Free Speech

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The second clause in the First Amendment has no title like the Establishment Clause, but in spite of that, this short string of six words has garnered more print, debate and utter hostility than any other portion of our constitution.

“or abridging the freedom of speech,”

Again, we see that this is not specifically spelled out as a right, but as a restriction on what the government can impose upon its citizens. Again there is no specification as to where or when such free speech is to be exercised and there is no specification as to content. There is also no mention as to whether or not this applies to individuals, groups or even corporation. George Carlin’s prohibited television words are not mentioned and there is no difference specified in the differences of speech whether they be religious, political, romantic or inflammatory. The clause simply says that Congress cannot make a law that restricts free speech. Abridging means to restrict or prohibit. Therefore, every law that the United States Congress has proposed and/or enacted since December 15, 1791, has been done so in violation of this clause. link

Now some may bring up the old argument of the changing times and the need for the government to ensure security. Those points have merit for the purpose of debate, but they mean nothing in the face of original intent and the laws governing grammar. Because of the British Crown’s sedition laws, the framers of our constitution made sure that the newly formed congress could not become an imperialistic body. If they were brought forth in time to see how that body has metastasized, I imagine several members of congress would be challenged to a duel.

We have to remember, what someone says means nothing until those words are acted upon. If Van Jones were given a soap box so he could harangue the folks in the public square about the glories of communism, which would be his right to do so, he has every right to not be prohibited from speaking. He does not, however, have a right to expect anyone to stand there and listen. The clause says nothing about the audience of that speech. Nowhere in the constitution does that document mandate or even mention that an issuer of an opinion has to be heard. Listening, by extension contains the same personal freedom as speaking. The government and the speaker have no right to expect an attentive audience, except where the government is the audience. The men who wrote our constitution were not fools. When we get to that clause we will look into that part in more detail.

This all means that by extension every time some Washington functionary with an inflated sense of their own importance attempts to shut down speech or censor speech through some form of law, that law being used is wrong. Congress, the highest law-making entity in this country is forbidden from making such a law. However, the 10^th amendment muddies these waters because in that amendment everything not specifically placed into the hands of Congress is left to the states. And that means that by a strict reading of the language in the first amendment, the states can restrict speech. This is why it is so important that we the people pay attention as to who we elect into government office. This is also why is it so important to pay attention to the lessons of history and to understand the principles under which we live.

Being Religious does not Remove Free Speech Rights

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Back when the newly freed states were attempting to ratify the constitution, the delegates ran into a wall of opposition due to a lack of adequate guarantees for what are now known as civil liberties. What the Bill of Rights did was add those protections. On September 25, 1789 it was submitted to the states for ratification and adopted, after long and lively debate (including a few fistfights) adopted on December 15, 1791.

If you check out the Wikipedia article on the First Amendment, link, you will find several citations as to how debate, including lawsuits has shaped how the amendment is defined today. Does that mean the definition is correct? Not necessarily. Since the late 18^th century the English language has not just evolved, it has mutated to the point where sentence structure, grammar and even the meaning of words needs to be understood in that era’s vernacular in order to know the real intent of the men who ratified and adopted our constitution. So let’s look at amendment number one, clause number one:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This is the first part of the sentence. That’s right; the first amendment to the US Constitution is a single sentence, written in proper English grammar of the time. Many call it the “establishment clause” because of that word as regarding religion. Nowhere is any specific religion called out and nowhere does it specify where “the free exercise of” may or may not be carried out, yet today it not just considered improper, many consider given any type of religious speech in a government facility, whether it be indoors or out, criminal. I would like to see where in this clause exists any reason for such an interpretation.

Rather than a Bill of Rights, the series of amendments really should be called the List of Restrictions on Government Power. You have to remember, the framers of the constitution were the same men involved in agreeing to and signing the Declaration of Independence. They remembered vividly living under a very oppressive regime with its own state religion, the Church of England. The last thing desired was to have the state dictating what a worshiper did with regard to their religious practice, and yet that is where we are today. In essence, those who use the first amendment to tell someone, “You can’t do that, this is government property,” are saying they approved of what King George did back in the 1700’s.

It is very easy to poke fun at people who freely express their devotion, but it is also very wrong. Those who wish for a law to curtail peaceful religious express are also wishing for the constitution to be violated. Every school or university that has prohibited religious expression has violated this amendment, in spite of what some Supreme Court justices have written. Simply being a life time appointment to wear a black robe does not automatically make one infallible. Read the words. Where does it say that the government can restrict that form of expression in this clause? It does not. Rather, this clause restricts what Congress, the lawmaking body, can do. Also the government cannot prohibit someone, or any number of ones to freely express their religion, whatever it is, wherever they desire to do so, regardless of who is offended. Again, does this clause say anything else? No, it does not.

Now, further on within the body of the constitution, some limits were applied. They had to be to allow for a burgeoning growth in this country. These limits fall within the prevue of state law such as permits for building rental and so on. Those limits, as long as they did not tread on the First Amendment, were lawful and in many ways proper. Our problems as a nation began when political agendas became more important than the documents underlying our nation’s foundation.

Currently there is a debate over whether or not corporations should enjoy the same free speech rights as individuals. The only reason that debate has risen is because corporations tend to favor a pro-business form of government, which the Democrat Party is not. Surprisingly enough, most of the media outlets in favor of denying corporations free speech rights are in and of themselves corporations made up of individuals who shelter behind the free speech clause of the amendment. Not surprising is the fact that they cannot see the glaring hypocrisy in their stance.

What makes that debate germane to this column is that it also includes incorporated churches. Again, we have to go back to the words. Contrary to what some have said, corporate law did exist back in the 18^th century. Our second President, John Adams practiced law and wrote extensively on it. He was also involved in the framing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the men involved in the ratification of the Constitution had been concerned about the evils of granting corporations or churches free speech rights there would be mention of it.

By the way, it is the height of arrogance to assume that they had no idea how this country would evolve, or that they were less intelligent than we are today. If you are one who feels that way, attempt to pass the 8^th grade achievement test for the 1800’s, link.

Many say that the United States of America is a Christian country. Sorry, even from the days of the pilgrims that was not exactly accurate. People forget the Indians. When the constitution was ratified, the wording of the establishment clause prohibited this country from having any state religion, regardless of deity even though many of the principles of Christianity are embedded within our law. It is as improper to declare this country Christian as it is to prohibit group prayer in the quad of the local high school. Simply because an individual, or group of individuals, or a corporation of individuals identifies with a religion they still retain the same free speech rights the nonreligious do. It’s in the Constitution.

Obama’s Economy

Every time the current economic crisis is brought up the Democrat leadership responds with this lie, “Obama inherited this mess. It was created by Bush and the Republicans”. The big problem with this statement lies in the evidence of history. Bush was no jewel, he wasn’t even a real republican, he was a neocon who only worked deal to enrich the families of his fraternity brothers, but he had nothing whatsoever to do with the economy we are currently suffering under. That lies squarely on the shoulders of Obama and the Democrat leadership, and here is why:

Our sitting President began his political life as a community organizer in Chicago in the early 1990’s. Some have speculated that Obama even then was working specifically for ACORN under the guidance of Weatherman head Bill Ayers, however speculation is not proof. There is no doubt ACORN, Ayers and Obama are continue a very friendly and even admirable relationship today, but there is no proof the organizer Obama was able to influence the growth of the progressive PAC back then. However, an employee, Anita MonCrief who worked in the organization’s Washington DC office did have firsthand knowledge of what went on and why. This link, freerepublic article, will take you to a story with verbatim testimony by Miss MonCrief about what ACORN was all about and why.

Obama is a socialist and has always been a socialist. Every association he made as a young man and on into adulthood has been part of belonging to the ongoing socialist revolution in America. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright has had nothing good to say about this country since he assumed the pulpit. ABC ran a story, link detailing how the so-called Reverend viewed the very country that gave him the right to defame it. Wright hates capitalism and taught, along with Ayers the youthful Obama to hate it as well. The quoted passage from the story on MonCrief’s testimony exhibits the reason why Obama was so favorable of ACORN,

“In her testimony, Moncrief reviewed notes, admitted into evidence, of a regional meeting of ACORN officials. Included in the notes is a list of reasons the group who met thought that ACORN was 'good.' One of the reasons listed was 'Fighting capitalism.’”

So why does Obama, the socialist, find capitalism so objectionable? Capitalism is defined in the dictionary as “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” A simpler definition fund within Capitalism.org has the definition “a social system based on the principle of individual rights.” I would say that the last two words Individual Rights would have to be the true basis for the problem people like Ayers, Wright and Obama have with the United States of America. Individual rights, by extrapolation would also contain individual responsibility. In other words, people would have to be held responsible for their own decisions. Imagine what that portends for the civil lawsuit industry.

Back in the 1930’s Arthur Rosenberg published an article describing the relationship between the communists and the trade unions. link This phrase, “The principal task of all Communists over the next period, is to wage a firm and vigorous struggle to win the majority of the workers organized in the trade unions”. It would be a fair assumption that most union members in the United States would object to be described as being a communist, and yet they belong to what is little more than a key tool of Rosenberg’s revolution.

Why is this important? The importance is in the polar opposition between the two philosophies, capitalism and communism. Socialism is little more than communism-lite. It is a stepping stone to total state control over the lives and livelihoods of the people living under its sphere of influence. Obama was learning communist philosophy at the feet of Bill Ayers while Bill Clinton was operating in the oval office. Clinton was, in spite of many bloggers assertion to the contrary, a fiscal conservative. Some say that, rather than his philandering was the cause for his marital problems as Hillary is an avowed socialist. The aims of the American communists and socialists are the subjection of the United States to an extra continental authority and the elimination of private enterprise entirely. Nearly every point of the Obama agenda points to his distaste of personal rights and responsibility. Consider how his supporters lambasted Joe the Plumber, a self-employed man with no union tie. Consider his attempt to give the unions even more control over American industry as part of his stimulus package and his recent statement regarding giving the UAW more economic help through tax credits laundered via the sale of union-produced cars.

During the Clinton years the economy improved and the deficit was reduced. During the Bush years the Democrat controlled Congress refused to go along with any attempt to control spending, and Bush did little to prevent the congressional largess. When Obama won the White House congress was still Democrat controlled and in each of the years they had control the Democrats decided to avoid their chief responsibility and refused to bring forth a federal budget. They did, however, completely back every item on the Obama agenda, regardless of the cost. Here are some comparisons from the Heritage foundation based on a Washington Post (a die-hard Obama supporter) story, link :

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

The above numbers, by the way, include the dollars spent in the Bush/Obama wars overseas. There is no possible way the current economic crisis can be a simple inheritance problem sent along by the previous administration. You cannot solve a problem by doubling and even trebling the same errors that began it. An honest person would have to admit that the Obama agenda has proven disastrous to the American economy. An even more honest person would have to admit that this has not been a mistake.

What it takes to succeed

The very first job I had coming out of high school was being the courtroom artist for the Arcata Union, the local newspaper where I grew up. Arcata is a small town in northern costal California. Back then it consisted primarily of fishermen and loggers. Now it is mostly environmentalists, hippies and artists seeking an escape from corporate America. But that is not the context of this missive.

Above this body of text is a graphic. It is the landing page of a web site I am illustrating. Long before I got into politics I was a, and continue to be a professional artist. That means I usually draw for money. I haven’t really done so for a long time as most companies don’t seem to think that a man over the age of 60 is capable of handling graphic art instruments much less programs such as Corel Draw, Photoshop and Illustrator, even though every one of those software packages were created by someone who is now well over 60.

The map is an illustration of WobWorld. It is a site created to be an educational experience for pre-school and elementary school age children. It will never be seen as something valuable by the crowd that considers embarrassing bodily functions as the height of humor. However, what it does do is entrance, entertain and educate those children fortunate enough to visit it; and there is a reason for that. It includes an emormous amount of detail.

An illustration with that much detail takes time, talent and skill, but I am not being egotistical. I can easily tick of several names of artists I feel completely in awe of. The simple fact is that in order to do work of a professional nature the individual attempting such work needs to understand the nature of what is to be accomplished, the tools required to do the job and the skills to use those tools in the best and most efficient manner possible. You don’t get there by being unable to read or write, and you certainly don’t get there by spending all your time manipulating characters in a video game. You get there by learning what it takes to be the best you can be in the profession you choose to be in, and that takes both time and training.

At Arcata High School I was fortunate to come under the guidance of thee extraordinary women, Mrs. Anderson, Mrs. Smith and Olga Dahl, my freshman, sophomore and senior art teachers. Every one of these women was qualified to teach at the college level, but they chose to be high school teachers instead. I had the additional good fortune to have a great grandfather who is known as a prominent American Artist, Irving R. Bacon. Some of his artistic tendencies come my way through lineage, but even with that bent, learning had to be done and classes had to be passed.

Today some so-called educators are attempting to eliminate the letter grades. They claim that having the ABCDF gading system is labeling students and creating a lack of self-esteem among those who are not as gifted as their peers receiving the higher grades. There are a number of phrases I can think of in response to such a claim, but not one of them is something a gentleman would say. The least objectionable word that comes to mind is nonsense. By eliminating a system that records accomplishment you are also eliminating accomplishment. There is nothing wrong in having a child excel, but there is everything wrong in awarding praise where none is earned. Consider what that would do to the world of competitive sports.

Just like a professional sports team, the world of business that deals in using skills to create products such as the WobWorld website has no use for a person with no marketable skills. Those who counsel today’s children into believing that they do not have to strive for excellence in academics are abusers of the worst sort. Less than one tenth of one percent of this year’s graduating class will ever become a professional in sports. An even smaller percentage will become a sports star, but that is what is heard by those children who not only have failing grades but seem to be glad of the fact. Not one of them will ever move to the top of the business world without some kind of mental sweat. Many in today’s education hierarchy seem to believe that they must shelter the children from the harsh realities of the outside world. Either that or they believe that somehow a boy or girl with no marketable skills will somehow prevail along with those who do. Neither view is healthy.

If you are a parent and your son or daughter is in school, the best thing you can do for them is to be unbending where academics and homework are concerned. Force them gently, if necessary, to excel in class in all subjects, even if they don’t like it. Turn off the TV and hide the cell phone and music player until homework is done. Until that child is graduated you have two jobs and if you are a working parent the second is more important than the first. I have to stress that Bill Cosby and I have no agreement where ordinary politics is concerned, but on education we are in lockstep. To paraphrase the man, there is nothing to be proud of in being ignorant and even more shame in being the one who raised an ignoramus.

Over $6000 in debt and counting

This statement was sent to my email via the Tea Party Patriots website, link to site .

”The House of Representatives voted against raising the debt ceiling last night. More than 70% voted against the measure (No-318, Yes-97, Present-7,Did Not Vote-6) that would have increased the debt ceiling by over $2 trillion dollars. Thank you for your phone calls, emails, and faxes. Your engagement really does make a difference and Congressional offices keep track of the number of times that issues come up in various communication with constituents.”

 

What does this mean to the average US citizen? Let’s take a look at a few numbers. Our

current population in the US is about 310 million people. The Obama administration has

asked Congress to increase our debt by two trillion dollars, that’s a 2 followed by 12 zeros.

The rest is straight forward division. 2,000,000,000,000 divided by 310,000,000 equals

6451.6129. That means that Obama wants each and every citizen in this country to add over $6,000 to their debt load.

The average yearly wage in the US is about $46,000. I don’t know about you, but with the cost of gas hovering around 4 bucks a gallon and the cost of a cart full of groceries well beyond a couple hundred dollars, I don’t see where going another six grand in debt is going to help the situation. Obama and his economic team claim we must do this in order to keep our country solvent. That makes about as much sense as a regular at one of those check cashing companies claiming that if he or she just kept borrowing money they would eventually be out of debt. How?

In a recent interview Obama claimed that he had the economic record to win reelection. link to article Again, I ask how? His administration has increased our debt by over a thousand fold and he somehow considers this a good thing. When Obama says that we must reduce our deficits by trillions of dollars he is not speaking of economizing, he is talking about adding additional taxes to an already over-taxed nation. Reducing the size of government, increasing efficiency and being more prosperous are concepts of which he has no grasp. His economic record is about as outstanding as the humanitarian record of Uganda’s Idi Amin. If Obama really did wish to better this country’s economy he would have to do something that would scandalize every existing support group in his contacts list.

The reason for that reaction is that part of the recipe for prosperity demands a lessening of the greed factor. Right there we have ruled out a significant portion of corporate and political America, but, believe me, it is necessary. A NeoCon considers the Michael Douglas character in Wall Street to be something to strive for. What America needs rather is a whole container load of Sam Waltons.

In order to deal with our current economy, we need to consider the problem from two sides, both in the reduction of costs and in the growth of revenue. The first factor is the cost of fuel, which is directly related to infrastructure. If we spent the time to put in place the infrastructure to handle and distribute alternative fuels, increase continental exploration and refinement and to eliminate our unnecessary importation of both oil and gas, fuel prices would plummet. Nothing balances a market like competition, and building that infrastructure would add thousands of high quality jobs. The greed and corruption factor could be handled by adding in real oversight that included stiff fines and even jail time for offenders, including that of politicians. As is often the case, there are some who claim that such oversight is too far-reaching and adds a chilling effect. This may be true as oversight often does disturb some of the powerful and it may prevent certain multinational corporations from participating. However, would that be a bad thing? Not one of the major corporations in this country began at the size they are now. Many began in a garage or even a bedroom. This country has plenty of smaller and smarter firms willing to step in and grow.

The next part is to behave like every other member of the UN and actually have a national language. Government printing agencies would save literally billions by only printing official documents in English. If a business wished to cater to other language speakers, which is their choice and their right. It used to be that in order to obtain citizenship the applicant had to prove a proficiency in English, the one-time common language of this country. We have reached a point where this standard needs to be reestablished. We need to do so for the simple fact that it makes economic sense. Believe it or not, English is the language of business worldwide.

Another area is education. An educated populace is by every historic record a prosperous populace. Our problem is that the education establishment in America has become far more concerned about self-esteem and cultural diversity than the three r’s. Going to school used to be not only a right but a desired privilege, and it is still that way in many countries. The teaching profession used to be one of honor, but not so in present day America. All of this has to change. The only way a business is going to be able to compete on the world stage is by hiring and retaining the best employees available. It is preferable that those employees be here already rather than having to be imported.

Next, those businesses have to be present in order to hire workers. Jobs cannot be created out of thin air. In order to do that the government has to relax its stranglehold on development and allow entrepreneurs to at least try to succeed. The Toyota Volta is an electric car that combines Italian styling with Japanese ingenuity and can travel upwards of 250 miles on a single charge from a standard household outlet. Mini Cooper has teamed up with a third-party company to produce a hybrid that gets 85 miles to the gallon with no loss of acceleration. There are dozens of other examples of vehicles that would sell and sell well in the US, but none of them are allowed to be sold in the US. The reasons for this as expressed in Washington are varied and underwhelming. What it boils down to is that the bureaucracy is not comfortable with success, especially when that success is in the private sector. Here are some examples:

Just north of Las Vegas, up I15 before you get to the town of Mesquite, there is a long stretch of BLM land that would be ideal for an industrial development. Plants to build cars like the Cooper Hybrid and the Volta would be ideal fits for both the region and the infrastructure. When proposed, the idea runs into a problem. The federal act governing BLM lands does not allow for-profit development without considerable time, trouble and expense, even if those working in the BLM see the benefit. Members of congress won’t even discuss attempting to amend the act.

In Nevada’s Armagosa Valley there is a dairy. Because of milk price controls (the price is kept high, not low), the dairy is not allowed to sell all of its production. A deal was worked out so a gourmet ice cream company could build a plant across the street from the dairy to turn the overproduction into ice cream. Nevada and California sued to prevent the plant from being built because of “environmental concerns”. Now Utah has yet another prospering concern adding to its fortunes.

Ever since gambling was legalized in Nevada, tourists have been crowding I15 as they flow in from California. Train tracks run along that route for most of the way. A commuter train has been discussed without resolution for about as long as the highway has existed. A number of companies have proposed both maglev and high-speed rail with some, but not significant interest. The problem lies in both the government’s timidity in the face of radical environmentalism and the desire of assorted politicos to line their pockets. Again, the best course is to do it the old way, allow the business to prove itself or fail trying, or to forge public/private partnerships where both the taxpayer and business work together to improve each other’s lives. Not doing anything gets us nowhere.

A major factor in America’s bleak economic picture is the mortgage issue. With so many banks crumbling because they allowed themselves to be sucked into the ACORN ponzi scheme, a radical restructuring had to be considered. Both the lender and the borrower created the problem. Neither one of them really had to bend to governmental pressure, but they did and now we have the problem. A good portion of the solution lies in denying the legal profession easy access to unsophisticated clientele. The last thing a person needs when faced with foreclosure is an attorney asking for several thousand dollars that could go toward the mortgage. Another part is the lenders need to be able to restructure the contracts based on actual value rather than contract value. Since the vast majority of mortgages are under the federal umbrella, all the government needs to do is step in and help both the lender and the borrower create a compromise both can live with, but that will take the Obama administration actually doing something to benefit big business.

So, the recipe is, education, entrepreneurship, corporate and governmental honesty, public-private partnerships, the ignoring of bothersome environmental suits only intended to prevent growth, and common sense. The last component could be the rarest of all.

The Myth About Teachers, Busted

Throughout this political cycle there has been considerable discussion over funding education, especially where that funding concerns the classroom and the classroom teacher. Many of those on the left have bemoaned the nearly criminal lack of tax hikes created to augment America’s profound parsimony where education is concerned. They never mention the utter disparity between administration salaries and staff, but the hue and cry is profound. On the right the teacher is viewed primarily as either an enemy of the state at worst or an indoctrinator of leftist causes at best. Both extremes could not be further from the truth and there appears to be a missing factor in the debate. Both the right and the left have steadfastly refused to separate the vast bulk of classroom educators with the real genesis of the problem; ill-prepared, disruptive students, utterly uninvolved parents, socialistic union leadership concerned only about their own power, school boards far more agenda-driven than education-driven and administrations concerned only with maintaining the meager flow of federal dollars.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear; the "teachers work for only 9 months" myth is just that, a myth. Every teacher I know works throughout the year for less pay than any other degreed profession. Their work doesn’t end simply because they leave the classroom. Consider this comparison, let’s say that a degreed individual has a position that requires considerable time away from his or her desk, but the general public only considers the time spent at the desk as “being on the job”, is that in any way a fair judgment? It is the same with the classroom teacher, but the media continues to ridicule those who object to the generally accepted stance on teaching hours vs. contracted hours. Ask a teacher what he or she has to do to prepare for next year during that so-called "vacation". In my research, every decent teacher puts in a 12 hour minimum day during school and an average of 6 to 15 hours weekly during the "vacation". This does not include the additional hours of continuing education required to maintain the teaching credential.

It seems that some in-depth reporting on what a teacher is forced to put up with and the incredible amount of additional work required of them in addition to just the teaching deserves putting down ink on a page. The average administrator is paid over twice what the average teacher receives, including the benefit packages, yet teachers are constantly reviled as overpaid, lazy “indoctrinators” who only work 6 hours a day “at the public trough". What would be the consequence be if those advocating the elimination of public education got their way? Just how many parents would be responsible enough to shoulder the burden now shifted to them? How many would be either willing or able to afford a private school education? Those advocating such a move cannot simply suggest a shift of public monies to cover this expense unless they are willing to also admit to extreme hypocrisy.

  As time passes, it seems that the public school eliminators may get their wish through attrition alone. More and more educators are leaving the profession and for good reason. A prime example is the ever-growing lack of respect shown to the classroom teacher from the parents on down. This is not mere coincidence as the teaching of manners now ends after elementary school and far too many with the power to do so are removing any sense of accomplishment associated to succeeding in school. Take social promotion as an example. These advocates of mediocrity claim that assigning failure to a student who actually fails harms the child somehow. By the time that student reaches high school age the damage is quite possibly irreversible, and yet the teacher is somehow at fault for what others have done. For some reason it is not the politicians, the administration or even the parents, but the teacher who is to blame for the illiterate brats that continue to hit the streets each year.

Another reason is lack of respect. Every professional occupation there is owes its existence to the teacher and yet very little, if any, appreciation comes their way. Not from the students, not from the parents and especially not from the school administration, and even less from those reporting and commenting on the issue. Our teachers are stuck in a horrible system not of their making, yet the media constantly calls for teacher accountability. Where is the student accountability? Where is the parent accountability? Where is the community accountability?

Nearly every classroom teacher I have spoken to simply wants to be able to impart knowledge of their subject to their students. They do not want to be babysitters and they are deeply offended by No Child Left Behind, standardized testing and the stance of the union that attempts to dictate how teachers should think and vote. They are worn out from the lack of discipline and prevalence of social promotion, and every other issue they are wrongly blamed for. Teachers do need more than lip service, they need the afore-mentioned respect, it is doubtful they will ever get what is needed, certainly not from any political party and certainly not from the conservative media, even though a significant percentage of teachers are supporters of the tea party movement. But what is even worse, they will not receive any thanks from the parents who send their little darlings off to the cheapest nanny there is. Teachers are simply tarred with the brush that should be aimed at those causing the problem, not because doing so is right but because it is easier.

Class…or the Lack Thereof

My wife teaches at what can best be called an inner city school; at worst…a ghetto school. The student demographic is roughly split between poor black and poor Hispanic boys and girls. That opening statement is placed here for a purpose, which will be made clear further along in this column.

Any citizen of the USA old enough and astute enough to remember the 1960’s should also be able to notice the ongoing slide in manners since those days. When I was in high school disruptive behavior in the classroom was a rarity, and pregnancy practically unheard of. If a boy did impregnate a girl a wedding was on the horizon. You did your homework because if you didn’t you did not move on to the next grade. Welfare was for those truly unable to work and only viewed as a temporary measure because a sense of pride still had value.

To carry this further, back then a man took care of his own mistakes and shouldered the consequences, good or bad, for his actions. A man who did not work was a bum and a real man was a gentleman. A real woman carried herself with class and decorum. Dressing and acting like a slut was reserved for…well, sluts. So what happened?

Today the push toward diversity is considered by the liberal left and a worryingly large segment of the right to not only be the right thing to do but the constitutional thing to do. Obviously this phrase from Doctor Martin Luther King, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” is not only dismissed but removed from the collective memory because outward appearance and narrow demographic identity has become paramount in nearly every formal aspect of US life. As much as Doctor King preached becoming an alloy, another man, Malcolm X preached divisive hatred, “"He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over." For today’s history students, Dr. King was a black man and so was X. A white man, Abraham Lincoln said this, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

King and Lincoln spoke of the strength of joining. Malcolm X trumpeted not just diversity but total segregation. King and Lincoln are practically ostracized by today’s media. X is considered a folk hero.

Since Martin Luther King is supposed to be such a pivotal figure in American history, why then are American Jews put into the liberal lawyer/grasping-jeweler box? Why are American Orientals automatically considered smart? Why, when you see a Hispanic, do you immediately think either landscaper or illegal? This list can be carried onward to cover every single stereotype this country contained, but the point is made, even if it isn’t accepted.

Simply because a baby boy is born to an unwed black girl doesn’t mean that he will be holding up convenience stores sixteen years later. Simply because a Jewish couple in Brooklyn bring a new baby home to their brownstone doesn’t mean that years later the ACLU acquires a new member, but unfortunately, as the years move on, stereotypes in this country are becoming more and more the norm. As a good friend of mine pointed out, the white race is not left out of the stereotype arena. As with every other skin color, pale has both rich and poor, sacred and profane. Some of the poorest most downtrodden and least educated in America happen to be Caucasian, but the white man in today’s  America is the sole remaining demographic where prejudice against them is not only allowed but approved. Why is that? For an answer we have to go overseas.

In the United States a black man or woman almost universally insists on being labeled African American, even if there is no possible way of tracing their family back to that particular continent. But if you hold a conversation with an educated Ethiopian or Ugandan you will notice a gulf of difference between the average high school educated American black and the African, the American cannot use proper grammar, whereas the African speaks English better than most Americans of any race. The jumbled nonsensical slang coming from young blacks today is neither African nor American and proves that class is the furthest thing from what little mind they have.

In Israel, a Jew will not automatically rush to the defense of those demanding his or her extinction. They will not seek a way to explain the actions of terrorist organizations in apologetic terms, but in the United States the Jewish community has, contrary to all logic, adopted what can only be described as a suicidal stance. What else can you call the wholesale acceptance of a community for the philosophies of those whose sole aim is the eradication of their race? Another question arises, when did the desire for sovereignty of a nation become tantamount to being a crime?

A few years ago there was a joke going around about the French and the salute used by the French military; both hands up in a motion of surrender. Today that joke isn’t so funny. The French are leaving the US behind. The average tax rate in France is around 28%.  Ours is hovering around 35%, and if Obama gets his way you can add another 15% to that. In France Muslims have to adapt to French society if they want to stay; France doesn’t have to adapt to them. Over here we are forced to accommodate even proven terrorists because of “cultural differences”. Diversity is not considered a right in France, and this trend is becoming more popular throughout Europe, even in socialist England, sadly, not so in diversity-driven America.

Does this mean we should all start acting like Frenchmen? No, not at all, we have our own identity. We should be acting like what Americans used to be rather than what we have become. It is no more proper for us to actively segment our society into bite-sized bits than it is for us to shave our heads and parade around like mini Hitlers. We should no more be make-believe Nazis than we should be basement-dwelling communists. We should be the best educated, strongest alloy this world has ever seen and yet we are allowing the politically correct to destroy us from the inside out.

Back to my wife’s school: not just a significant portion, but an overwhelming majority of her students have been raised to believe that society owes them a living. They have minimal core skills at best, meaning they can barely read or write and math beyond the basic 2+2=4 is, quite frankly, beyond their grasp. The sanctity of ownership to them means they haven’t stolen it yet. But the greatest tragedy is that the society that has created this sad scenario seems to believe that this state of affairs is not only right but proper.

Believe it or not, there is a logical reason for that.

Class or the lack thereof is a long existing plank of the Democrat party. Those who rely on the creation of the nanny state also relied on the creation of a generation of societal victims. Without those victims they have no livelihood, career or power. If victimhood were to be replaced with self-reliance where would the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons find folk stupid enough to donate to their bank accounts? Where would the ACLU find plaintiffs for $600 an hour class action suits? The ability to control the debate is everything. It is clearly obvious that what we are experiencing now is not mere circumstance. Our current state of affairs, including the enemy of our nation presently occupying the White House, is the result of a very well thought-out and contrived plan to destroy the United States as a sovereign nation. And the plan is working.

The diversity myth is best illustrated by a common elementary physics example: pick up a single thin twig and break it. This is done easily. Now add a dozen to that twig and attempt the same action. Unless you are incredibly strong, the breaking cannot be accomplished. It is the same with this country. We are supposed to be an amalgam of diverse states and peoples acting as a whole. Undermanned and under-armed we won World War Two, defeating an axis that had us at what was supposed to be a distinct advantage on several fronts. After World War Two the thinking in our country’s administration changed and we have yet to win a war since, and that includes Iraq. If our military is not only battling those shooting at them but Congress and the media as well…you can see the end result, we either lose or the conflict never ends. It is the same where our society and class warfare is concerned, without decisive action, without allowing a winner and a loser we slowly spin downward into the commode.

So what is the solution? If you are a liberal, you get to experience a lot of pain and frustration. If you are a NeoCon you do so as well, but for different reasons. If you are a real American you crack your knuckles and get to work. Everything that is today considered an undeclared addition to the bill of rights needs to be deposited into the trash bin of history. Shame needs to be brought back and given its proper place in society. The phrase, “If you do not work, you do not eat” needs to become law rather than a forgotten parable. A lawsuit brought when no actual harm has occurred should bring a term of unpaid community service to the lawyer accepting it. Illiteracy, unless mental defect is the cause, should simply not be allowed. The death sentence needs to come back for an entire host of crimes, regardless of the mental state of the criminal and the opinion of the media. And last, but not least, US taxpayer money should be spent for the benefit of US taxpayers, not for the benefit of some tin pot dictator who will never support us regardless of how many billions we waste on his worthless country. Do I sound a bit harsh? Damn right.

Obviously this argument requires the depth of a book to fully explore, but I think you will grasp the general message. In order for this country to survive we need to act and react in ways that will not only dismay our enemies, both foreign and domestic, but offend them as well…even if we are no longer invited to the cool parties.