Unfair Advantage

Read it and weap… reading for pleasure and a loving family reading to your kids is an “unfair advantage” for the liberal crowd.

Children who read for pleasure are likely to perform significantly better in the classroom than their peers who rarely read, according to a recent report published by the University of London’s Institute of Education.

According to a story published by the institute, its research examined the childhood reading practices of 6000 teenagers from similar social backgrounds, comparing their test results at ages five, 10 and 16 in the areas of vocabulary, spelling and maths.

The researchers concluded that children whose parents regularly read to them performed better in all three tests at age 16.

It was also determined that children who read often at 10, and more than once a week at 16, also scored higher in the same tests than those who read less often.

Lead researcher Dr Alice Sullivan reported that although vocabulary development was found to be the most affected area, the impact on spelling and maths was still significant.

“It may seem surprising that reading for pleasure would help to improve children’s maths scores, but it is likely that strong reading ability will enable children to absorb and understand new information and affect their attainment in all subjects,” Dr Sullivan said in the institute’s report. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Mother and child reading

So Liberals naturally gravitate to this being an “unfair advantage” YOU BASTARDS! :). Seriously, read on from ABC.com – Australia:

Plato famously wanted to abolish the family and put children into care of the state. Some still think the traditional family has a lot to answer for, but some plausible arguments remain in favour of it. Joe Gelonesi meets a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

No wonder Liberals hate the family unit so much and so much of the poor are broken family units.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’   

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’   

It’s not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.

Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state. Aristotle didn’t agree, citing the since oft-used argument of the neglect of things held in common. Swift echoes the Aristotelian line. The break-up of the family is plausible maybe, he thinks, but even to the most hard-hearted there’s something off-key about it.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

‘Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’

It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way. This doesn’t exactly parry the criticism that families exacerbate social inequality. For this, Swift and Brighouse needed to sort out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don’t.

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.  

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story.

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance—from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket—and it’s for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness. 

‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says.

It’s the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.

Their conclusions remind one of a more idyllic (or mythic) age for families: reading together, attending religious services, playing board games, and kicking a ball in the local park, not to mention enjoying roast dinner on Sunday. It conjures a family setting worthy of a classic Norman Rockwell painting. But not so fast: when you ask Swift what sort of families is he talking about, the ‘50s reverie comes crashing down into the 21st century.

‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’

For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’

From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.

It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.

‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’

For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.

‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing. The bathwater might be going out, but they’re keen to hold on to the baby.

Back to SMH:

The study also concluded that reading for pleasure was a more important factor in children’s cognitive development between the ages of 10 and 16 than their parents’ level of education.

“The combined effect on children’s progress of reading books often, going to the library regularly and reading newspapers at 16, was four times greater than the advantage children gained from having a parent with a degree,” Ms Padgham says.

Children who read often for pleasure are exposed to more complex language structures and vocabulary than they are exposed to in oral situations alone, she says. “This building of a rich language and vocabulary from books from an early age is crucial to reading development,” she says.

Teacher librarian Olivia Neilson has noted that young children appear to have a natural enthusiasm for reading and borrowing books. “As students move up the grades and become more independent readers, they usually voraciously devour whatever they can get their hands on, as they enjoy the feeling of reading to themselves.”

Encouragement is crucial, however, particularly for reluctant readers. Ms Neilson says reading aloud from a variety of authors and genres, and offering children a range of reading materials including magazines and graphic novels, is critical in helping to meet their reading interests.

She explains that to support children in finding the success and positive self-esteem that reading can set them up for, we need to live what we teach.

“As parents, teachers and the whole community, we have a job to demonstrate to young people that reading has value for them personally. Lectures and speeches about that won’t do it for them, but modelling slow reading of great books and articles will.”

So the best option for Liberals is to make people not want to read and expose themselves and to produce an “unfair advantage” and self-esteem that is not conferred UPON them by ht liberals.

Keep ’em stupid. Keep them fragmented. Keep them Liberal. 🙂

As Rush Limbaugh concluded: “As liberals, the answer is not to help the kids who are not in good families. They become the lowest-common denominator. They become the baseline. Everybody must be made to be like them in order for everything to be fair and equal. The natural tendency of the left is to punish success, to punish achievement, to punish anything that they believe gives an unfair advantage.”

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The 1st Clinton Amendment

Free Speech: How is Hillary Clinton appealing to an ever-more-radical Democratic base? By talking up changing the First Amendment. What better way, after all, to end the political power of anti-Big Government forces?

My version of their First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

‘We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,” Clinton said Tuesday at an Iowa community college.

Look up “unaccountable money” in the encyclopedia — it says “see Clinton Foundation.”

Beyond that, it’s chilling that the Party of Jefferson’s establishment candidate had to appeal to its envelope stuffers not just by featuring a lesbian couple in her TV ad — but also by calling for restricting the Bill of Rights.

As IBD’s indispensable Andrew Malcolm pointed out on Wednesday, there is little chance of getting three-quarters of the states to agree to amend the First Amendment. Still, one could imagine such a class warfare-based movement being launched, if just to raise money.

Consider the Supreme Court’s 2009 Citizens United ruling, abrogating the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” — a decision that centered on a film critical of Clinton, “Hillary: The Movie.”

In that case, the court declared, “The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.” For-profit companies, unions, charities seeking no profit — it doesn’t matter.

And, of course, curtailing corporate political speech means that the political power of liberal-dominated “television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations,” as the Supreme Court described them, becomes impossible to thwart.

Citizens United also noted, “When word concerning the plot of the movie ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ reached the circles of government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution.” So even Jimmy Stewart’s 1939 love letter to the U.S. Senate wasn’t sufficiently worshipful for some politicians.

And you wanna see full on Zombie Mode where their eyes turn red and they go all mad bull on you, just mention Citizens United, to the radical Left.

But who needs amendments when you can take over the courts and rewrite the Constitution through activist judges? That is the real danger of a President Hillary Clinton: a permanent stacking of our courts with Elena Kagan-Sonia Sotomayor clones who will dismantle everything in the Constitution that holds back the ongoing expansion of government power.

“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” — Saul Alinsky

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”  p.10 Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy

“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises….
“The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.” p.117 Rules for Radicals

“All my grandparents, you know, came over here [to America],” Hillary Clinton claimed, reinforcing her immigration reform bona fides.  Except, it’s not true. Three of her four grandparents were born in the United States.

Remember the last time she ran:

“I don’t feel no ways tired. … I don’t believe He brought me this far,” drawled presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, mimicking black speech…

The Clinton campaign says Senator Hillary Clinton may have “misspoke” recently when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady.

She has been using the episode as an example of her foreign policy bona fides.

“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said last week. “There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” (NYT)

You and Brian Williams… 🙂

Say anything, Do anything to win. The end justifies the means and the truth is irrelevant.

That’s why you should coronate Queen Hillary you misogynistic, evil pigs! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Persistance

I was woken up in the middle of the night think about something that Morgan Gendel (Star Trek: TNG’s “Inner Light”) said during his talk at Phoenix Comic Con today.

Persistance.

That’s what got him the job.

Sure he had to please the masses of people who worked for the show, but he pitched this now classic episode to the same people 5 times.

And it got me to thinking about the Republicans.

Those scared little boys who just want to be liked.

The one that will be eaten alive by a ravenous pack of Liberal “journalists”.

The idea that they will try and play to the middle so much that they will nominate a RINO (Republican in Name Only) again like Sen. McCain as their nominee again.

Then they will lose. The country will lose and history will lose. Time itself will lose. Humanity will lose.

The person who beats Obama will have to look into the teeth of the ravenous plague of piranhas and persist.

They will have to look the very face of Fear and Death in the face.

They will have to be willing to be atomized by the most ravenous levels of hatred, fear and bile.

Because, who every runs against the GOD of the Liberal Left will have endure all of these things and persist.

The Left and The Media are not our friends. They are a remorseless pack of wild raptors hunting in packs to rip apart any potential prey that gets in their way.

That is quite a daunting challenge.

But if it’s not well met and defeated, The Dark Side Wins.

You think they are insufferably arrogant now, just wait until even after all the shit they have piled on and still they win in November 2012 there will be no stopping them or their egos.

Orwell’s Nightmare will be an optimistic vision when these clowns are down with you.

So, if you’re a Conservative, A Libertarian, or just a Moderate who does not want to see The Darkness win you must be willing to start the very face of Fear and Death in the Face and WIN.

A RINO will be shredded not only by the Liberals and Their Liberal Media Machine, but by me, and people like me, your humble Tea Party Conservative.

You don’t have us in the bag.

Remember that.

You put up a RINO, a “safe” candidate that will have “middle of the road” appeal and you will lose!

Period. End of story. End of Country.

You want to be “safe” in your political games and elitism. You’ll lose.

But it is incumbent on us, the humble “average voter” to make sure that no RINO is put forth also.

We have our part to play and we have our own battle to win.

We must persist also.

We must get what WE WANT, not what Washington thinks we want. Or what some over-priced political consultants thinks will get those “20% in the middle”.

We must Survive the coming Armageddon that will reign down upon us by the hoardes of Hell from the Left and we must persist.

Or else, all hope is truly lost.

So get ready for battle.

It won’t be safe, it won’t be kind.

But it is a battle that must be fought and it must be won.

For your sake, for you kids sake for your grandkids and kids not yet borns’ sake.

Because even if we win, the Forces of Hell will just regroup and come again and again and again and we must fight them until THEY give up not when we declare victory.

Otherwise, it’s over, turn out the lights, and that shining beacon upon the hill that has been America will be forever extinguished.

Simple.

If you are going through hell, keep going. — Winston Churchill

As the Congressional Republicans have attempted to pass a budget that tackles our pending deficit and Medicare crises, Democrats have become quite adept at shooting down budgets while not bothering to propose any practical solutions of their own (today would be day 758, I believe?). It is understandable, though, that they just do not have the time to worry about a federal budget, since they are so darn busy coddling the general welfare. The latest legislation? Forget the budget; we need even more federal standards for sunscreen lotion labels! The Hill has the story:

“As families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the sponsor, said this week. “This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide.”

The bill, S. 1064, would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize its 2007 proposal mandating that sunscreen labels disclose the extent to which the product protects against ultraviolet rays known as UVA rays. UVA rays can penetrate the skin more deeply than UVB rays, but currently, sunscreen labels are not required to tell consumers how they protect against UVA rays.

Aside from Reed, the bill is sponsored by several Democratic heavy-hitters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-NY). First-term Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is also a sponsor.

According to Reed, forcing the application of the FDA proposal would require labels to “disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product’s protection against UVB rays.”

The bill would require the proposed FDA rule to take effect within 180 days after it became law.

“I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun’s harmful rays,” Reed said.

Well, what a relief that Senator Jack Reed is looking out for me, because otherwise, I would have had no way of knowing about the subtle differences in the sun blockage provided between SPF 75 and SPF 85 (hint: there are none), and never mind the numerous studies that suggest that sunscreen may actually accelerate cancer. Good grief! While this legislation was originally proposed in 2007, this is just a taste of what will happen if the looming menace of Obamacare stays on schedule: since I know that I will not have to feel the full costs of getting any skin cancer spots surgically removed, I have less of an incentive to limit my sun exposure. I know that “society” will pay for it, so I will not take conscious action to lessen my future demand for health care, and the system will become overburdened and expensive. Hence, it becomes the federal government’s job to make decisions about my welfare for me and further encumber the mind-blowing bureaucracy that rules our lives. But hey, even if I cannot afford to buy sunscreen because of federal spending, higher taxes, and a wracked economy, at least I will be able to understand the labels. (Erika Johnsen)

It’s your choice. You cannot do this because it will be easy, and neither can the Republicans.

It will not be.

The very mouth of Hell and Damnation will open upon any who dare to challenge the might and the righteousness of The Holy Left.

Thems just the facts,ma’am.

Deal with it.

And then Persist.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Trust Me

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. –Thomas Jefferson

Trust, but verify. –Ronald Reagan

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. –Senator Barack Obama August 2006

25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. (Rasmussen)

For the past year, those giving Congress good or excellent marks have remained in the narrow range of nine percent (9%) to 16%, while 53% to 71% have rated its performance as poor. (Rasmussen)

Guess when the 71% was. Health Care “deem and pass” cram down talk in February. Right before they did cram it down your throat! 🙂

30% of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, August 8.

Confidence in the nation’s current course has ranged from 27% to 35% since last July.

Pew Research Center:

Distrust

Thomas SowellDemocracy: It’s an awful thing in a country when its people no longer believe the government protects them and their rights. Yet, a new poll shows that’s exactly where Americans are headed right now.

In a Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults taken last Friday and Saturday, nearly half, or 48%, said they see government today as a threat to their rights. Just 37% disagreed. The poll also found that only one in five (21%) believe current government has the consent of the governed.

In other words, people think much of what our government does today is illegitimate — possibly even illegal.

For a democratic republic such as our own, this is extraordinarily dangerous. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created explicitly to protect Americans’ rights by limiting the scope, reach and power of the federal government.

The Declaration promises “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and goes on to say that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In short, our government was designed to protect our rights — not to serve as an all-embracing nanny state that slowly, silently strips us of our ability to act as free individuals.

Bailouts, TARP, the takeover of the auto industry, nationalization of health care, the micromanagement of Wall Street and the banks, the expected $12 trillion explosion in U.S. publicly held debt over the next decade — all this and more adds up to a feeling of loss of control by the American people over their lives, both public and private, and a diminution of their rights.

The Founding Fathers understood this could happen. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence,” George Washington presciently warned. “It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

His generation understood it would be up to us, the citizens, to ensure government wouldn’t trample our rights. That’s what the Constitution was — an agreement to limit government to certain, carefully prescribed duties. And that’s why we vote.

Today, Americans feel their rights are threatened by a government that has grown beyond its constitutional bounds. Once merely a dangerous servant, our federal government is on its way to becoming a fearful master. The only question is, will we let it?

How did we get to the point where many people feel that the America they have known is being replaced by a very different kind of country, with not only different kinds of policies but very different values and ways of governing?

Something of this magnitude does not happen all at once or in just one administration in Washington. What we are seeing is the culmination of many trends in many aspects of American life that go back for years.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the institutions set up by that Constitution are enough to ensure the continuance of a free, self-governing nation. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what members of the Constitution Convention were creating, he replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

In other words, a Constitutional government does not depend on the Constitution but on us. To the extent that we allow clever people to circumvent the Constitution, while dazzling us with rhetoric, the Constitution will become just a meaningless piece of paper, as our freedoms are stolen from us, much as a pick-pocket would steal our wallet while we are distracted by other things.

It is not just evil people who would dismantle America. Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have their own agendas that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.

Someone once said that a democratic society cannot survive for long after 51 percent of the people decide that they want to live off the other 49 percent. Yet that is the direction in which we are being pushed by those who are promoting envy under its more high-toned alias of “social justice.”

Those who construct moral melodramas– starring themselves on the side of the angels against the forces of evil– are ready to disregard the Constitution rights of those they demonize, and to overstep the limits put on the powers of the federal government set by the Constitution.

The outcries of protest in the media, in academia and in politics, when the Supreme Court ruled this year that people in corporations have the same free speech rights as other Americans, are a painful reminder of how vulnerable even the most basic rights are to the attacks of ideological zealots. President Barack Obama said that the Court’s decision “will open the floodgates for special interests”– as if all you have to do to take away people’s free speech rights is call them a special interest.

It is not just particular segments of the population who are under attack. What is more fundamentally under attack are the very principles and values of American society as a whole. The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention– and sometimes none at all.

Our “educators,” who cannot educate our children to the level of math or science achieved in most other comparable countries, have time to poison their minds against America.

Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

Abraham Lincoln warned of people whose ambitions can only be fulfilled by dismantling the institutions of this country, because no comparable renown is available to them by supporting those institutions. He said this 25 years before the Gettysburg Address, and he was speaking of political leaders with hubris, whom he regarded as a greater danger than enemy nations. But such hubris is far more widespread today than just among political leaders.

Those with such hubris– in the media and in education, as well as in politics– have for years eroded both respect for the country and the social cohesion of its people. This erosion is what has set the stage for today’s dismantling of America that is now approaching the point of no return.

“To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the plentitude of their assumed powers, are disposed to disregard the Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and every thing else,” Lincoln declared in an early speech to the Illinois legislature, “I have nothing to say.”

In Lincoln, we have a glimpse of prudence in a liberal democracy; but it is also our best glimpse of it, and perhaps our best hope for understanding and recovering it, and our best hope for the possibility of statesmanship in an age of the partisan absolute, where ignorant armies clash by night. (Heritage.org)

Or on the Internet and the 24/7 News cycle…:)

Trust:
reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.confident expectation of something; hope.the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone’s trust.something committed or entrusted to one’s care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.

The new “reach for hope” should be a renewal of trust. But Verify 🙂