EDUCATION

May 22, 2013

Kill the Rich Says head of Teachers Union

Kill the rich Have we really moved this far to the Left?  From Thomas Lifson over at American Thinker:

In a December 2nd speech just recently made public, Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, placed mass murder on the table as a political tactic for union movement. Carefully steering clear of actually calling for violence, Ms. Lewis noted that in the past, union leaders had not shied away from advocating killing the rich. She also noted that conditions today, in her view, are reminiscent of that same era. But the time is not ready, yet.

Read the rest at American Thinker:       

Back to our Homepage


Time To Reform Public Education?

school-indoctrinationSome food for thought by Daren Jonescu over at American Thinker:

If public education is allowed to survive, all efforts to resuscitate the inert husk of modern civilization will fail. It is time to unravel the most wasteful and destructive entitlement program of all. Cancer cells do not divide into healthy cells. A corrupted, power-intoxicated political class will not willingly raise a freedom-loving, self-reliant populace. Governments must no longer be allowed to pre-determine their nations´ fates, by mass producing the populace that serves their interests.

Read the rest at American Thinker:    

Back to our Homepage


New Video From the California Federation of Teachers

From California Federation of Teachers:  Tax The Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale

Nice propaganda piece staring the one and only Ed Asner.

 

 And the rebuttal (hat tip: Red State ):

 

Wonder no more why we have so many low information voters out there.

 


A Time to Choose

My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

America is at a crossroads and it’s time to choose a path forward. Will we continue to move “Forward” along Obama’s path of “fundamental transformation” and unsustainable big-government? Or will we rediscover our Constitutional compass and chart a path back towards a sustainable, limited government?

While trying to comprehend how it is that anyone could be undecided in this current presidential election, the movie A Time to Kill came to mind.

In short:

Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) takes the law into his own hands after the legal system fails to adequately punish the men who brutally raped and beat his daughter, leaving her for dead. Normally, a distraught father could count on some judicial sympathy in those circumstances. Unfortunately, Carl and his daughter are black, and the assailants are white, and all the events take place in the South.

The scene that stood out was the one in which Hailey’s lawyer, Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) struggled to find a way to persuade the white jury to look beyond race, see the true horror of the situation and acquit a black man. His solution was to deliver a powerful closing argument designed to get the jurors to set aside their personal biases, visualize what it would be like if the tables were turned and then do the right thing.

Jake asked the jury to close their eyes and picture Carl Lee Hailey’s young daughter. He then described, in brutal detail, the horrendous abuse she had suffered at the hands of her white attackers. In conclusion, he asked the white jury to then imagine that this young black girl was instead white.

Are some undecided voters paralyzed from doing the right thing in this election due to being hung-up on race, though certainly not for the same reasons as in the movie?

Many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 understand that the last four years have been an unmitigated disaster, yet surprisingly, President Obama still enjoys relatively decent poll numbers. Among the conflicted are surely African-Americans who gave 95% of their support to Obama in the 2008 election and will mostly continue to do so based largely upon race. Others, independent voters, who thought that Obama was a moderate, were ready for a “change” and wanted to partake in the historic election of this nation’s first African-American president, but may now feel guilty or be fearful of being labeled as racist if they don’t vote the same way in this election.

President Obama took office during uncertain economic times with the promise of “hope and change.” He came disguised as a moderate and promised to bring all Americans together, fix the economy and to heal all that ailed this nation.

Those who are still undecided should take a moment to really think about and visualize what President Obama has instead given us:

• Five trillion dollars added to our national debt in just four years.

• Yearly trillion-plus dollar deficits.

• Trillions of dollars printed right out of thin air.

• The first U.S. credit downgrade in history.

• Unemployment that is higher now than when he took office.

• Black unemployment that has risen to 14.3% from 13.4%.

• Millions of workers are no longer participating in the workforce due to a lack of opportunity.

• Household incomes that have declined by 8.2% since he took office.

• Gas prices that have more than doubled while permits to drill for oil and natural gas on public lands have been reduced under Obama.

• Billions lost on green energy boondoggles after his wealthy campaign donors received green energy loans to prop up failing companies.

• Food stamp usage that has exploded to more than 47 million recipients.

• Tax dollars used to advertize for even more food stamp users.

• Half of college graduates can’t find full-time jobs.

• Obamacare will cost at least three times more than promised.

• Waivers were given to many Obama donors to protect them from Obamacare.

• $716 billion was cut from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

• Demonization of job creators.

• Terminated the pensions of nonunion Delphi workers to protect unionized GM workers.

• Demonization of a diverse group of Americans who call for fiscal responsibility.

• Bypassed the law to enact a variation of the DREAM Act.

• A fake war on women.

• Women earning less then men in Obama’s own administration.

• Jobless rate among women up 15.5% under Obama.

• A cover up over the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

• A massive cover-up over the Benghazi terrorist attack.

I could go on.

Imagine what your future would be like if this were to continue.

Imagine what your children and grandchildren’s future would be like if this were to continue.

Now, imagine that the President who was responsible for all of the above was instead a Republican. Would he still deserve to be reelected?

This election isn’t about one man or the color of his skin; it’s about the future of our nation. It’s not about voting for “revenge” but it is about voting for “love of country.” It’s about a return to and maintenance of the limited the roll of government. Our republic was designed this way because we can’t fully trust any one man, or any one-thousand men — of any party.

Please do the right thing this Election Day.


Time to Rethink UC Education? (UPDATED)

Indoctrination centers?  This Big Government piece will come as no surprise to many:

Think a University of California degree is worth its weight in gold? Think again. According to a new study, you might want to rethink that second mortgage needed to send junior to a UC campus.

The California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars, have just released an incendiary report showing that all nine of the University of California’s campuses have been compromised by too many politicized courses and radical faculty members. CAS members include a number of current or past professors from the UC system who have taught at UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-San Diego.

Conservatives have long complained of a strong liberal bias in college classrooms, and this new study shows just how far off track it has gone in one of the most prestigious public university systems in the country. You can read the full CAS 81-page report here.

Read the whole thing at Big Government   

(UPDATE)

Zombie at Pj Media attended an educators lecture at U.C. Berkeley titled: “Teaching as a Subversive Activity — Revisited.”

I nearly fell out of my chair when he first said that he wished conservatives didn’t have freedom of speech, and then practically the very next phrase out of his mouth was that people like him believe in “a culture of open-mindedness.” I mean c’mon, does he have any self-awareness? How could someone say that with a straight face? And the audience just laughed, ha ha ha. This only confirms what I have long suspected: That liberals have banished overt conservative thought from many college campuses with “speech codes,” and that given half a chance they would implement the same thing society-wide, and feel sanctimonious and justified in doing so.

Read the whole thing at Pj Media

And more from Big Government: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/21/From-Education-To-Indoctrination-At-U-C

Back to our Homepage


Blame the Left for the Erosion of Public Discourse

Wonderful piece by Steve McCann (again) at American Thinker:

The majority of the American people, asleep during the past sixty years of overwhelming peace and prosperity, are gradually waking up to the massive deception that has been perpetrated by the left and their inability to solve the almost insolvable problems they, in large part, have created. Thus, the tone and nature of political discourse has become more strident, as the left, in an effort to protect their gains, status, and self-image, will do or say anything regardless of the damage it may inflict on the country.

Read the rest at American Thinker   

Back to our Homepage

Ms. Fluke, If You Think Rush was Harsh Read: Little Suck-a-Thumb (Updated)

Rush Limbaugh has really stepped-in-it this time.  While using his famous teaching method, “demonstrating the absurd by being absurd,” some of his overly harsh comments directed towards Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke have unleashed a media frenzy that even brought about a phone call from President Obama.  

Lost in this whole birth control “controversy” though, is the fact that this is really about the First Amendment.  But that won’t stop the mainstream media and Democrats from continuing the manufactured lie that this is about Republicans wanting to deprive women of their “freedoms”.  Don’t fall for their dangling-condom-on-a-stick trick, this is a lie that was manufactured in order to frighten women and distract from Obama’s horrendous record as President.

It’s interesting to contrast the media response to Rush’s statements with the “10:10” campaign’s “No Pressure” climate-denier ad, where children were exploded into bloody chunks of flesh for not conforming to the Lefts’ faith-based belief in man-made global warming.  The ad was finally removed but certainly not through the help of a frenzied media.  While I would not have chosen the same words as Rush, he was attempting to make provably true points while using a method that was actually much less harsh than that “No Pressure” ad. 

In yet another attempt to destroy Rush, the media is hyping his comments without providing proper context, as is always done with those on the Right.  Rush has since apologized for using such strong language but the real lesson in all of this will still be lost upon the deaf ears of the Left.  I fully understand Rush taking such offense (as we all should be offended) at the idea that Ms. Fluke, a Georgetown Law student thinks that all taxpayers should be forced to pay for her birth control.  And that’s before even taking into account the First Amendment aspect of this issue.  

If Ms. Fluke is unable to wrap her ‘legal mind’ around the simple concept of paying for her own birth control (products for one of nature’s strongest instincts), as well as the purpose of the First Amendment, she deserves to be embarrassed and treated as a child.  Then again, maybe she knows exactly what she’s doing as she appears to be an activist.     

Throughout history children have been subjected to some pretty harsh fairytales in order to be taught some of life’s most valuable lessons.  One such fairytale takes an especially harsh approach (this one also makes Rush look like a harmless little fuzz-ball) to getting children to stop sucking their thumbs.  In the story: Little Suck-a-Thumb by Heinrich Hoffmann,  little Conrad is told by his mother, who is stepping-out for a little while, that he’d better not suck his thumb or else the scissor-man will show up and cut his thumbs clean-off.  Little Conrad learned his lesson the hard way as the story goes — graphic illustrations for little eyes included.  On a side note: it’s once again been proven that this same scissor-man most likely got hold of Bill Maher’s brain.   

Does anyone really condone cutting-off the thumbs of children in order to prevent said violators from sucking on them?  Of course not! It’s just an extreme way of teaching children a valid lesson in life’s realities.  Similarly, Rush used an extreme example in an attempt to show how utterly childish and destructive Ms. Fluke’s demands were.

If Ms. Fluke is an example of our “best and brightest,” being the product of one of the top law schools in the United States, I fear we have far, far greater problems on our hands than the attempted procurement of free contraceptives for ones entertainment.  The fact that a large segment of our population fails to understand the real issue here should terrify us all.

Let me offer one possible solution (yes I’m being a little snarky to make a point) that may apply to some of the young college women who find themselves in Ms. Fluke’s situation:

For those who consume alcohol, toning back your alcohol intake by at least two drinks per evening out will save you (assuming you’re a “feminist” and refuse to let others pay) enough over the course of the month to more than cover the burdening expenses of your birth control.  This may also come with the added benefit of reducing the need for as much of that birth control as was previously needed, thus freeing up additional funds for more of life’s little necessities.

Ms. Fluke, please understand that a scissor-man of sorts exists today and is now going straight after the Constitution.  If you think Rush’s words are harsh, you should try living your life without any protection — the protection of the First Amendment that is.

(Update)

Bret Bozell adds some perspective to this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/03/05/get-rush-campaign-isnt-about-what-he-said

And Newt schools David Gregory (you really have to give Gregory an “A” for effort though):

http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-owns-david-gregory-on-contraception/

And this from Pjmedia:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-lefts-long-time-war-on-women/?singlepage=true

The Audacity of Ambition

My article as originally published in American Thinker:  

President Obama seems to be downsizing the American Dream. In an insufficiently noticed January 25th speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he said:

“Folks don’t have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream.”

“Unrealistic ambitions” — is he serious? “Small measure of an American Dream” — it sounds like he’s conceding that the Lefts’ version of “utopia” is really just settling for the crumbs that the elites drop on the floor. Is this the new normal? I’m sure glad Steve Jobs didn’t act on this kind of advice — I really do enjoy my iPhone. And I’m glad I didn’t act on such tripe as well.

Ambition — some have it and some don’t. It matters not which country you live in as it’s one of those traits of human nature that’s universal and nearly impossible to suppress. That is unless you actually have the audacity to want to act on that ambition. Living in most other countries you’d be out of luck unless you were “connected”, or had a large appetite for red-tape, but if you’re lucky enough to have been born in the United States (the place so many have risked death to immigrate to) then the biggest obstacle to creating something with that ambition is usually yourself.

I made the choice to leave high school several months early after taking the equivalency test. Not something I’m proud of or would recommend for others but I found school extremely boring and at the time didn’t see the point in wasting any more of mine or my teachers’ time. Surely this was not the best recipe for success.

I entered the workforce with high ambition (due to my nature) but low expectations (due to what I had been taught by some of my teachers). I started working full time for a swimming pool company performing hard manual labor and after that summer was over I enrolled at the local community college and continued to work for the pool company part time.

I learned two extremely valuable life lessons as a result of this first job.

First: I learned that if you’re willing to work hard, even with few skills, you can find gainful employment, and in my case, at more than twice the minimum wage. There wasn’t some evil, greedy rich person hiding in the shadows with the sole intent of suppressing my “ambition” as some had led me to believe would happen. In fact, I noticed that my paychecks actually did “trickle-down” from those so-called “greedy rich” folks.

Second: I learned that I didn’t want to work so physically hard my entire life and wanted to “ambitiously” pursue some other endeavor.

I did have a passion for construction and decided to pursue my “unrealistic ambitions” at a college (thanks Mom & Dad!) that specialized in all aspects of construction. I chose to work hard and even received a small scholarship at one point. During my training I found that I was most interested in electrical and decided that I would begin my career as an electrician.

By the time I reached twenty-four I was making pretty good money as an electrician, had married my high school sweetheart and together we had bought our first home. That sounds dangerously close to the “small measure of an American dream” as described by President Obama. I guess I was just supposed to be content and stop being so darn “unrealistically ambitious” at that point in time?

That wasn’t enough for me though as I did possess the audacity of “ambition” and wanted nothing less than to have my own electrical company one day. To keep this short, by twenty-seven, I’d achieved this with partners and by thirty-one I was in business entirely on my own.

I was making a very comfortable living doing something I enjoyed. My success did annoy one of my friends and a few acquaintances though. My crime — the audacity of making much more money than they did and doing so without possessing a college degree as they did. They felt they were “entitled” to a higher standard of living than I had achieved. Of course they hadn’t seen the hard work and many ups and downs (really, really down in this current economy) I had gone through to get where I was. In Obama’s class-warfare world, if I choose to study, work hard and make a few good choices while others choose to party, make bad choices and just get-by, I should be punished for having a better outcome. If I knew ahead of time that I would be punished for being so “ambitious” why would I even bother to try in the first place?

Over the years I’ve had well over fifty employees pass through my organization. While working with (exploiting in Leftist lingo) these individuals, I’ve noticed a diverse range of “ambitions.” Some worked hard and were content with just their paychecks. Others hardly worked at all and exploited me. Two really stand out as having had their own audacity of “ambition.” Both started with virtually nothing (one had left communist Vietnam) and both ended up owning more than one home each while working for me. They eventually had the “ambition” to start their own companies and moved on. Yes, they’re now feeling the pain of this government caused “recession” as well.

I left school with high “ambitions” and the expectation of road blocks. I’ve stumbled on many self-created road blocks (I take full responsibility for those) along the way, but I never thought that the largest ones I would encounter would be the ones that were created by the government.

In America, everyone (the “ambitious” included) is entitled to equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Obama’s Socialist/Marxist ideas leave all but the connected entitled to nothing but a dwindling supply of crumbs.


Feeding the Nanny-State (UPDATED)

See update at bottom:

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

On Wednesday Michelle Obama unveiled the new Federal school-lunch regulations, as part of her anti-obesity campaign. I don’t remember seeing a culinary section in the US Constitution. Under current leadership, the Federal government appears to have an enormous appetite for our freedoms?

The First Lady said during her speech:

Because, as parents, we all know that if left to their own devices, many of our kids would eat candy for breakfast, they’d follow it up with a few French fries for lunch and cookies and chips for snacks, and then they’d come home for a big chocolate sundae for dinner, right? (Laughter.) And we know that it is our responsibility, as adults, to make sure they don’t do that. So it’s our responsibility to make sure that they get basic nutrition that they need to stay healthy.

That’s right — kids need and have their parents to watch over them — but of course that’s just not good enough for the nanny-state.

Mrs. Obama goes on:

And that’s why so many of us try so very hard to prepare decent meals at home, and to limit how much junk food they get at home, and to ensure that they have a reasonably balanced diet. And when we’re putting forth this kind of effort at home — and many of us are, and it’s difficult to do every single day — it’s always a challenge, particularly with tough economic times and not enough time in the day — but when we’re putting forth these efforts, when we’re doing what we’re supposed to do at home, the last thing we want is to have all these hard efforts, all this hard work undone in the school cafeteria.

Suddenly the Left is all worried about parental efforts being undone at school? Not quite. It’s the parents’ responsibility, not the federal government’s, to make sure their kids eat well at their homes, their friend’s houses, their grandparent’s houses and at their schools. If enough parents aren’t happy with what’s on the menu (which they can read) they’ll either complain to the school (a local issue) in order to force changes, or hit the school in the pocketbook by packing their kids lunches on their own. That is unless their kids go to one Chicago school where even that is no longer allowed because parents aren’t to be trusted with making their own kids lunches. Forget about metal detectors, this school is more worried about having ‘food detectors’ to make sure no one is packin’-lunch.

Mrs. Obama says the kids don’t mind the “change” that she believes in:

And again and again, schools are finding that when they actually offer these healthier options, kids aren’t just willing to try them, they actually like them. That’s the thing, that’s the surprising thing.

But as Michelle Malkin points out, Los Angeles schools have found that the only thing getting healthier is the amount of garbage from tossed food, and the union payrolls.

President Obama has been working hard and doing his part to curtail the problem of childhood obesity in the United States as well. It happens to be one of the side effects of his destruction of the economy.

(UPDATE)  Told ya!

A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.

NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html

And this from Human Events:

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49543

Now a 2nd incident.   From The Blaze:

 

The policing of children’s food at West Hoke has been portrayed as an isolated incident, but a curious memo Jazlyn brought home to her mother seems to point to something more.

The memo Jazlyn brought from the school outlines the necessary nutritional requirements students’ homemade lunches must contain: two servings of fruit or vegetables, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain and one serving of meat or meat substitute. Included with the memo was a separate sheet, this one a bill for the cafeteria food Jazlyn was served.

The memo, dated Jan. 27 with the subject line “RE: Healthy Lunches,” was signed by school principal Jackie Samuels and said, while “we welcome students to bring lunches from home … it must be a nutritious, balanced meal with the above requirements. Students, who do not bring a healthy lunch, will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.”

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/

 

The Attempt at Education Reform

Most generally agree monopolies are a bad thing yet many seem to have no issue with the government education monopoly.

This is a good read by Derek Hunter At Townhall.

Would any concerned parent willingly send their children to an average public school in this country if there was an option available?

The word “concerned” in the question should be a tipoff that the answer is no. Still, states, localities and the federal government continue to dump billions of our hard-earned tax dollars into a system that is rotten to its core.

Read the rest at Townhall.com  

Back to our Homepage