Monday, March 1
San Francisco high schools now giving college credits to 14 year-olds; for taking racist courses
Students cannot fail the class. They either receive a "pass" grade or are withdrawn from the course if it appears they cannot pass, Perea said.
CLICK HERE
to read the entire article
Obama, What’s Next?
Eric Cantor and John Boehner, along with John McCain and other Republicans, made the Democrats look pretty silly at times. Every Democrat that spoke had to come out with the obligatory sad health care sob story, no matter how improbable. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) NY told how one of her constituents had to wear her dead sister’s false teeth. I guess these Democrats have got to be collectively tone deaf, because they sure don’t hear themselves the way we hear them.
Conversely, I was totally impressed with Minority Leader John Boehner and the Republicans, their grasp of the bill and the solid refutations that they presented to President Obama, despite being held to a mere 110 minutes as opposed to a full 222 minutes for Obama and his Democrats, with the bulk of the time being taken up by President Obama continually interrupting Republicans when he didn’t like what he was being told, which was most of the time. His facade of bi-partisanship went out with his opening statement.
Obama closed the meeting with the admonition that he would hope to hear from Republicans within weeks, four or uhh, maybe six weeks. President Obama, don’t hold your breath. The Republicans stood their ground and did themselves proud. The longer this bill hangs around, the deader it looks and despite (The House Madam) Nancy Pelosi’s statement saying we would have a bill regardless, it’s looking more like the out-and-out voter rebellion has had its toll most especially on the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.
Look for the illegal immigration issue to lift its scaly snout again soon. The illegals and their advocate groups, such as the extremely radical La Raza, are planning a mass march on Washington.
This time they may find that they are met by a very large contingent of patriots.
Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis
© Skip MacLure 2010
Liberals Challenge the Validity of The Bill of Rights
Do you get the feeling that the average liberal isn’t smarter than a fifth grader? I doubt they would do well on that show of the same name. Case in point: Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you have liberals - like in Chicago - who seek to over rule that decision, arguing that it doesn't apply to the 50 states. They actually are asking that certain protections granted by the Bill of Rights not be afforded to citizens of certain cities or states.
I love how liberals apply the concept of a right. We should have a “right” to own a home and a “right” to free health care, both which presume to detract from someone else’s prosperity in order to fund and realize those “rights,” but when it comes to an individual’s right to defend themselves, a right which by itself doesn’t minimize nor detract from anyone else’s inalienable rights, that kind of right should be ruled invalid or restricted.
Do you see why it’s impossible to argue with logic of that kind? Liberals actually see this as being logical. It’s almost impossible to even comprehend the monumental stupidity of this, and wasting time arguing with idiots over these concepts would be as fruitful as trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old; you get absolutely no where.
However, this doesn’t mean you should abdicate your rights either. Currently, there is a case going before the Supreme Court - again – to ensure that your freedoms, as granted by the Bill of Rights, are afforded to all 50 states, and all its citizens. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law, which is being argued for by groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
An attorney for the person challenging the Chicago law, Otis McDonald, said, "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history."
I wonder how quickly the left would scream ‘foul’ if certain states or cities decided to circumvent the Bill of Rights in the same way. How about if a state decided that the liberal media’s biased viewpoints were a threat to the American way of life and decided to severely curtail the media’s First Amendment right to free speech in that state? The ACLU would respond so fast it would kill itself tripping over their own feet in the rush to react. However, I’m not aware of any fervor nor action on their part to represent Mr. McDonald in his fight to prevent the city of Chicago from violating his Second Amendment rights.
When weighing the validity of the rights afforded this country, and its citizens, under the precepts of the Bill of Rights, remember it is the Second Amendment that is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Without the rights afforded you under the Second Amendment, your other rights are only as good as the people who are in power over you at any given moment. When those people decide to restrict your rights, be it a mugger on a street or an autocratic government, it is your ability to defend your rights that keeps them valid.
The Audacity of Logic
I love how liberals apply the concept of a right. We should have a “right” to own a home and a “right” to free health care, both which presume to detract from someone else’s prosperity in order to fund and realize those “rights,” but when it comes to an individual’s right to defend themselves, a right which by itself doesn’t minimize nor detract from anyone else’s inalienable rights, that kind of right should be ruled invalid or restricted.
Do you see why it’s impossible to argue with logic of that kind? Liberals actually see this as being logical. It’s almost impossible to even comprehend the monumental stupidity of this, and wasting time arguing with idiots over these concepts would be as fruitful as trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old; you get absolutely no where.
However, this doesn’t mean you should abdicate your rights either. Currently, there is a case going before the Supreme Court - again – to ensure that your freedoms, as granted by the Bill of Rights, are afforded to all 50 states, and all its citizens. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law, which is being argued for by groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
An attorney for the person challenging the Chicago law, Otis McDonald, said, "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history."
I wonder how quickly the left would scream ‘foul’ if certain states or cities decided to circumvent the Bill of Rights in the same way. How about if a state decided that the liberal media’s biased viewpoints were a threat to the American way of life and decided to severely curtail the media’s First Amendment right to free speech in that state? The ACLU would respond so fast it would kill itself tripping over their own feet in the rush to react. However, I’m not aware of any fervor nor action on their part to represent Mr. McDonald in his fight to prevent the city of Chicago from violating his Second Amendment rights.
When weighing the validity of the rights afforded this country, and its citizens, under the precepts of the Bill of Rights, remember it is the Second Amendment that is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Without the rights afforded you under the Second Amendment, your other rights are only as good as the people who are in power over you at any given moment. When those people decide to restrict your rights, be it a mugger on a street or an autocratic government, it is your ability to defend your rights that keeps them valid.
The Audacity of Logic
Principles of Conservatism: Alexis de Tocqueville on the Enslavement of Public Opinion
Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who traveled to the newly-formed United States to observe the US experiment of liberal democracy. He continues to be one of the great editorialists of the principles of liberal democracy and its political foundation in the American Republic.
Here are some passages from the book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. In these quotes, Bloom lays out the foundations of the dangers of the abuse of public opinion and the resulting pressure to conform based on Alexis de Tocqueville's warnings from 200 years ago.
The great democratic danger, according to Tocqueville, is enslavement to public opinion (page 246).Democracy liberates people from the traditions and authority which were historically powerful. We are no longer told how to think by an aristocracy or a politically potent clergy.
In the absence of anything else to which to turn, the common beliefs of most men are almost always what will determine judgment. This is just where tradition used to be most valuable....The active presence of a tradition in a man's soul gives him a resource against the ephemeral, the kind of resource that only the wise can find simply within themselves. The paradoxical result of the liberation of reason is greater reliance on public opinion for guidance, a weakening of independence (page 247).The problem with public opinion, of course, is its ephemeral nature. No longer stabilized on common values derived, for example, from religion or from the founding documents of the US, public opinion drifts without anchor, evolving into whatever form takes on the greatest popularity of the moment.
Without guiding foundational principles, public opinion can, and does, take sharp socially and politically dangerous turns, causing the whole of the Republic to veer off into uncharted and potentially damaging directions.
Take, for example, the current congressional attempt to pass a massive health care overhaul bill despite the lack of public support and despite the inherent flaws with such a massive bill. Weighed against the founding principles of the US - especially the idea that government is dangerous and therefore should be limited - there is little foundational support for such massive government intrusion into the daily lives of its citizens. Instead, congressional Democrats are swayed by the popular opinion of the "necessity" of government intervention into the health care industry. (And, of course, drawn to the extension of power and its abuse.) Congressional Democrats have unwisely convinced themselves that they know better than the founders of the US, that they know better than the people of the US (especially those pesky Tea Party independents), and so they run with the concept of socialized health care, cheered on by a president whose ideology matches a small minority of the population.
We are left with a society at the whim of the public mind, with indiscriminate opinions, and quite unable to choose between what is helpful to the Republic and its people and what is harmful and statist - serving only the needs of the government.
Which reminds me of a quote that sums up Americans' inability to correctly view and understand the dangers of the liberal mind:
The modern man forgets the past, and finds himself at the mercy of technocrats, propagandists, and snake-oil salesmen. The postmodern man is no longer aware that he has any past to forget. To remember and honor the hard-won achievements of our civilization is to have a fair chance of freedom; to forget them or despise them is to have no chance at all. (Esolen, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, p. 293)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Newest
CBC NEWS
Posts
