome inequality is the real plague of America’s poor.

Everyone has access to an education – Equality.

Wealthy Democrats deny Americans the ability to choose which school their kids attend, but they can and do afford excellent private schools for their kids – Inequality.

The greatest barrier to economic mobility is education malpractice, and those screaming “inequality” are the ones building and reinforcing that barrier.

No one should want income equality, or anything close to it. The only societies where income was anything close to equal were the most despotic in history. The Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, etc., all enforced the concept of “equality” down to the income level. It quashed the human spirit and the entrepreneurial spirit – and the only people who achieved upward mobility, the only people who got rich, were those who imposed the income equality.

Everyone is equal…under a boot.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

The fact is the “rich” today won’t necessarily be the rich tomorrow, and the same goes for the poor. The discussion is always framed as the rich vs. the poor, but it’s never mentioned that neither group is stagnant. Whether someone moves up or down that scale is up to them. The chances they take, the effort they exert, the work they do are all bigger factors in someone’s economic future than anything a politician can implement. Unless, of course, that politician implements a program designed to alleviate “income inequality.”

North Korea has the lowest income inequality on the planet – one man has everything, millions of others have nothing. In this country, similarly situated individuals are making the case we should be more like North Korea. OK, them first. If these millionaire progressives are really interested in “spreading the wealth around,” then write me a check. If the check clears, we can discuss the concept further.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Witch Hunt

The sanctimoniously outraged Liberals are on the march AGAIN. Out to hang people in the name of “tolerance”! (the irony of that is lost on them in the fog of their own hatred and mindless zealotry). How dare you oppose us! bAnd the truth doesn’t matter because they are red-eyed bull (ies) who just want to steamroll over all the “haters” (aka people who have a different opinion than the almighty righteous leftist mafia!). After all, you have no choice but to agree with them or else, that’s the American (Left) Way. 🙂

Earlier this week, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed into law a religious freedom bill that some think is discriminatory, and could lead to businesses being allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers.  The governor soon found himself under siege by nearly 3,000 angry protestors, according to The Hill. The publication also reported businesses voicing their opposition to the measure, with Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeting his “disgust” over law. Yelp proposed that businesses boycott the state, and said it had cancelled all of its travel there. Angie’s List’s CEO said he plans to cancel a $40 million expansion to their headquarters in Indianapolis, cannibalizing 1,000 jobs over five yeas in the Eastside neighborhood. Oh, and Miley Cyrus called Gov. Pence an “a**hole,” which perfectly captures the hyper- emotionalism exuded by the left that often lends to them taking positions that seek to kill the debate.

Let’s go through the some of the facts about this bill. For starters, 40 percent of states have similar laws (via WaPo):

Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:  (and they are all bigots!) 🙂
Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.

The Washington Post also mentioned that President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act … in 1993. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY). By a voice vote, it passed the House, then worked its way to the Senate, where members voted 97-3 in favor of the law. I’m going to bet that these protestors won’t be showing up at Bill Clinton’s residence, or any of the members of the U.S. Senate–current and former–who voted in favor of the bill, to voice their outrage.

This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.

Here’s RFRA:

(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Here’s Indiana’s law:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Looping back to Hobby Lobby, Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle had a great post noting that there’s–you know–a process to determine if one’s religious beliefs are genuine [emphasis mine]:

1) What can stop a company from arguing that it is against the owner’s sincere religious beliefs to pay workers a minimum wage?The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a blank check to religious groups to do what they want. The law says that the religious belief must be sincerely held, and also that the government can burden the exercise of that belief if it has a compelling state interest that cannot easily be achieved in any other way. That’s why no one has successfully started the Church of Not Paying Any Taxes, though people have been trying that dodge for years.

2) How can we tell if a belief is sincere?

Hobby Lobby closes its stores on Sundays and otherwise demonstrates a pretty deep commitment to fairly stringent Christian values, of which opposition to abortifacients is often a part. There will always be some gray area, of course, that allows people to claim special treatment for spurious beliefs, but the government has done a fair job over the decades of sorting out genuine beliefs from obvious attempts to dodge the law. Hobby Lobby seems to fall pretty squarely within the “sincere belief” camp.

To further quell the left’s hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA [emphasis mine]:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the “compelling interest” test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a “license to discriminate,” and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

Keep in mind; Conkle also noted that the courts, even in states with RFRA statutes, have rejected recent claims of religious exemptions amongst marriage-related businesses. But also said that those who disagree with gay marriage should have their day in court as well.

The position that wedding-related businesses having the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers based on religious grounds is popular. While a plurality of Americans support gay marriage, they also support religious protections for those who disagree as the Associated Press-Gfk poll showed in February. Though, if you head over to Gallup, you’ll find that a solid majority support gay marriage.

Then again, the former finding is not surprising; it’s the 57 percent figure in AP’s poll that show Americans support gay marital rights, but also religious freedom.

In short, this faux outrage is grounded with folks who didn’t get the memo. Actually, it’s probably folks who refuse to read the memo. A Democrat proposed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it was signed into law by a Democratic president. It’s a 22-year old law! Forty percent of states have RFRA tests within their state laws, and it’s not a “blank check” to discriminate given that there is a high threshold in determining genuine religious beliefs, satisfying a compelling government interest, and making sure the latter is honored in the least intrusive way possible. 

Nevertheless, this silliness has forced Gov. Pence to discuss a “clarification” bill with legislators over the weekend.

It’s not necessary.

UPDATE: Seattle Mayor bans municipal workers from traveling to Indiana on city funds. Yet, it appears his state has RFRA statutes 

UPDATE: Then-State Senator Barack Obama voted for RFRA in Illinois, which the White House did not refute (via Weekly Standard):

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into federal law by President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago, and it lays out a framework for ensuring that a very high level of scrutiny is given any time government action impinges on the religious liberty of any American,” Pence said. “After last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state senator Barack Obama voted for in Illinois before our legislature.”This Week Host George Stephanoplous later asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest to respond to Pence’s claim: “Josh, you just heard the governor say right there this is the same law, he says, that Barack Obama voted for as a state senator back in Illinois.”

Earnest didn’t dispute the Indiana governor’s statement. “Look, if you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some question about the wisdom of what you’re doing,” Earnest said.

UPDATE: Via Allahpundit: Here’s the video of Clinton signing RFRA in 1993.

UPDATE: Via HRC: Illinois has a public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation from private businesses and government entities “that provide services to the general public.”  Yet, only 21 states have such accommodations. Again, why is this bill controversial? If this law permits somehow permitted a “blank check” on discrimination, which it does not, it would’ve happened in Indiana and elsewhere long ago.

But the truth doesn’t matter to Liberals, especially “morally outraged” liberals who have no capacity for rational thought and it’s all out nuclear war on anyone who stands in the way of their fight for “tolerance” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Rise of Big Brother

With reports that the Senate Immigration Bill will be passed without being read and that numerous “stimulus” pork bills have been added on to it for votes you know what’s coming next.

Bend over, the giant flange of government is going to give you yet another massive enema up your back side. And if you object, too f*cking bad because they are going to do it for THEIR political expediency and not for you.

On Andrea Tantaros radio show last week, conservative columnist and author Pat Buchanan warned of an unintended consequence of the immigration reform bill, a bill which doesn’t place a high priority on assimilation.

According to Tantaros, her previous guest, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, said that the immigration legislation funnels money to so-called community organizing groups like La Raza with the idea of teaching immigrants “American history, the Constitution and civic participation.” That leaves open the possibility of activist groups teaching with a partisan slant — and impedes assimilation. (DC)

And La Raza is a “moderate” group in the same way the SS was in Germany.
The extremist, very racist, anti-white group is well known to anyone who pays attention. But to the Politically Correct crowd there just another advocacy group. And The Politically Correct love a good “community organizer”. 🙂
After all, it was Homeland Security and Labor  that set up the Civil Rights Hotline to rat out bosses who were “abusing” illegals (not arresting the bosses for hiring them you notice).

“This has the potential of becoming the next major civil rights movement,” Schumer told Crowley. “I could envision in the late summer or early fall if Boehner tries to bottle the bill up or put something in without a path to citizenship … I could see a million people on the Mall in Washington.”

So how exactly do you have “Civil Rights” for people who came here and are here illegally to begin with?

Because THE AGENDA is THE AGENDA.

Bob Schieffer, SeeBS News: Do you think Republicans get it on immigration? Because people like Lindsey Graham are saying if you don’t do something, reaching out to Hispanics, you — it might not — you might not need to run anybody for president next time, because with the demographics changing in this country, it’s going to be impossible to elect a Republican president if you don’t get substantial Hispanic support.

Senator Sessions gamely pointed out that a new Congressional Budget Office study has found that the Gang of Eight bill would probably reduce illegal immigration by only 25 percent. “And CBO concludes that the legal immigration will be dramatically increased and we’ll have — in addition to that, we’re going to have lower wages and higher unemployment according to the CBO analysis of this bill,” Sessions said. “Why would any member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages, to bring in a huge surge of new labor that can only hurt the poorest among us the most?”

For Votes, Senator, for Votes.

Senator Schumer said, Boehner will have to bring the legislation to a vote even if a majority of Republicans are against it. Enough Democrats and Republicans, he said, will vote for approval.

We’ll just continuously call him a racist until he relents.  Because we all know “Jar Jar” Boehner has a principled backbone. 🙂

Then we’ll have all the power we need to make any opposition to us meaningless.

BIG BROTHER will truly arrive. And anyone who dares to speak out against him will be summarily punished as a thought criminal.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (the Progressive Liberal Majority)

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH  (any non-liberal thought will be crushed and only Progressive Liberalism taught).

WAR IS PEACE (the war against the Anti-American “right wing” and the pull back to no involvement in the world).

After all, groups like La Raza will “moderate” their views when they have complete control over you, you white misogynistic, homophobic, politically in correct non-liberal racist!

And anyone who is an “uncle tom” to the cause will be dealt with as well.

Hegemony in Thought is Paramount.

Don’t give them even the opportunity to think of disagreeing with the Collective.

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free…to a time when truth exists, and what is done cannot be undone…From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink–greetings!” – George Orwell, 1984

 

 

The Zombie Hoard

Last year I theorized that Liberals were Bees. Mindless angry drones that stung anything in sight.

For 2012 I have revised this analysis.

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cowtowed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrinch about his “open marriage” and Gingrinch blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin. 🙂

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ’em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cowtow to them.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

So the alternative is to cowtow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[…]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up to with little to no sense of shame.

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies has Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

All Hail King Obama I

Political Cartoon

“There is going to be an effort on the president’s part to use [executive powers] to satisfy his base and institutionalize what he can,” said John Kenneth White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America.

This week, the Environmental Protection Agency begins regulating greenhouse gas emissions at some energy plants and factories — a move Obama pushed for after his cap-and-trade environmental legislation stalled in Congress.

Obama is expected to make more frequent use of executive orders, vetoes, signing statements and policy initiatives that originate within the federal agencies to maneuver around congressional Republicans who are threatening to derail initiatives he has already put in place, including health care reforms, and to launch serial investigations into his administration’s spending.
“He is the manager in chief, and things like signing statements and however you thwart the will of Congress, sure — there are lots of things that go on other than passing new laws and giving out money that are all part of managing this incredible enterprise,” said Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution expert on the presidency. (Washington Examiner)
So it’s good to be the King. Don’t like what Congress is doing, screw ’em. Pass your own agenda by going around them. Screw ’em all.
And “Screw you American People!” that was the message he received on Nov 2nd.
And he intends to act on it with Marxist gusto.

Political Cartoon

So now if Sith Lord Obama can just dissolve the legislative body as they he did in “Star Wars” he’d be so much happier.
Hugo Chavez, Hillary’s buddy, has it so much easier in Venezuela. He wants power, he gets it.
He wants to takeover an industy, no question. He wants to steal foreign companies property. Easy.
Wants to control anything and everything- easy as pie.
A dictatorship is so much easier to deal with. No messy people’s rights to give a crap about.
You’re either with me or you’re in jail or dead.
That would be so much easier.
The father of our Constitution, James Madison, recognized that gridlock is the goal. He envisioned a system specifically designed to curtail the government’s ceaseless appetite for the irrelevant.

Madison prophesied that the most dangerous “wing nuts” are not sent to Washington, they are cultivated there. Today, with Capitol Hill curiously resembling a progressive college campus full of monologues and Blackberry seizures, the reality-gap has widened. In times of single party dominance, wing-nuttery reigns supreme.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, in “Dismantling America,” said in reference to President Obama, “That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism — and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand — speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture.”

Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation — “those dead, old, racist white men.” Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.

Like the La Raza (“The Race”) studies in the Tucson Unified School District that divides students into latino and no-latino and teaches the latinos that they are an oppressed minority in an “occupied” territory of Mexico.

Seriously.

TUSD’s Mexican-American studies program was launched in 1997. Students learn about Mexican-American culture, ethnic stereotypes, and explore U.S. history from a Chicano point of view.

The department’s website says its “students will attain an understanding and appreciation of historic and contemporary Mexican American contributions.”

The department says its goals are:

  • Advocating for and providing curriculum that is centered within the pursuit of social justice.
  • Advocating for and providing curriculum that is centered within the Mexican American/Chicano cultural and historical experience. (Not American!)
  • Working towards the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student (that you’re an oppressed minority!)
  • Providing and promoting teacher education that is centered within Critical Pedagogy, Latino Critical Race Pedagogy, and Authentic Caring (Provided by La Raza, a racist Hispanic Advocacy group that is for Atzlan-the “reunification” of  California, Southern Arizona and New Mexico with it’s rightful country of Mexico)
  • Promoting and advocating for social and educational transformation. (Orwell’s Finest!)
Hector Ayala, a teacher at Cholla High Magnet School, “reports that the director of Raza Studies accused him of being the ‘white man’s agent,’ and that when this director was a teacher, he taught a separatist political agenda, and his students told Hector that they were taught in Raza Studies to ‘not fall for the white man’s traps.'” Former Superintendent of Public Instruction (now Attorney General) Horne wrote.

Horne’s push to the the Mexican-American studies program began after a 2006 incident at Tucson Magnet High School.

His deputy, Margaret (Garcia) Dugan, was sent to speak to students after labor activist Dolores Huerta told a school assembly that “Republicans hate Latinos.” Some students stood silently, with tape over their mouths, during Dugan’s speech.

The Liberal, ever respective of your Free Speech. 🙂

TUSD also has programs in Pan-Asian and Native American studies. because after all, you have to divide and conquer first.

Teaching kids American History together as a shared culture and shared history would be “racist” and disrespectful after all.

The second reason is we’ve become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we’re obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.

Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.” (Walter E Williams)

Indeed.

Political Cartoon

Call Indoctrination What it is

“College graduates, whether it be current or graduated in the past, seem to have difficulty knowing basic things about our government and our history,” Mr. Brake said. “Does college share all the blame? Of course not — this is a systemic problem, from K through 12 and all the way up. But universities train our teachers and train our leaders, so they play a role.” (Chronicle of Higher Education)

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) released its fourth annual national Civic Literacy report today called “The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs.” In past studies, ISI has broken new ground by  demonstrating empirically the failures of colleges and universities to effectively teach their graduates the fundamentals of American history, government, foreign affairs, and economics.

MAJOR FINDINGS

  • While College Fails to Adequately Transmit Civic Knowledge, It Influences Opinion on Polarizing Social Issues
  • Compared to College, Civic Knowledge Exerts a Broader and More Diverse Influence on the American Mind
  • Civic Knowledge Increases a Person’s Regard for America’s Ideals and Free Institutions

Wanna Try, Here is the Test written by this group: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

FYI: I got 30/33.

The overall average score was only 49%, with college graduates also failing at 57%.

Here’s a question that less than 25% got right:

7) What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”?
A. the speech “I Have a Dream”
B. Declaration of Independence
C. U.S. Constitution
D. Gettysburg Address

YIKES!!

On an individual level, less than 60% (sometimes far less) of college graduates can identify on a multiple-choice test the three branches of government; seminal passages from the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address; basic events from the Revolutionary, Civil, and Vietnam Wars; and the primary features of our free enterprise system. Several of these questions are actually required knowledge for new American citizens, signifying their relevance to what we as a nation demand for informed citizenship.

On an institutional level, ISI discovered that at many of our most elite schools, like Yale, Princeton, Duke, and my alma mater Georgetown, not only did those surveyed fail to get above a “D,” seniors at these top schools did worse than freshmen on the same test, a phenomenon dubbed “negative learning”!

Conventional wisdom, along with the hard-earned savings of American families, has long supported the notion that “with more college comes more knowledge.” ISI’s research has punctured the validity of such simple claims, drawing back the curtain of academia’s Land of Oz to reveal the smoke and mirrors of a veritable vacuum of civic ignorance.

Still, until this new survey by ISI, it was unclear scientifically whether this clear ideological bias on the part of faculty spilled-out into the classroom. Maybe faculty were liberal, but their professionalism prevented them from injecting their politics into their disciplinary subject-matter?
So what does ISI’s new study reveal? How does college “Shape the American Mind?”

As you might suspect, the Academy’s liberalism has not been value-neutral. On the contrary, when ISI held all other variables constant in a graduate’s background, like their age, race, income, gender, religion, etc., and just looked at the independent impact of college, we discovered a clear leftward lurch. For example, on the issues front, college’s impact was almost exclusively on some of the most polarizing of matters. Not only did college make a graduate more likely to support abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage, but it made a person less likely to support prayer in schools, and remarkably, the notion that with hard work anyone can succeed in America.

In terms of political self-identification, college made a person much more likely to label him or herself as liberal and a Democrat, ranking only behind race (minority), gender (female), and marital status (single) in its leftward influence.

It is important to note that most college graduates are still skeptical of abortion-on-demand (only 21% approve) and same-sex marriage (only 39% approve), and they land squarely in the moderate/independent range. Clearly, there are other variables besides a college education that influence a person’s overall political worldview. But what ISI’s research proves is that when people do attend college, their political attitudes and opinions begin to shift in an identifiably leftward direction, much more so if they had not decided to go to college in the first place.

Interestingly, when a student scored higher on ISI’s civic literacy test it was found to have a very different impact on that person’s worldview. For instance, the more knowledge a student had about America, it did not seem to have any discernible impact one way or another on hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Instead, higher civic knowledge led individuals away from contentious social issues and towards more sympathetic perceptions of America in general, its founding documents, and its free market economic institutions. Apparently, greater familiarity with America, instead of breeding contempt, actually fostered more respect for key elements of America’s free society.

In the end, America is a free country, and everyone is entitled to their particular political point-of-view, including college professors and college graduates. And if colleges were adequately teaching their students about America’s history and its institutions, and the same leftward political influences were discovered, then it could be logically concluded that as citizens learned more about their country, this academic enlightenment leads naturally to liberal political enlightenment. But this peculiar combination of collegiate civic ignorance on the one hand, and collegiate liberalism on the other, suggests a wholly different story, one featuring academic neglect at best and political indoctrination at worst.

Clearly, American colleges and universities need to do a better job teaching the story of America’s free and prosperous representative democracy, and ISI’s civic literacy research would suggest two areas where we should start. First we should return to a tried and true core curriculum. Second, we should support the restoration of intellectual pluralism—ideologically, methodologically, as well as demographically. Otherwise, it will be hard for the wizards of academia to escape the growing perception that all they are producing are a cadre of intellectual munchkins who share the wizards’ political views.(FOX)

It gets better:

Previous surveys have found that, in general, college does not bring students up to a high level of civics knowledge. According to the institute’s 2008 report, based on a survey of 2,500, people whose highest level of educational attainment was a bachelor’s degree correctly answered 57 percent of the questions, on average. That is three percentage points lower than a passing grade, according to the survey’s authors.

Even earlier surveys showed that years in college were only slightly correlated to civics expertise. For a 2006 report the institute surveyed 14,000 college freshmen and seniors on basic civics questions. It found seniors answered an average of 53 percent of the questions correctly, just 1.5 percent higher than freshmen.

So what happened to that “diversity” and “college of ideas”

Well, in true Liberal fashion, diversity means only them exclusively. We wouldn’t want to pollute the colleges with “right wing propaganda” now would we. 🙂

Add to that the 2007 Harvard study of the Liberal Media Bias.

The bias of The National Teacher’s Union.

And you get  <<drum roll>> INDOCTRINATION. 🙂

Don’t teach them things you don’t want them to know.

Or as a CNN promo back in the mid 90’s said “All the News you need to know” 🙂

Link to interview on C-Span (41 mins): http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/10/WJE/A/29442/Richard+Brake+Intercollegiate+Studies+Institute+Civic+Literacy+Program+Chairman.aspx

Or as the fire-bearthing Liberal blog Daily Koz put it, “So I guess testing theories, hypothesis and postulates with critical thinking and true analysis makes you a liberal.  Having rules where we actually do critical thinking to prove or disprove an idea is liberal?”

Chew on that one for a moment.

No, I won’t pass you the barf bag.

Similarly, all else being equal, a college graduate will be less likely to:

  • Believe anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance;

Now that’s not Liberal bias at all. 😦

But if you  teach people ignorance you get ignorant people.

And you get people who can manipulated.

The Orwellian Sheep to be sheared.

But don’t worry, ask any liberal, and they are the most diversity minded, open-minded, sensitive person out there unlike the narrow-minded, bigot right-wingers. 🙂

Now don’t you feel smarter.