At the heart of Rush Limbaugh lies a teacher. I don't know if he knowingly fell prey to the 'no child left behind' concept, but just the same, he clearly has. In his efforts to bring everyone into the light, he has lost sight of the fact that by catering to those who can never see the light and those actively seeking darkness, he fails those capable of fulfilling themselves in conservative enlightenment. As with any classroom, spending an inordinate amount of your time trying to bring the willing cave dwellers into the intellectually infrared, results in sacrificing those capable of learning. Being a teacher at his core also leaves him vulnerable to accusations that he is nothing but an entertainer. Of course these detractors who accuse Mr. Limbaugh of excessive theater don't bother to reveal their complicity in turning so much of America into an attention deficit riddled mass, incapable of generating rational thoughts with any regularity, much less focusing upon a set of data long enough to emerge with a valid opinion. Rush has fun, but I am sure any pleasures derived form exposing the hypocrisies of the left does not comprise evidence of hedonistic motives. No matter how much comedy surfaces from his simply applying meaning to the nonsensical rhetoric of the left, the seriousness of the task he took on so many years ago is not lost upon him. If only liberals could understand that if they were not such generous straight men, Mr. Limbaugh's program could never be called entertainment.
I often ponder whether the Democrats hate him so because he does not sound enough like Bill Buckley? For Mr. Buckley was so brilliant, and he had such a pathological need to always find the perfect words to express his opinions,the Democrats' successful war against education turned him into little more than a political anesthetist to all but a select few. Tragically, the fires of ignorance set by the Democrats (that made Sherman's torching of Atlanta look like a marshmallow roast)left a majority of Americans too stupid and too lazy to attempt rising to understand his intellectual precision, formulative excellence and expansive vocabulary. The left has thus added a whole new meaning to the phrase 'ignorance is bliss'. Contemplating the Democrats' loathsome and all too effective assault upon education always brings me face to face with a cancerous lump of my own ignorance: how in the hell did the Democrats convince anybody they were the rightful owners and protectors of education? Perhaps it is similar to the loss of the environmental issue to Democrats: corruptive forces controlling Republicans, and Conservative inability to foresee the threat of having the issue controlled by liberal lunatics.
The accusation that Rush is only a bat boy or water carrier for the Republican party has been only intermittently true, at worst, with only peripheral evidence to support the claim. From time to time Mr. Limbaugh has proven to be an inept diagnostician, ignoring symptoms of liberalism in the Republican Party, thus precluding the administration of any effective preventative measures to retard the advance of the infection. Actually, liberals should be that Mr. Limbaugh's lone occasional failing is to have not responded uncompromisingly to liberal advances in the Republican Party.
Democrats labeling Mr. Limbaugh as the preeminent voice of the Republican Party, a strategy child of James Carville, threatens Republicans as much as a warthog fart threatens a cape buffalo. James Carville's small army of zombie followers that, by the way, are even too delicate to eat meat, can only increase in numbers if aided by prolonged stupidity from Republicans. The frequency, with which politicians have apologized to Mr. Limbaugh after having said the idiotic, is purely a function of the moronic things they have said, rather than ideological flaws in Mr. Limbaugh's message. If Republican politician's egos are bruised because Mr. Limbaugh and not them has the ear of the people, they should get off their lazy, cowardly butts and supply a message in agreement with the Constitution. Micheal Steele's advocacy of reaching out to all with a watered down message places him in utter lock step with George Bush. We all know how effective and worthwhile his efforts were at gleaning that additional half percent of of minority and illegal alien votes. Yes illegals vote, and with ACORN's help, they vote repeatedly. I, however, a citizen of this country, have only voted once per election, and I have never had lawyers banging down my door offering to represent me pro-bono, in a discrimination lawsuit. Actually, Mr. Steele should not be apologizing to Mr. Limbaugh, but to the American people, for wishing to expand upon George Bush's idiocies. I'm positive that the highest mathematical aspirations of every Republican politician concurring with Mr. Steele, was to pull out a 'D'minus in consumer math. A class where you normally earn a solid 'D' just for having learned that merchants don't pay you, but it is the custom to pay merchants for goods and services. Bush and Steele still don't seem to realize that their goal to go from a 5 to 10 percent share of illegal votes to a whopping 15 to 30 percent of illegal votes cast still leaves a minimum of 70% of illegal votes against. And if that is not enough to make you sick, remember that 100% of illegal votes are illegal.
Republicans should use one of President Obama's favorite words and say, Rush is not the perfect spokesman, but until someone else emerges that is better, the Republicans can and have done worse.
Friday, November 20, 2009
AH, THE GOOD OLE' DAYS
Ah, the good ole' days. With this age old phrase being issued new life by a revitalized left assaulting the Constitution, I wonder how many of us realize just how recent the good ole' days were? If it seems like only yesterday that the leftists' pet programs and the goiter riddled expanse of government dreams of those who would dismantle the Constitution, were held somewhat in check, it was. How nice it must be for those oppressed, well-intentioned, we know better than our Founding Fathers, everyone else is blind, socialists, now that they can throw all their wants an desires into a bill, call it a 'stimulus' package, and an irreversibly dumbed down America will buy it. How I long to go back to only having to worry about the pseudo-conservative Republican parties' methodical, deliberate, devouring of personal freedoms and rights, while the impatience of the Democrats largely kept them Constitutionally spayed and neutered.
To the disinterested observer of America's disintegration, and anyone who is not anesthetized by the conjured-up illusion of two parties at war, one would have to conclude that the ultimate goal of both Republicans and Democrats were one in the same, with the only difference being their chosen methodologies as to how to get there. Thankfully, republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will regularly let Democrats test the political waters to see if Americans have been made dumb enough to allow a swifter, larger, bite be taken from the Constitution. Undeniably, this is one of those times.
I fear that the pendulum of American politics is merely a device to divert attention from the ultimate goal of all politicians in power: more power. Whether a freedom-devouring Ebola-like virus is administered by a slow intravenous drip from Republicans or a mega-dose injected by Democrats, the eventual devastation to the Constitution will be identical. Even suckling the debate about whether America is a Republic, or a Democracy is but a mechanism by which politicians distract the people from the power grab essential for this country to devolve into a dictatorship.
I am mystified by the willingness of people to sit back tolerating, or completely ignoring, abominable political practices until the only path of repair is violence. Why does it always have to worse before it gets better? Why must we wait for the kids we just dropped off at the pool, to flee the water in panic, when all we would have had to do to avoid a mess, was snake the toilet from time to time? If apathy and ignorance, even with the tax and health care protests, of the magnitude seen today is man in his natural state, our Founding Fathers must have been in a monumental state of denial to think any people were deserving of the Constitution. There lies the rub, for those on their mad quest for power count on the people they haven't managed to dumb down to stop caring about those that have been successfully turned into hamsters, utterly terrified of the responsibilities that accompany freedom. Politicians count on the fact that any champion of freedom must be fighting for all to prevail. The main class warfare is not the rich versus poor, or haves versus the have-nots, but the government encouraged battle within the hearts of those still willing to fight for freedom between their desire for liberty and the crippling effects of knowing that so many, for whom they fight, are undeserving of their efforts.
The illusions of warfare between the Republicans and Democrats are not limited to politicians. There is James Carville and his wife. While I often find Mrs. Carville's voice to be most rational and reasonable among the presumed champions of Conservatism, there always looms her bloodless yet mysteriously animated husband James. Personally, I could never bring myself to view their bond as merely circumstantial or coincidental. At least the pair does exhibit one relic of the American spirit: any game worth playing is a game worth winning. However, I don't believe that the country is best served by viewing its survival as a game as did FDR. While arguments between politicians over our current economic woes are predominantly contrived, I see three distinct camps within the general public. One small group believes that FDR got us out of the Great Depression, another even smaller group, feels the country got out of the Depressions in spite of FDR, and the vast majority thinks the Great Depression refers to Kirk Douglas's chin. Aside from, or maybe side by side with FDR's policies, the Great Depression was the last really good chance Communism had to overrun America. As a child, I often pondered whether America could be just as bad as China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union were depicted to be, and the only difference was the quality, and proximity of propaganda. Ironically, what would always cause me to reject the notion, was the protective shield of a free press. Now, if President Obama is accurate in his repeated comparisons drawn to the Great Depression and today, the element of American society that I saw as preventing Communism from taking control of America in the thirties, was a free press, which no longer exists today.
To the disinterested observer of America's disintegration, and anyone who is not anesthetized by the conjured-up illusion of two parties at war, one would have to conclude that the ultimate goal of both Republicans and Democrats were one in the same, with the only difference being their chosen methodologies as to how to get there. Thankfully, republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will regularly let Democrats test the political waters to see if Americans have been made dumb enough to allow a swifter, larger, bite be taken from the Constitution. Undeniably, this is one of those times.
I fear that the pendulum of American politics is merely a device to divert attention from the ultimate goal of all politicians in power: more power. Whether a freedom-devouring Ebola-like virus is administered by a slow intravenous drip from Republicans or a mega-dose injected by Democrats, the eventual devastation to the Constitution will be identical. Even suckling the debate about whether America is a Republic, or a Democracy is but a mechanism by which politicians distract the people from the power grab essential for this country to devolve into a dictatorship.
I am mystified by the willingness of people to sit back tolerating, or completely ignoring, abominable political practices until the only path of repair is violence. Why does it always have to worse before it gets better? Why must we wait for the kids we just dropped off at the pool, to flee the water in panic, when all we would have had to do to avoid a mess, was snake the toilet from time to time? If apathy and ignorance, even with the tax and health care protests, of the magnitude seen today is man in his natural state, our Founding Fathers must have been in a monumental state of denial to think any people were deserving of the Constitution. There lies the rub, for those on their mad quest for power count on the people they haven't managed to dumb down to stop caring about those that have been successfully turned into hamsters, utterly terrified of the responsibilities that accompany freedom. Politicians count on the fact that any champion of freedom must be fighting for all to prevail. The main class warfare is not the rich versus poor, or haves versus the have-nots, but the government encouraged battle within the hearts of those still willing to fight for freedom between their desire for liberty and the crippling effects of knowing that so many, for whom they fight, are undeserving of their efforts.
The illusions of warfare between the Republicans and Democrats are not limited to politicians. There is James Carville and his wife. While I often find Mrs. Carville's voice to be most rational and reasonable among the presumed champions of Conservatism, there always looms her bloodless yet mysteriously animated husband James. Personally, I could never bring myself to view their bond as merely circumstantial or coincidental. At least the pair does exhibit one relic of the American spirit: any game worth playing is a game worth winning. However, I don't believe that the country is best served by viewing its survival as a game as did FDR. While arguments between politicians over our current economic woes are predominantly contrived, I see three distinct camps within the general public. One small group believes that FDR got us out of the Great Depression, another even smaller group, feels the country got out of the Depressions in spite of FDR, and the vast majority thinks the Great Depression refers to Kirk Douglas's chin. Aside from, or maybe side by side with FDR's policies, the Great Depression was the last really good chance Communism had to overrun America. As a child, I often pondered whether America could be just as bad as China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union were depicted to be, and the only difference was the quality, and proximity of propaganda. Ironically, what would always cause me to reject the notion, was the protective shield of a free press. Now, if President Obama is accurate in his repeated comparisons drawn to the Great Depression and today, the element of American society that I saw as preventing Communism from taking control of America in the thirties, was a free press, which no longer exists today.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Fort Hood: The Truth
Simply stated, the Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist act on American soil, under President Obama's watch, infinitely more predictable and preventable than 9-11. Fox News would have us believe that what happened was merely political correctness run amok. While the remaining mainstream media and the president would have us believe that Major Nidel Malik Hasan was an unfortunate soul who had been subjected to so much personal harassment such as his car being keyed, that he just snapped, and his actions were at least understandable. Personally, I loathe those that use the word understandable, when they really mean justified, and I wonder if the mainstream media's understanding would extend to the overwhelming majority of public school deans, who have been subjected to far greater provocation, were they to all go on murderous rampages. I find the mainstream media's and the president's position grotesque and repugnant, however, the Fox News stance misses the 'X'ring as well.
What actually permitted the terrorist act at Fort Hood was nothing short of innumerable instances of cowardice in the face of the enemy. The FBI and the military claim that Major Nidal Malik Hasan's emails to an al-Quida Imam, al-Aulagi, were for spiritual guidance only, and thus not actionable. Could they have possibly thought the guidance from someone decrying, "Death to the United States and all infidels", would go something like this: "Oh well, you have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so I'm sure Allah will understand if you join ranks with unbelievers and kill the only people that follow the wishes of the 'one true god'". Or would the imam's consul go more like this: "Allah has placed you in a position to strike a glorious blow for all of Islam. I see 72 virgins in your future, you lucky cuss." Clearly, stupidity can't explain the refusal of those to act on the obvious nature of these communications. Only pure cowardice governed the inaction of those supposedly charged with protecting our nation. If the fear of possibly having a notation in their jacket which reads, 'Does not play well with Muslim terrorists' paralyzes a solider,that person does not belong in any uniform unless it has stripes down the legs and a number across the back. And, any command structure which fathers barriers to a solider acting in accordance with his oath, must be immediately purged. For as long as I can remember I have heard that war should be left to the generals and not politicians, but we are currently faced with military commanders who are at best politicians.
The one instance where stupidity might deserve equal billing with cowardice is in the case of Chief of Staff, General George Casey. Responding to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, General Casey said, "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here". I'm sure all American and South Vietnamese commanders would have viewed the sudden loss of Viet Cong infiltrators within their ranks as a tragic loss of diversification. General Casey's comments should strike terror in the heart of every American citizen. Someone like him, being in a position of power, comprises a greater ultimate threat to our nation's security than Osama Bin Ladin ever did or ever will. Before anyone labels this claim as extreme, ask yourself one question: Could General Casey's words be uttered by someone dedicated to defeating the Islamic terrorist threat? Tragically, I fear most commissioned officers are nothing more than stereotypical civil servants, so completely absorbed with protecting their own butts, that the Band of Brotherhood which used to span the highest general to the lowliest of private, can now only claim kinship from Sergeant down.
The 9-11 Commission concluded that inter-departmental communication failures were at the heart of the successful attack. However, in the wake of the Fort Hood attack, I consider the commission's findings suspect. Granted, political correctness with respect to Muslims was not as pervasive as today, but since everyone seemingly knew everything with regards to Major Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack on Fort Hood, and did nothing, I seriously doubt officials would have had the courage to act in response to the 9-11 threat even if information was as widely available as in the case of Major Hasan.
I am not ignoring the fact that Mr. Hasan did the shooting in my analysis, but clearly everyone charged with protecting this country, that are expected to be able to identify threats, at least better than the average four-year-old, cowardly put their own job security interests over protecting the nation. And thus, all those that were fearfully frozen in the foxholes of their own careers, are as guilty of the fourteen(14) killings as if they had given the gun to Mr. Hasan and said, "Go for it!". Admittedly, I do not know the degree in which military justice has been bastardized, but I do know it was not that long ago that cowardice in the face of the enemy was subject to the death penalty.
What actually permitted the terrorist act at Fort Hood was nothing short of innumerable instances of cowardice in the face of the enemy. The FBI and the military claim that Major Nidal Malik Hasan's emails to an al-Quida Imam, al-Aulagi, were for spiritual guidance only, and thus not actionable. Could they have possibly thought the guidance from someone decrying, "Death to the United States and all infidels", would go something like this: "Oh well, you have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so I'm sure Allah will understand if you join ranks with unbelievers and kill the only people that follow the wishes of the 'one true god'". Or would the imam's consul go more like this: "Allah has placed you in a position to strike a glorious blow for all of Islam. I see 72 virgins in your future, you lucky cuss." Clearly, stupidity can't explain the refusal of those to act on the obvious nature of these communications. Only pure cowardice governed the inaction of those supposedly charged with protecting our nation. If the fear of possibly having a notation in their jacket which reads, 'Does not play well with Muslim terrorists' paralyzes a solider,that person does not belong in any uniform unless it has stripes down the legs and a number across the back. And, any command structure which fathers barriers to a solider acting in accordance with his oath, must be immediately purged. For as long as I can remember I have heard that war should be left to the generals and not politicians, but we are currently faced with military commanders who are at best politicians.
The one instance where stupidity might deserve equal billing with cowardice is in the case of Chief of Staff, General George Casey. Responding to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, General Casey said, "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here". I'm sure all American and South Vietnamese commanders would have viewed the sudden loss of Viet Cong infiltrators within their ranks as a tragic loss of diversification. General Casey's comments should strike terror in the heart of every American citizen. Someone like him, being in a position of power, comprises a greater ultimate threat to our nation's security than Osama Bin Ladin ever did or ever will. Before anyone labels this claim as extreme, ask yourself one question: Could General Casey's words be uttered by someone dedicated to defeating the Islamic terrorist threat? Tragically, I fear most commissioned officers are nothing more than stereotypical civil servants, so completely absorbed with protecting their own butts, that the Band of Brotherhood which used to span the highest general to the lowliest of private, can now only claim kinship from Sergeant down.
The 9-11 Commission concluded that inter-departmental communication failures were at the heart of the successful attack. However, in the wake of the Fort Hood attack, I consider the commission's findings suspect. Granted, political correctness with respect to Muslims was not as pervasive as today, but since everyone seemingly knew everything with regards to Major Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack on Fort Hood, and did nothing, I seriously doubt officials would have had the courage to act in response to the 9-11 threat even if information was as widely available as in the case of Major Hasan.
I am not ignoring the fact that Mr. Hasan did the shooting in my analysis, but clearly everyone charged with protecting this country, that are expected to be able to identify threats, at least better than the average four-year-old, cowardly put their own job security interests over protecting the nation. And thus, all those that were fearfully frozen in the foxholes of their own careers, are as guilty of the fourteen(14) killings as if they had given the gun to Mr. Hasan and said, "Go for it!". Admittedly, I do not know the degree in which military justice has been bastardized, but I do know it was not that long ago that cowardice in the face of the enemy was subject to the death penalty.
Monday, November 9, 2009
HOW I BECAME A CONSERVATIVE
I became a reasoned conservative at some point during my sixteenth year. This occurred only after four years of intense absorption of history, political theory, the Constitution of the United States, the Federalists Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and human nature. My motivation for this virtual warpath of study was of course, my father. Quite atypically, by the time I entered kindergarten, I was already aware of my father's extraordinary intellect, and would sit for hours listening to him discuss politics with family and friends. While everything he said made perfect sense, he spoke in absolutes and termed anyone that did not see his obvious correctness a moron, repeatedly employing the phrase, 'Wake up and die right'. As a result I became increasingly troubled by his presentation and reluctantly concluded his intolerance and inflexibility were evidence of flaws in his reasoning, so I set out to discover those flaws.
I first read the Declaration of Independence. Words can not describe how moving I found the document to be, and I tried to implant myself into the hearts of the men who wrote it. Could such words be just colorful fluff? Could such a noble outcry be insincere? I concluded that such words were upwellings from deep within the soul itself and almost instantly, I felt pity for those who will go to their graves never having experienced the power, dignity, and peace that only comes from having done right for rights sake.
Next was the Constitution. I must have read it twenty times before I felt its theme slowly seeping into my conscience. Sure, it was a bureaucratic structure, but it was much more than an organizational chart. Each component was a direct address of that which was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. While I understood it was a legal document, I found the Constitution literally marinated in the theme that right must always be supported in it's battle against unethical forces. Our Founding Fathers knew that no document would inspire loyalty and have the strength of a living spirit unless every line, and any subsequently added, was sired by a pure desire to assist right in its battle against wrong.
After having read a couple installments of the Federalist Papers, I wished I had read them before the Constitution. While I had been told that the Federalist Papers were largely an explanation of the Constitution, I had no idea that the explanation was so detailed and clear, if not succinct, and I realized I would have appreciated the Constitution even more had I read the Federalist Papers first. I found the collection of letters incredibly compelling and detailed in their explanation and defense of every component of the Constitution, but most important was the thorough, cautious analysis that went into all of the elements to safeguard against the bastardization of the documents' intentions.
As a teen my conclusions were basic. Government should be small, virtually unseen, and barely felt. Any study of the Constitution must include the Federalist Papers or appreciation for the framers' intentions can not be realized. Government's sole reason to exist is to keep stated freedoms from becoming extinct. A conservative literal interpretation of the Constitution is mandatory to keep established structures therein from being irreversibly perverted. The biggest threat to the Constitution comes from those who would put a 'modern reasonable man' twist, or assault on the clarity of the Constitution's language. The Constitution need not be altered, for it already lays the foundation to right all wrongs, conceivable or unforeseen. The liberal agenda is to eliminate concepts of right and wrong and good and evil from public consideration, thus rendering our Founding Fathers and their words mute, and furthering their efforts to redesign America. A thinking, rational, involved, public is the only barrier to government corruption. Those that would dismantle the Constitution, view elections as merely government sponsored, national IQ tests, fully recognizing that ignorance is their main ally in fulfilling their goals. Socialism is a gateway drug to Communism, and I found no historical instance where a people revolted for political change, and the ideals they fought for coincided with the communism they ended up with. In every revolution throughout human history, the people fought for the same reasons. However, our Founding Fathers refused to defile the meaning of freedom. And curiously, every committed communist I had ever encountered, arrogantly saw themselves as ultimately occupying the upper echelon of control in a new order, ignorant of the bottom societal station they would be required to occupy. And finally, the only possible delinquency of the Constitution I would consider worthy of debate, is that the Constitution might be too good for people. As for my father, he was not conservative enough. He was fundamentally a disciple of William F. Buckley, Jr., and I emerged from my studies capable of making Mr. Buckley look almost like Barbara Streisand by comparison. However, I now see my father's manner understandable, for he foresaw today fifty years ago, and the resulting frustration from so many not seeing the so obvious was a source of great agony.
My concerns today are that I have doubts that America can weather the damage from President Obama's first month, much less a four year siege. The dumbing down of America has reached critical mass, and I can find no historical corollary that demonstrated how to stop a societies retardation, once begum, and so actively sponsored by those in charge. And that, independent thought has been so devalued, that hardly no one is capable of grasping that you learn to read and write so you do not sound stupid, you study math so you do not appear stupid, and you study history so you are not stupid, and of course, you study history to break up the monopoly hindsight has on 20/20 vision. And finally, without the ability to think clearly and independently, one has no choice but to remain blind to the fact that liberals were once content to merely keeping blacks enslaved, but now, it appears they seek to enslave us all.
After reading my tirade, you might be surprised that I do support a single case of censorship. I believe using the expression, 'the great experiment', should be outlawed, for virtually all experiments, regardless of outcome, lead to additional experimentation, and I like to think our Founding Fathers got it right the first time.
I first read the Declaration of Independence. Words can not describe how moving I found the document to be, and I tried to implant myself into the hearts of the men who wrote it. Could such words be just colorful fluff? Could such a noble outcry be insincere? I concluded that such words were upwellings from deep within the soul itself and almost instantly, I felt pity for those who will go to their graves never having experienced the power, dignity, and peace that only comes from having done right for rights sake.
Next was the Constitution. I must have read it twenty times before I felt its theme slowly seeping into my conscience. Sure, it was a bureaucratic structure, but it was much more than an organizational chart. Each component was a direct address of that which was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. While I understood it was a legal document, I found the Constitution literally marinated in the theme that right must always be supported in it's battle against unethical forces. Our Founding Fathers knew that no document would inspire loyalty and have the strength of a living spirit unless every line, and any subsequently added, was sired by a pure desire to assist right in its battle against wrong.
After having read a couple installments of the Federalist Papers, I wished I had read them before the Constitution. While I had been told that the Federalist Papers were largely an explanation of the Constitution, I had no idea that the explanation was so detailed and clear, if not succinct, and I realized I would have appreciated the Constitution even more had I read the Federalist Papers first. I found the collection of letters incredibly compelling and detailed in their explanation and defense of every component of the Constitution, but most important was the thorough, cautious analysis that went into all of the elements to safeguard against the bastardization of the documents' intentions.
As a teen my conclusions were basic. Government should be small, virtually unseen, and barely felt. Any study of the Constitution must include the Federalist Papers or appreciation for the framers' intentions can not be realized. Government's sole reason to exist is to keep stated freedoms from becoming extinct. A conservative literal interpretation of the Constitution is mandatory to keep established structures therein from being irreversibly perverted. The biggest threat to the Constitution comes from those who would put a 'modern reasonable man' twist, or assault on the clarity of the Constitution's language. The Constitution need not be altered, for it already lays the foundation to right all wrongs, conceivable or unforeseen. The liberal agenda is to eliminate concepts of right and wrong and good and evil from public consideration, thus rendering our Founding Fathers and their words mute, and furthering their efforts to redesign America. A thinking, rational, involved, public is the only barrier to government corruption. Those that would dismantle the Constitution, view elections as merely government sponsored, national IQ tests, fully recognizing that ignorance is their main ally in fulfilling their goals. Socialism is a gateway drug to Communism, and I found no historical instance where a people revolted for political change, and the ideals they fought for coincided with the communism they ended up with. In every revolution throughout human history, the people fought for the same reasons. However, our Founding Fathers refused to defile the meaning of freedom. And curiously, every committed communist I had ever encountered, arrogantly saw themselves as ultimately occupying the upper echelon of control in a new order, ignorant of the bottom societal station they would be required to occupy. And finally, the only possible delinquency of the Constitution I would consider worthy of debate, is that the Constitution might be too good for people. As for my father, he was not conservative enough. He was fundamentally a disciple of William F. Buckley, Jr., and I emerged from my studies capable of making Mr. Buckley look almost like Barbara Streisand by comparison. However, I now see my father's manner understandable, for he foresaw today fifty years ago, and the resulting frustration from so many not seeing the so obvious was a source of great agony.
My concerns today are that I have doubts that America can weather the damage from President Obama's first month, much less a four year siege. The dumbing down of America has reached critical mass, and I can find no historical corollary that demonstrated how to stop a societies retardation, once begum, and so actively sponsored by those in charge. And that, independent thought has been so devalued, that hardly no one is capable of grasping that you learn to read and write so you do not sound stupid, you study math so you do not appear stupid, and you study history so you are not stupid, and of course, you study history to break up the monopoly hindsight has on 20/20 vision. And finally, without the ability to think clearly and independently, one has no choice but to remain blind to the fact that liberals were once content to merely keeping blacks enslaved, but now, it appears they seek to enslave us all.
After reading my tirade, you might be surprised that I do support a single case of censorship. I believe using the expression, 'the great experiment', should be outlawed, for virtually all experiments, regardless of outcome, lead to additional experimentation, and I like to think our Founding Fathers got it right the first time.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
POLITICIANS SHOULD BE TESTED
In a country whose government is filled with people ignorant of German being the language of Austria, not Austrian, not knowing that there is a difference between a radio and a television,(and televisions were not in any home in 1929), unaware that a politician did not invent the internet, that Constitution refers to more than whether you normally defecate in the morning or evening, that the Federalists Papers were not what our Founding Fathers used after the above, that Bill of Rights is not a World Wrestling Federation star, that strategery is not a word, that terroism is a methodology not a country, that it is bad policy to declare a war lost if your own military is in fact winning,(of course, it is unclear which side Harry Reid was claiming allegiance to)and that planet Earth is quite possibly headed into another glacial period rather than a man caused severe interglacial, perhaps something should be done about the phenomenal blanket of ignorance which covers our nation's capital. I have long held that the battle against ignorance is the only un-winnable war worth fighting, and America's politicians have just plain thrown in the towel.
For whatever reason, with the possible exception of teachers, politicians have become collectively the dumbest, most ignorant decernable group in our country. While I do not concur with the majority opinion that President Obama is intellectually gifted, please note that ignorance is not a fuction of intellegence but is simply a ratio of all knowledge to the knowledge of one particular individual. Even if this assertion amounts to an infinitesimal elasticizing of reality, is it too much to ask of those entrusted with the job of running our country, to have a slightly broader knowledge base than to know how to lie effectively? Would it be too much ask if candidates for office actually read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and actually grasp rudementary science, math, philosophy, and especially history? If our elected officials are not grotesquely ignorant of history, then the only rational explanaiton for what has recently transpired is that the majority of politicians are devout communists. With all of President Obama's manipulative, errant comparisons to the Great Depression to today,there exits one accurate and ominous link: In the thirties there occurred the last overt attempt by communists to seize this country. While communists did not succeed in the thirties, they did manage to erect the infrastructure to wage a campaign to ultimately piss on the graves of our Founding Fathers. However, President Obama, during one campaign, and ninety short days in office, has managed to unalterably pervert the United States of America to a degree that has Hugo Chavez wanting to dance a rumba or salsa with President Obama(whom I'm sure would graciously consent to allow Hugo to lead), and has Nikita Khrushchev dancing the "Dance of the Cossacks", in his grave.
Testing politicians would in fact be quite simple. Naturally prevention of cheating would be paramount so I would recommend that no liberal or non-conservative be allowed to sit next to a conservative. This may not signifigantly reduce the amount of cheating, but it would miinimize the likelihood of any dishonesty proving benificial. Of course Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's, and J.R. Biden's scores would undoubtedly be enhanced no matter whose paper they copied from.(perhaps they should be forced to sit together) Given my promotion of this idea is predicated on the goal of eliminating those that are vilely incompetent from office, I would not allow any test preparation and definintly no retaking of the test.
Test generation would in fact be the easiest part of this exercise. Merely generate a compilation of seventh-grade civics finals ranging from the time Robert Byrd, the oldest member of Congress was in the seventh grade to when Andre' Carson, the youngest member of Congress, was in the seventh grade. The other test elements: math, philosophy, and history can be drawn from third grade exams from the same range. Admittedly scientific ignorance is as rampant amoung politicians as any other field, but just to be fair, the science section should be personalized, having only questions contemporaneous with that politician's fifth grade experience. After all, I would not want to disadvantage those politicians who have already demonstrated their inability to keep modern scientific inovations clear in their minds, such as radios and televisions.
Failure to score a sixty-percentile or above would result in their immediate dismissal and never again would they be allowed to be employed in any capasity which could have the slightest impact upon American political policy. Of course, in the spirit of full disclosure and transparancy, an itemized report of all scores must be released to the public including complete essay responses. Perhaps then we would better understand the totally asinine legislation composed in Washington, D.C., and just maybe forestall more of the same.
For whatever reason, with the possible exception of teachers, politicians have become collectively the dumbest, most ignorant decernable group in our country. While I do not concur with the majority opinion that President Obama is intellectually gifted, please note that ignorance is not a fuction of intellegence but is simply a ratio of all knowledge to the knowledge of one particular individual. Even if this assertion amounts to an infinitesimal elasticizing of reality, is it too much to ask of those entrusted with the job of running our country, to have a slightly broader knowledge base than to know how to lie effectively? Would it be too much ask if candidates for office actually read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and actually grasp rudementary science, math, philosophy, and especially history? If our elected officials are not grotesquely ignorant of history, then the only rational explanaiton for what has recently transpired is that the majority of politicians are devout communists. With all of President Obama's manipulative, errant comparisons to the Great Depression to today,there exits one accurate and ominous link: In the thirties there occurred the last overt attempt by communists to seize this country. While communists did not succeed in the thirties, they did manage to erect the infrastructure to wage a campaign to ultimately piss on the graves of our Founding Fathers. However, President Obama, during one campaign, and ninety short days in office, has managed to unalterably pervert the United States of America to a degree that has Hugo Chavez wanting to dance a rumba or salsa with President Obama(whom I'm sure would graciously consent to allow Hugo to lead), and has Nikita Khrushchev dancing the "Dance of the Cossacks", in his grave.
Testing politicians would in fact be quite simple. Naturally prevention of cheating would be paramount so I would recommend that no liberal or non-conservative be allowed to sit next to a conservative. This may not signifigantly reduce the amount of cheating, but it would miinimize the likelihood of any dishonesty proving benificial. Of course Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's, and J.R. Biden's scores would undoubtedly be enhanced no matter whose paper they copied from.(perhaps they should be forced to sit together) Given my promotion of this idea is predicated on the goal of eliminating those that are vilely incompetent from office, I would not allow any test preparation and definintly no retaking of the test.
Test generation would in fact be the easiest part of this exercise. Merely generate a compilation of seventh-grade civics finals ranging from the time Robert Byrd, the oldest member of Congress was in the seventh grade to when Andre' Carson, the youngest member of Congress, was in the seventh grade. The other test elements: math, philosophy, and history can be drawn from third grade exams from the same range. Admittedly scientific ignorance is as rampant amoung politicians as any other field, but just to be fair, the science section should be personalized, having only questions contemporaneous with that politician's fifth grade experience. After all, I would not want to disadvantage those politicians who have already demonstrated their inability to keep modern scientific inovations clear in their minds, such as radios and televisions.
Failure to score a sixty-percentile or above would result in their immediate dismissal and never again would they be allowed to be employed in any capasity which could have the slightest impact upon American political policy. Of course, in the spirit of full disclosure and transparancy, an itemized report of all scores must be released to the public including complete essay responses. Perhaps then we would better understand the totally asinine legislation composed in Washington, D.C., and just maybe forestall more of the same.
Monday, November 2, 2009
ACORN's Good Deeds
Set aside the fact that if President Obama were a conservative the media would portray the Acorn scandal as Tea Pot Dome, Iran-Contra, and Watergate cubed, all rolled into one, that if the media merely had photos of a single Acorn official attending a Republican fundraiser, liberals would be screaming like stuck pigs (actually not that uncommon), and what liberals would say if John McCain gave 800,000 dollars to any organization simply promoting conservative beliefs much less to a non-profit, (in hopes of making a profit), corrupt, unethical arm of his presidential campaign that turns quid pro quo into a four letter word, Democrats undoubtedly would have drafted articles of impeachment prior election day. Don't even ponder the absurdity of fantasy land dwellers urging President Obama to call for an investigation of ACORN. I'm confident if President Obama actually sponsored a credible investigation of ACORN, the end result would be the political equivalent of what would have happened to Androcles if he had told the lion to pull out his own damn thorn.
ACORN's defense that its just a few bad apples, or a low level human resources failure, or a matter of inadequate training is light years beyond plausible much less a product of a rational mind. It is obvious the recent videos display an uncommonly thorough, intense, and well focused degree of training and instruction. If anyone could actually view these tapes where ACORN employees enthusiastically offer advice on how to skirt around a minimum of federal offenses as low level ACORN employees acting independently and extemporaneously must have grown up thinking that lead and mercury were amoung the basic food groups.
Given the degree of perversion in today's society, the only mistake the videographer and woman posing as a prostitute made was that they claimed only to have imported a collection of underage, undocumented girls for their operation and failed to include a like number of young boys in their script. These videos, however, do amount to evidence that President Obama and his inner circle of capatalism despising mobsters do find some examples of the entrepreneurial spirit acceptable. And, given these videos, perhaps people should not be so quick to dismiss complaints about the practices of Planned Parenthood because it is evident that ACORN, the organization most closley affiliated with President Obama, thinks the ideal village it takes to raise a child must first and foremost be a criminal enterprise.
I would be remiss if I failed to commend our noble congress for their swift, decisive, and courageous move to defund ACORN. I'm sure this will prove as deleterious to ACORN's operation and influence as pulling one leg off a centipede. With the immense number of and far reaching tenticles of the leftists infrastructure in this country, defunding ACORN probably won't even amount to a modest speed bump. And of course many in Congress did not vote to cut off federal dollars to ACORN. To these fine men and women, who indignantly proclaim how wrong it is to penalize a whole organization that has done so much good, for the actions of a few bad apples, I wonder what good they are referring to? Could it be calling any institution racists that did not loan money to people that haven't a snow balls chance in hell of paying it back? Or perhaps registering to vote many thousand of Disney characters, Civil and Revolutionary war veterans, illegal aliens, and I imagine all those that join Jimmy Hoffa for poker every Friday night. I do understand why ACORN and the Obama administration might view the dead as the finest of Americans and worthy of continued political participation for their carbon footprints require a CSI team or cadaver dog to find.
I suspect the lone objection the Democratic Party has to ACORN's get out to vote drive is that they were not adequately creative in generating the phony identities to register. Perhaps if they had steered clear of Sponge Bob Square Pants and the like, and used names like; San Fran Cisco, Minnesota Fats Sr., Minnesota Fats Jr., Minnesota Fats III, . . . , our crack(ed) mainstream media may not have ever caught on. Of course even the cartoon characters were not reported in time to impact the 2008 election or rescue this country. Thank you, no longer free, but sold at a bargain price press.
I close with one last thought: Does anyone else find it a bit perplexing that an organization that sights the abomination of slavey as justification for all that they do, and constantly promotes reparations for that historical wrong, would so unhesitatingly support and endorse a type of slavery that is arguably worse?
John Tuvey
ACORN's defense that its just a few bad apples, or a low level human resources failure, or a matter of inadequate training is light years beyond plausible much less a product of a rational mind. It is obvious the recent videos display an uncommonly thorough, intense, and well focused degree of training and instruction. If anyone could actually view these tapes where ACORN employees enthusiastically offer advice on how to skirt around a minimum of federal offenses as low level ACORN employees acting independently and extemporaneously must have grown up thinking that lead and mercury were amoung the basic food groups.
Given the degree of perversion in today's society, the only mistake the videographer and woman posing as a prostitute made was that they claimed only to have imported a collection of underage, undocumented girls for their operation and failed to include a like number of young boys in their script. These videos, however, do amount to evidence that President Obama and his inner circle of capatalism despising mobsters do find some examples of the entrepreneurial spirit acceptable. And, given these videos, perhaps people should not be so quick to dismiss complaints about the practices of Planned Parenthood because it is evident that ACORN, the organization most closley affiliated with President Obama, thinks the ideal village it takes to raise a child must first and foremost be a criminal enterprise.
I would be remiss if I failed to commend our noble congress for their swift, decisive, and courageous move to defund ACORN. I'm sure this will prove as deleterious to ACORN's operation and influence as pulling one leg off a centipede. With the immense number of and far reaching tenticles of the leftists infrastructure in this country, defunding ACORN probably won't even amount to a modest speed bump. And of course many in Congress did not vote to cut off federal dollars to ACORN. To these fine men and women, who indignantly proclaim how wrong it is to penalize a whole organization that has done so much good, for the actions of a few bad apples, I wonder what good they are referring to? Could it be calling any institution racists that did not loan money to people that haven't a snow balls chance in hell of paying it back? Or perhaps registering to vote many thousand of Disney characters, Civil and Revolutionary war veterans, illegal aliens, and I imagine all those that join Jimmy Hoffa for poker every Friday night. I do understand why ACORN and the Obama administration might view the dead as the finest of Americans and worthy of continued political participation for their carbon footprints require a CSI team or cadaver dog to find.
I suspect the lone objection the Democratic Party has to ACORN's get out to vote drive is that they were not adequately creative in generating the phony identities to register. Perhaps if they had steered clear of Sponge Bob Square Pants and the like, and used names like; San Fran Cisco, Minnesota Fats Sr., Minnesota Fats Jr., Minnesota Fats III, . . . , our crack(ed) mainstream media may not have ever caught on. Of course even the cartoon characters were not reported in time to impact the 2008 election or rescue this country. Thank you, no longer free, but sold at a bargain price press.
I close with one last thought: Does anyone else find it a bit perplexing that an organization that sights the abomination of slavey as justification for all that they do, and constantly promotes reparations for that historical wrong, would so unhesitatingly support and endorse a type of slavery that is arguably worse?
John Tuvey
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)