NEA Agenda
Posted here for 9-6-10

The National Education Association held its annual convention June 26th to July 6th in New Orleans this year. The organization adopted as it's Legislative Program a list of major NEA objectives. You'd think they'd focus on improving schools, making classes more effective, helping the kids.

No, you'd be wrong. Here's a sampling of what the NEA considers its prerogative to lobby for and seek legislation for:

Federal funding for the education of illegal aliens.
Federal programs to teach schoolchildren about different sexual orientations.
Affirmative action to redress historic patterns of discrimination.
Statehood for the District of Columbia.
A tax-supported, single-payer health care plan for all residents of the U.S., its territories, and Puerto Rice.
Opposition to designating English as the official language of the United States.
Opposition to the use of voter ID cards for voting in local, state, and national elections.
Opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure, or salary increases.
(Source: "The NEA's Latest Shenanigans," by Phyllis Schlafly, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, August 2010, pages 1, 4.)

And this is just a sampling. Also passed were many pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, and anti-parent resolutions.

You'd almost think the NEA was an arm of the Democrat party. After all, 95 percent of the organization's political contributions go to Democrat candidates or to promote leftist ballot initiatives!

Although teachers must pay hundreds of dollars in annual dues, they have no control whatsoever over NEA's political advocacy or endorsement of candidates.

In 28 states, teachers risk losing their jobs if they refuse to join a teachers' union. In some cases, teachers are forced to pay dues even if they don't join a union.

Phyllis Schlafly says, "The NEA's leftwing bias is also obvious in its resolution calling for public school curricula to include multiculturalism, globalism, environmentalism, diversity, AIDS, sexual orientation, self-esteem, racism, school-to-work, immigration, gun control, suicide, peace, and the United Nations. And the NEA is also seeking funding for programs for children 'from birth through age eight.'"

As the leader of the Nazi Teacher's League, Hans Schemm, put it: "Those who have the youth on their side control the future." The NEA isn't interested in education. It's interested in control.

Fibs, Lies, and Vast Deceptions
Posted here for 8-23-10

There are different kinds of falsehoods. Some are merely a slip of the lips. These "lies" are understandable -- everybody misspeaks every now and then -- and they are certainly excusable.

Some falsehoods are blatant lies. For example: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (Bill Clinton) It was a strong statement -- absolutely untrue -- spoken directly to the American people. The intent was to totally deceive us, to convince us Bill Clinton was an honorable man.

But some falsehoods seem to be part of a person's basic nature. They flow out effortlessly, probably unconsciously, like water over Niagara. They emerge in spite of the fact the truth holds no ill consequences whatsoever.

Hillary Clinton: "I certainly do remember that [1996] trip to Bosnia [. . .] I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

There was no sniper fire, at least none nearby. There was no running, heads down, to the vehicles. The false statements just rolled of Ms. Clinton's tongue. Making a point was apparently far more important than simply telling the truth.

Hillary Clinton again: "[W]hen I was born, [my mother] called me 'Hillary,' and she always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary."

Actually, we don't know if Hillary or her mother perpetrated this lie. In 1947, when Ms. Clinton was born, Sir Edmund was an unknown beekeeper.

Barack Obama: "My father served in World War II . . ."

Amazing! Obama's father was 5 years old when WW 2 began, and not even 10 when it ended. (Obama's step father was 6 years old when the war started, 10 when it ended.)

Al Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Al Gore was not even in Congress in 1969 when ARPANET, predecessor to the Internet, began, or even in 1974 when the term Internet first came into use. (Source.)

Al Gore again:“I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic [petroleum] reserve since the days when it was first established."

President Gerald Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act December 22, 1975 -- two years before Al Gore became a congressman. (Source.)

These people are dangerous. If they spew lies about the most inconsequential of matters, imagine their deception in matters of significance. Uncontrollable liers are people to avoid. They should never be entrusted with positions of power.

Yet that is just what we have done.

Thoughts, Ideas, Words
Posted here for 8-9-10

Thoughts, ideas, and words have consequences. Some have caused untold misery, death, and horror. Here are a few examples.

Idea	Principal Perpetrator	Immediate Effect	Long-Term Effect
Evolution	Charles Darwin with his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.	Darwin's theory of evolution set in motion two inevitable effects. First, it was "proof" for atheists, that there is no God. God didn't create man; evolution created him and the human being is of no greater value than an ant, rat, or rattle snake. ("A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." -- Ingrid Newkirk.) Second, it justified and validated eugenics. Darwin's theory asserted that the evolutionary process is natural and unavoidable. Thus, man is enabled to "improve" races and cull undesirables. It's all natural and unavoidable, don't you know. (More.) (Also.)	"The consequences of accepting Darwinian theory have been profound. [. . .] It is no coincidence that Karl Marx, the father of communism, out of gratitude to Darwin, sent him Das Kapital, his principal book on communism. 'Although developed in the crude English fashion,' Marx wrote [. . .], 'this [Darwin's Origin of Species] is the book which in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views.'" (Source.)
The Spotted Owl Is Endangered	Environmentalists	In 1986, an environmentalist group petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the owl as an "endangered species," because its habitat was on the "decline." In June 1990, the northern spotted owl was declared a threatened species.	"As a result of the hysteria to save the 'endangered' owls, U.S. timber sales were reduced by 80 to 90 percent, forcing saw mills to close, loggers to go broke, and the literal disappearance of entire towns that depended on the industry." (Source.) This was a terrible price to pay to "save" the spotted Owl, but some would say it was worth it to save such the creature. Now the bad news: the spotted owl was never endangered in the first place. The primary threat to northern spotted owls was competition with barred owls. Owl habitat had absolutely nothing to do with decreased owl numbers.
Pesticides are Bad	Rachel Carson, with her 1962 book, Silent Spring.	First synthesized in 1874, DDT, though a safe and proven chemical to combat malaria, was declared dangerous in 1972 by William Ruckelshaus, the EPA administrator. Soon, nations around the world were following suit and DDT was abandoned.	"In the 1950s, roughly 800,000 people were dying from malaria in India. After DDT, the number approached zero. Sri Lanka in 1948 had approximately 2.8 million cases of malaria and 7,300 deaths. With DDT, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths by 1963. [. . .] The National Academy of Sciences in 1970 stated “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable." (Source.) Just imagine the deaths, mostly in Africa, that occurred because use of DDT was stopped. Millions? Tens of millions? The toll is of such a magnitude, one wonders if killing off blacks was the behind-the-scenes motivation for DDT stoppage. Rachel Was Wrong. More.
Global Warming	Al Gore, with his 2006 "documentary" film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which millions of students have been forced to see, often numerous times.	The global warming hoax was seized upon by politicians to justify radical governmental action intent on redistributing wealth and ramping up governmental power.	Cap and trade legislation -- a direct result of the global warming scare -- is expected to raise the cost of annual spending by $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050. An Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon of gasoline by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050. (Source.) My guess is all the estimates are low.
Sexual Perversion	Alfred Kinsey, with his two books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).	Kinsey was considered a "scientist," and thus his "observations" were considered valid, in spite of common sense. Decades after Kensey's books were published, we discover his findings were not scientific, his observations were biased, his work was a product of perversion. (More.)	"Kinsey’s portrayal of 1950's America as a land rife with perversion served to loosen her people’s sexual mores, and provided a justification for anyone and everyone to act upon his deepest, darkest, basest desires. After all, if everyone else is doing it, it must be normal. So, why should I take great pains to suppress the behavior in myself? However, Kinsey’s influence reached well beyond the long-term social effect of attitudinal change and extended to the immediate effect of governmental policy change. [. . .] A study of law review articles that were published between 1982 and 2000 found over 650 citations to Alfred Kinsey. What this means is that part of the blame for the kid gloves treatment that criminals so long received and the consequent rise in crime can be laid squarely at Kinsey’s doorstep." (Source.)
Marxism	Karl Marx, with his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto,	At the heart of Marxism is the idea of egalitarianism. If you buy into the idea that everyone should be receiving equal outcomes in life, then you buy into the idea of Marxism. It means no one is at the bottom of the ladder, and of course it means no one is at the top. The pursuit of excellence is stifled. Innovation is halted. Success is discouraged. The objective of society becomes achieving what amounts to the least common denominator. According to The Communist Manifesto, communism has ten essential planks: abolition of private property, heavy progressive income tax, abolition of rights of inheritance, confiscation of property rights, central bank, government ownership of communication and transportation, government ownership of factories and agriculture, government control of labor, corporate farms and regional planning, and government control of education. (Source.)	What's frightening is how much "progress" has been made in reaching those "ten essential planks." What's also frightening is the utter misery communism has created. The communist body count now totals close to 150,000,000 human beings! (Source.) What's even more frightening is the fact that many folks around the world still yearn for communism. ("I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists" -- Jane Fonda.) There's concern that the present occupant of the White House shares Jane's view.

It's sort of interesting, don't you think, that all these thoughts, ideas, and words originated with leftists. All of the tragedy, death, and destruction were instigated by leftist ideology.

Learning the Rules
Posted here for 7-26-10

Let me see if I correctly understand today's rules.

If I disagree with the policies of George Bush, I'm not racist, but if I disagree with the policies of Barack Obama, I am racist.
If I am sympathetic with and supportive of the tea party movement, I'm racist (so says the NAACP), but KKK member Robert Byrd wasn't racist.
Members of the NAACP aren't racist, but if I wanted to start an NAAWP organization, I would be racist.
If I disapprove of Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, I'm racist, but if I disapprove of Clarence Thomas, I'm not racist.
It's okay to call FOX News racist (Sarah Silverman: "The entire Fox News Channel is a 24-hour-a-day racism engine, but it’s all coded, all implied" -- Source.), but it's not okay to call Sarah Silverman racist.
When the DOJ refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidated voters at a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008, that wasn't racist, but criticizing the Black Panthers for such intimidation is racist. (Related.)
Poking fun at blacks is racist. Poking fun at whites, particularly white males, is not racist -- it's all the rage.
When the White House demanded the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, no racism was involved, but when FOX News criticized her for her racist comments, that was racist.
It's racist if anyone inquires about Barack Obama's birth certificate and place of birth, but it was not at all racist when Congress conducted extensive hearings on the subject of whether John McCain is a natural-born citizen.
Taking pride with one's whiteness is racist, while taking pride with one's blackness is not racist.
It's racist to mention that while the incarceration rate for white men in mid-2007 was 773 per 100,000, the rate for black men was 4,618 per 100,000. (Source). But it's not racist for Orlando Magic center Rony Seikley to say, "If 80% of the league is black, that means that black players are better than white players . . . the black players are superior. No doubt." (Source).
If I don't want illegal immigrants in the U.S., I'm racist, and if I want immigrants in this country who are not diseased, not criminal, not uneducated, not willing to speak English, and not willing to embrace America and its traditions, then I'm also racist.
If any white man in the public eye utters the "N" word, then all hell breaks loose. But where was the fuss about the inflammatory rhetoric of Khallid Abdul Muhammad after he gave his "Kill the White Man" speech in 1996? (Also: Kamau Kambon.) (Also: Black Panthers.)
If I don't believe there's much racism in American, I'm racist, but if I believe Islam poses a real threat to this country, I'm crazy.

Do I have all the rules right?

Everything is so complicated nowadays.

What's the Purpose of the Federal Government?
Posted here for 7-12-10

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution gives us the answer: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty . . ." All governmental actions, therefore, should be undertaken to serve one or more of these objectives. Any other actions are contrary to what our founders intended. (Remember the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

Now let's talk about environmental laws and regulations. Are they consistent with the purpose of the federal government? No, clearly, they are not. They don't help the union, further justice, aid tranquility, assist in our defense, promote welfare, or contribute in any way to our liberty. So, why are environmental laws on the books?

A case could be made that such laws reflect a deep-seated concern over the care, protection, and safeguarding of our environment for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of future generations.

But, I think a stronger case could be made that these laws enable politicians with their own political "visions" (often at odds with our Founders' views) to exert much greater latitude in their legislative indulgences. If they don't want you to build somewhere, they can find a bug or beetle there that is "endangered," and prevent you from building. If they don't like an industry -- like the timber industry -- they can make up a story about spotted owls and the critters' need for habitat. If they wish to restrict your use of oil and its derivatives, they can claim drilling will harm the elk in Alaska, the tundra, or something else. Anything else.

If they don't think it's fair for the U.S. to be so successful and "rich," they can proclaim Americans are polluting the atmosphere with automobile CO2. They can frighten everyone with the idea the entire globe is heating up, and then enact draconian laws and regulations. Like cap and trade. Even though we now know the global warming story is sheer fabrication, lawmakers are busy right now using the hoax to institute massive constraints on our use of energy.

Will cap and trade help the union, further justice, aid tranquility, assist in our defense, promote welfare, or contribute to our liberty? No. This legislation will reduce our standard of living, jeopardize our nation's security, disrupt tranquility, and greatly curtail our liberties.

Cap and trade is an idea that postulates CO2 is bad (it is not; after all, you produce CO2 every time you breath out), it allows government to arbitrarily set CO2 production limits (a very socialistic idea), it brazenly empowers government to prosecute companies that exceed government limits (imagine the fraud possibilities), and it massively increases governmental power (at the expense of your and my freedom).

While I'm sure many folks around the country endorse environmentalism for purely altruistic reasons, I'm cynical enough to believe the major driving force behind the environmental movement is the blind drive for power and control. With environmentalists in charge, live in the United States will become ever more difficult.

The Looming Recession
Posted here for 6-21-10

Barack Obama says the U.S. economy is improving. "We're . . . moving in the right direction," he says. "This economy is getting stronger by the day," he assures us. Do you believe him?

Or do you believe contrary voices, such as Art Laffer's, who speaks quite convincingly to the contrary? Laffer explains, "In anticipation of known tax increases [the expiration of the Bush tax cuts January 1, 2011], the economy will shift income and output from 2011 -- the higher tax year -- into 2010 -- the lower tax year. As a result of this income shift, 2010 will look a lot better than it should, and 2011 will be a train wreck."

Stanford economist John Cogan agrees: "We are presently in a dangerously risky economic environment, more risky than any in memory and that includes the 1970s."

Laffer adds: "[T]he prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe 'double dip' recession."

YourDictionary.com describes the effects of recession:

Your personal finances will be the most effected during a recession. These effects will be felt not only in the increased amount of money needed to buy everyday items, but also as a drop in the value of your savings and real property. Retirement funds in the form of stocks will show a decrease in value as the prices of the stock market falls, reflecting the decline in GDP. Real property such as homes and land will also show a decrease in value. Both of these decreases can decrease personal net worth virtually overnight by a wide percentage, depending on how severe the drop is. Probably one of the most frightening effects of a recession is the rise in unemployment. As companies reduce their workforce by layoffs and dismissals, many workers find themselves in dire financial straits without the funds required to care for their basic needs and those of their families. Unemployment payments are only a fraction of the wages that they were earning and severe cuts are required to try to meet their financial commitments.

I have to agree with Glenn Beck and his analysis: The future looks rather bleak. And I ought to add that the Obama administration is taking all the wrong actions regarding the economy. History tells us government interference and increased spending exacerbate rather than calm recessionary effects.

An Economic Storm Is Approaching. The Great Recession of 2011-2012.

War Effort
Posted here for 6-7-10

I'm old enough to remember what life was like during World War II. We had our victory garden planted with corn, tomatoes, radishes, squash, beans, and other vegetables. I remember the ball of aluminum foil we kept adding to "for the war effort." Mom kept a jar of fat drippings in the refrigerator "for the war effort." Meat was rationed (the doctor said low meat intake caused my anemia), and we could only get meat as the stamps we were issued allowed. We had gas stamps as well, which limited our car travel. All sorts of commodities were rationed. Like most other kids, I saved my pennies to buy war bonds.

The war effort was all consuming. My parents would read the morning and evening newspapers to get the latest war information. My grandfather had a map he used to track troop movements, battles, advances, and retreats. Everyone seemed to know the stakes. Everyone rallied together; America was united in the struggle against Nazism, then later, against Japan.

We have not been so united since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. All were wars citizens felt disconnected from. These conflicts could be observed from afar and they could be supported or not, like a sports team. There was no sense of life-or-death consequences for the folks at home, no sense of desperation, no unifying sense of patriotism.

Now we're engaged in a struggle against radical Islam. The outcome is just as serious as the stakes in World War II -- our freedom -- yet there are those who pay it no heed. According to Alan Colmes, for example, "There's no such thing as radical Islam." And Attorney General Eric Holder is reluctant to even say the words ("radical Islam" -- see YouTube video).

It's not as though Islamic adventures have never been inspired by world conquest. Some 1300 years ago, "radical Islamic fundamentalism burst upon the world, spreading in just a few decades across most of the Middle East and North Africa and threatening the very existence of the West." (Source.)

The twenty-first century Islamic threat is real. It's serious. It's life and death. It's underway.

Through a concerted, committed, united effort, the U.S. won World War II. It seems clear to me that without a concerted, committed, united effort, the U.S. has no chance of winning the war against radical Islam.

Messing with Markets
Posted here for 5-24-10

Story 1. Sixty or more years ago my godparents gave me a French Model 1866 "Chassepot" Yataghan sword bayonet. I don't know where they got it, and I certainly don't know why they thought I'd want it, but it has been stored away in my closest for more than six decades.

Recently I had an inspiration. Since I was going to Las Vegas, I thought I'd take the bayonet to the Gold and Silver Pawn Shop and see what I could get for it. In addition, I thought there was a slim chance -- very slim change -- I'd be on the Pawn Stars TV show.

Rick, Corey, and Chumlee weren't in the store, but the Old Man was -- sitting behind his desk looking at this computer screen. The guy behind the counter asked me what I wanted for the bayonet. I said some websites had it priced at $199, but I thought a fair price would be maybe $100.

There was a hurried conference between the counter guy and the Old Man, then the verdict: forty bucks. I said how about fifty. The answer: forty!

Forty bucks is better than having the bayonet gathering dust in my closet, so the deal was closed.

But it wasn't quite as lucrative as it might appear. It cost me $40 just to send the bayonet to Las Vegas. Another $8 to have it delivered to my hotel room. And $19 for the taxi to the pawn shop. (I walked back to the hotel.)

Story 2. My air conditioning unit failed during the first week in May (just after I got back from Vegas). A small leak in the outside condenser unit let all the freon escape. The repair man said repair was not possible, the unit would have to be replaced. Well, the thing was ten years old; replacement made sense.

The air handler in the attic was replaced six years ago, and it was still in good shape, so no action was required there.

Except for one thing. The government. It seems since 2004 the government, in its passion to pander to environmentalist extremist demands, mandated the end of freon in air conditioning units from sea to shining sea. Recently manufactured condensers are designed to accommodate a refrigerant called R32, which is completely incompatible with units designed for freon. A new R32 condenser has now been installed in my back yard, and since it won't work with freon air handlers, my perfectly good air handler was replaced with an R32-compatible unit. The extra cost -- thank you, government -- about $2000!

Story 1 is a great example of capitalism. A buyer makes an offer to buy at a price he's willing to pay. The seller accepts (or rejects) the offer and the transaction is consummated or cancelled. Both parties are satisfied with the outcome.

Story 2 is a great example of a free market run afoul with governmental interference. A powerful, effective, efficient product -- freon -- has been banned and replaced with a more expensive, more temperamental, and perhaps totally unnecessary (environmentally speaking) product, resulting in significant costs to consumers, inconvenience, and a general disruption of the free market. Just what you'd expect from Washington, DC.

Susceptible Citizens
Posted here for 5-10-10

I was surprised to see crayon marks on the paper bags I got at a Publics supermarket recently. The bagger told me the "artwork" was to celebrate "Earth Day" (April 22nd). Apparently grade school kids had submitted drawings, which were printed on the bags.

The sentiment was consistent: "Save the Earth." "Earth Day 2010." "Protect the Earth." "I love the Earth."

Just look at the propaganda going on in the government schools. All the impressionable little tykes are indoctrinated to "save the earth." They're told the earth needs saving. If they and everyone else don't work hard, the earth will die, along with everybody on it. Imagine the passion stirred up with such brain washing.

The kids buy into this deception -- they're given no alternative -- and they are thereby enlisted in the army of susceptible citizens. They're programmed with a trigger: if something is said to help the earth in any way, they're for it. After all, we have to do everything we can to "save the earth."

So when Al Gore comes a calling with his global-warming hoax, the army of susceptible citizens automatically signs on. When we're told we shouldn't drill for oil here, there, or anywhere, the army takes the bait. When recycle plans are announced, the army is ready to do its part, whether or not it makes any economic sense. When laws are passed limiting toilet water consumption, banning incandescent lights, and so on, the army in unison salutes.

Barack Obama is not satisfied, however, with susceptible citizens. He wants a dedicated, committed army of "Yes" men. Well, actually, "Yes" students. Phyllis Schlafly described the new band of Obama supporters in a recent article.

Some might recall that another leader many years ago wished to organize a similar youth force. Some might recall that effort resulted in a group called the Hitler Youth.

It was Hitler's wish, as it is Obama's, to enlist impressionable young men and women and turn them into impassioned ideologues to do their leader's bidding. Hitler's Youth coincided with a catastrophically tragic period of German history. I wonder how the Obama Youth movement will turn out.

[The drawing above right is from the Myriad Worlds of Chris Roberson website. The drawing at left is from the ThinkGreen97 website.]

RIP: The Rule of Law
Posted here for 4-26-10

It's really rather curious. Liberals seem to like to refer to our form of government as a democracy, because they like the idea of having their way by means of a simple majority.

Our founders, on the other hand, viewed a democracy with disdain, with fear, with loathing. Listen to what they said:

Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

John Adams: "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few."

[More quotations.]

A republic is a government based on the rule of law, as set out in our Constitution. In a democratic republic, governmental power is restricted -- curtailed -- in accordance with Constitutional dictates. Or at least that's the way it should be.

Look what liberals did to pass healthcare. Even a simple majority of votes could not be found to pass the legislation, so Ms. Peolosi and company resorted to trickery and clever procedural maneuvers. The House approved the Senate version of the bill indirectly, while voting on the package of changes. Representatives "deemed" the Senate bill passed, without showing which members would actually have voted in favor of passage. [Source.] What a shameful display of arrogance and contempt for the rule of law.

So, while liberals applaud the process of a simple majority to enact legislation, they'll subvert that, too, if necessary, to get what they want, even though a plurality of the general public was and is against it. In a March 4-7 Gallup poll, 48% were against the bill; 45% were for it. In a March 26-28 Gallup poll, 50% opposed; 47% supported the legislation. In a March 29-April 1 CBS News poll, 53% disapproved; only 35% approved.

Our liberal congress uses subterfuge to enact legislation. Our Supreme Court uses foreign laws for rulings to circumvent the Constitution (Reference 1. Reference 2.). The Obama administration routinely ignores legal boundaries and provisions (Reference).

When the rule of law is abandoned, our form of government is abandoned as well. We no longer have a democratic republic based on Constitutional law. We have a oligarchy, and its members will ram down our throats whatever they please.

I suspect that immigration reform (amnesty for illegals) and cap and trade (government control of all industry) will be coming our way very soon. Whether we the people want them or not.

More Government -- Less Freedom
Posted here for 4-12-10

Can this be true? Would the U.S. government do such a thing to its citizens? Could such legislation be passed without people rising up in mass protest?

Here's what is said to be included in H.R. 2425, the Cap and Trade Bill, which has already been passed by the House of Representatives:

Beginning one year after the bill's enactment, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards specified in the bill.

In effect, the bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you'll have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. The government will tell you what your energy efficiency requirement is, and you'll be forced to make modifications to your home under the bill's retrofit provisions, so your property will comply with new energy and water efficiency requirements.

After you've made the required modifications, your home will have to be measured again and a license must be posted on your property to show your efficiency rating. If you don't get a high enough rating, you won't be able to sell.

The EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the bill. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. The bill itself contains annual increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.

If this bill becomes law, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four, as a result of this bill, will be $6,800 per year.

This legislation is a direct attack on our freedom. It's a usurpation of our rights to private property. It's a massive infringement by the federal government of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Surely, Americans won't tolerate such a violent move to socialism.

But, I thought they wouldn't tolerate a takeover of the auto industry, a takeover of the banking industry, a takeover of the college finance industry, and a takeover of our healthcare. When will we reach the tipping point?

Government Inefficiencies and Delays
Posted here for 3-29-10

I got a notice in my mailbox saying a package was waiting for me at the post office. I drove there Monday to retrieve it. Because of the rain, I thought maybe I'd find a short waiting line. That theory was quickly disproved. The line stretched the entire length of the service area and out the door!

Just two postal clerks were on duty. (Usually there are about four.) Someone said a third clerk had called in sick during the morning and a replacement had been summoned.

When I was about halfway through the line, another postal person appeared. The manager, I assumed. He asked each of us how he could help. I thought he might retrieve my package for me, but no, he was displaying courtesy, but not providing much actual help.

As expected, I had to show identification when I got to the counter. The clerk scurried off to the back room, then returned with my box. I had given her the notice I received. I had showed her my driver's license. But that wasn't enough. I had to sign my name on a little computer tablet. (The device was defective; my signature looked like I was drunk!) Then I had to print my name. (That looked like I was drunk, too.) Then print it again!

Could I then get my package? No. I had to print my full address on the little tablet. That would be the address that was already on the package; yes, the same address that was on the notice I had received.

It must have taken a half to three-quarters of an hour to retrieve one single package at the post office.

Just imagine what healthcare will soon be like.

Looking Ahead
Posted here for 3-22-10

I'm not an economics expert, nor do I play one on TV, but I've taken enough economics courses to realize that great discontinuities in economic parameters do not herald oncoming good times.

The chart (source) shows that in the last year or so, the money supply has taken an impressive leap for the heavens. That's not a good thing. As Arthur Laffer says (here), "We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s." So the big question is not "if," but "when" the hard times will hit in ernest.

I posed that question to my financial advisor, who told me he believes bad times will kick in probably next year. How bad?

John Reizner says: "We are now monetizing debt in a manner similar to what led to the great inflation of the 1970's. The difference is that at that time we were the largest creditor nation on earth. Now we are the world's largest debtor. The well has run dry. We may be in for tough times ahead . . ."

Governor Jim Douglas says: "The worst probably is yet to come."

John Palmer, dean emeritus of the Syracuse University Maxwell School, says: "[F]uture economic prosperity is at grave risk if our nation does not change its fiscal course."

James Quinn says: "With the economy sinking back into recession, the official unemployment rate will exceed 11 percent by late 2010. The true non-government manipulated figure will approach the Great Depression levels of 25 percent."

Mort Kondracke says: "The federal government is piling up debt at an alarming rate -- it was at 40 percent of GDP in 2008, 53 percent this year and is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to rise to 87 percent in 2020, 181 percent in 2035 and 320 percent in 2050. Under those circumstances, paying interest on the debt will be such a burden that there will be little money remaining for investment in infrastructure, education or research and development."

Liam Halligan says: "America hasn't yet recovered and it won't anytime soon."

Richard Daughty says: "[S]ince 2008 [. . .] the unbelievably preposterous Ben Bernanke and his loathsome Federal Reserve doubled the money supply at a stroke! [. . .] This [. . .] is the worst thing that could happen for those of us whose fear of hyperinflation, which is guaranteed after a hyperinflation in the money supply, makes us buy gold, silver and oil. [. . .] But the point is that the Federal Reserve is going to kill us with inflation in prices as a result of their relentless inflation in creation of money and credit as a result of the federal government deficit-spending so incredibly much money, and you should get some gold, silver and oil right away!"

A lot of voices are predicting gloom and doom in our future. It would be prudent to listen to what they have to say.

More gloom and doom: The Total Collapse of the Global Economy (video). The Inevitable Collapse of the Dollar (video). Celente Predicts Revolution, Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012 (video). Prediction for Collapse and One World Government (video). The Dollar Bubble (video). Fall of the Republic (video).

Questions
Posted here for 3-15-10

Why are liberals embarrassed with America's power, success, energy usage, and dominance on the world's stage? Why do they make apologies for these achievements? (Reference.)

Why are liberals dedicated to "saving the planet," when the planet doesn't need saving? While America is the most ecologically aware and proactive country in the world, liberals cast aspersions on it, yet they give a pass to other countries that pay no head whatsoever to ecological issues. Why do liberals sometimes favor the environment over humanity? (Reference. Reference.)

Why are liberals so paranoid about saving each and every living critter and growing thing? They are the ones committed to the idea of evolution, but they won't allow the idea of "survival of the fittest" to apply, if it means some snail darter or bug somewhere will die out. (Reference.)

Why are liberals intent on making environmentalism the "central organizing principle" of government, even at the expense of economics, common sense, and freedom? (Reference.)

Why are liberals determined to establish socialized medicine in this country? Why do they praise the health-care systems of Europe and Canada and even Cuba, when those systems are clearly inferior to health care in the U.S.? (Reference. Reference.)

Why do liberals embrace socialism, when it has failed each and every time it has been tried? (Reference. Reference.)

Why do liberals preach gun control? If you wish to invade someone's house and take something, would you choose a house protected by a gun owner or a house with no protection? What is it about self protection that liberals don't understand? (Reference. Reference.)

Why do liberals choose to disregard the U.S. Constitution? Why do they wish to believe the Constitution is a "living document," when, by so doing they destroy the principles upon which our country was founded? (Reference.)

We have reached a fork in the road. As a country and as a people we must now make a decision. Will we choose the liberal course for America, or the course for which our Founders fought and died? Will we choose big government control of our lives, or will we demand freedom? In the next few elections we will make our decision known.

That is, assuming of course all our votes are counted properly.

What Are the People Thinking?
Posted here for 3-8-10

If you want to find out what people are thinking -- what they're worried about, what they're happy about -- there's probably no better way than to ask . . . barbers! All sorts of people come into their shops, sit down, and start talking about what's on their minds. We shouldn't be asking those who take opinion polls, we should be asking barbers.

With that idea, several weeks ago I prepared a very short "survey" for barbers in the shop I frequent. Three barbers answered my questions.


How much of the time (approximately) are your customers talking about:

Sports Politics Personal matters Weather Other

Barber 1 10% 30% 30% 10% 20%

Barber 2 30% 10% 30% 20% 10%

Barber 3 40% 40% 5% 10% 5%

Average 27% 27% 22% 13% 12%

What percent of your customers do you think are:

Liberal Conservative Don't know

Barber 1 50% 50% 0%

Barber 2 50% 40% 10%

Barber 3 40% 60% 0%

Average 47% 50% 3%

How satisfied do you think your customers are with Obama:

Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

Barber 1 0% 50% 50% 0% 0%

Barber 2 10% 10% 20% 20% 40%

Barber 3 30% 10% 5% 10% 45%

Average 13% 23% 25% 10% 28%

Comments heard about Obama: 1- "Some good, some bad." 2- "He's spending revenue where he shouldn't." 3- "We are all going to have higher taxes to cover his ideas of a better America." 4- "He's an idiot who has no idea what he's doing." 5- "Our country is going down with his help." 6- "He's inept." 7- "He's over his head." 8- "He's an idealist." 9- "He's a genius." 10- "He's the greatest president."

Individual barber comments: 1- "The world isn't in the best shape that it could be." 2- "He inherited a lot of national debt, but don't make it worse by giving it to other countries. Charity starts at home (here in the USA)!" 3- "Obama has a socialist agenda." 4- "He's a poor leader." 5- "He's a one-term president."

Obviously, this is not a representative sample of American thinking, but I think it's interesting nevertheless.

Global Warming Al
Posted here for 2-22-10

Whatever is to become of Al Gore? He staked his honor, reputation, and "good" name on the idea that human-produced CO2 is heating up the planet and will soon cause catastrophic results. He made bold, amazing statements:

"Some of the [computer earth-temperature] models suggest [. . .] there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." (Source.)
"The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger." (Source.)
"[T]he interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees [. . . .]" (Source.)
"[The polar bear's] habitat is melting -- beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet. They’re in trouble, got nowhere else to go." (Source.)
"[With global warming, if nothing changes in 50 years,] sea-level increases of 20 feet or more [will occur] worldwide. Of course, Florida and Louisiana and Texas are particularly vulnerable. The San Francisco Bay area, Manila. And we have seen the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis [like Hurricane Katrina]. Imagine 100 million or 200 million [refugees]." (Source.)
"If we continue at the present rate [of man-made greenhouse gas production], virtually all species of fish in the ocean will be extinct in the next 50 years." (Source.)
"Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." (Source.)
"I think that those people [who don't agree with Global Warming Al] are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off." (Source.)
"None of them [the emails that demonstrated scientists misrepresented and destroyed temperature data and discredited those with contrary views] change the scientific consensus in any way." (Source.)

Anyone who has been paying attention knows these statements, and countless others he has made, are blatantly false. Yet the former vice president continues with his charade.

Should we laugh at him? Ignore him? Tar and feather him? Or just make every effort to forget about him?

With his lies and deception, however, he has caused great unrest, massive wasted expenditures, and great policy disasters worldwide. There should be some consequence for Mr. Al resulting from such treachery.

Obama: What Has He Done Right?
Posted here for 2-15-10

We're now more than a year into the "Hope and Change" era. Remember the promises, the anticipation, the excitement, the high expectations? Well, reality has a way of dashing false hopes and reigning in wild enthusiasm.

I poked around on the Internet and found a variety of graphics that throw cold water on all the "hope and change" hysteria.

(Source.) (Source.) (Source.) (Source.)

(Source.) (Source.) (Source.)

(Source.) (Source.) (Source.) (Source.)

Waves of Death
Posted here for 2-1-10

When we hear mention of Hitler's gas chambers, we wince at the astounding statistic that six million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust. How could a human being be so callous, so ruthless, so evil? But of course Hitler killed far in excess of six million Jews. He also exterminated ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and countless other political and religious opponents. It's hard to conceive that he and his cohorts murdered as many as 17 million human beings!

While Adolf seems to be the poster boy for atrocities, there were other far-worse assassins. Joseph Stalin murdered some 23 million innocent people. Mao Zedong snuffed out the lives of between 49 and 78 million souls.

Yet Chairman Mao is loved by some on the left. Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, said he was "one of the two people that I turn to most." Obama's White House Christmas tree was decorated with an ornament adorned with the face of Mao. You can even buy Mao shorts!

Event	Estimated Deaths	Period	Location	Deaths/Year
Black Plague	75-100 millioin	1347-1350	Europe	25-33
Abortion	50 million	1973 to 2010	United States	1.4
Mao Zedong Regime	49-78 million	1949-1969	China and Tibet	2.5-3.9
World War II	40-72 million	1939-1945	Worldwide	6.7-12
Cancer	38 million	2005-2009	Worldwide	9.5
An Shi Rebellion	33-66 million	756-763	China	4.7-9.4
Mongol Conquests	30-100 million	1207-1472	Asia, Eastern Europe, Middle East	0.1-0.4
Qing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty	25 million	1616-1662	China	0.5
Malaria	23 million	1985-2010	Africa	0.9
Taiping Rebellion	22 million	1851-1864	China	1.7
Joseph Stalin Regime	20-30 million	1932-1939	USSR and Ukraine	2.9-4.3
World War I	15-25 million	1914-1918	Worldwide	3.8-6.3
Adolf Hitler Regime	12-17 million	1939-1945	Germany	2-2.8
Conquests of Timur	7-20 million	1369-1405	Central Asia, India, Middle East, Russia	0.2-0.6

Notice, however that while Mao killed 49 to 78 million, the practice that was initiated, implemented, and enshrined by the left -- abortion -- has now killed more than 50 million Americans. Fifty million Americans! Future scientists, artists, statesmen, doctors, teachers, lawyers, athletes, scholars, . . ., vast numbers of individuals of great accomplishment have all been denied life outside the womb. This procedure denies what the Declaration of Independence proclaims is every human being's unalienable rights: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Abortion in the United States from 1973 to the present has killed close to three times as many human beings as Adolf Hitler sent to the gas chambers. We look with horror at Hitler's atrocities, yet millions of U.S citizens simply ignore the evil of abortion.

Sources: "List of Wars and Disasters by Death Toll." "Worst Genocides of the 20th Century." "Cancer Killed Almost 8 Million Worldwide in 2007." "Black Death." "Abortion in the United States: Statistics and Trends." "The Holocaust." "Why Obama's Lieutenants Love Mao." "Obama’s Christmas Tree Graced by Chairman Mao, Transvestite." "Africa's Malaria Death Toll Still 'Outrageously High'."

Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America
Posted here for 1-25-10

What are we to think of all those who Barack Obama has selected for key jobs in his administration?

Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein: In 2008 he wrote, "The state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." His support of animal rights includes discussing a ban on hunting, and granting animals standing to sue humans. He also said Americans should celebrate paying taxes, since the money isn't fully theirs, but earned in part through the protection of the government. (Whistleblower.)
Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Self-described as a radical communist and a "rowdy black nationalist," he said he believed environmental activism actually means to fight for racial and class "justice." Jones stepped down from his job when public pressure mounted over his extremist background, including his self description as a communist and his expletive-packed rant attacking Republicans in the U.S. Senate as "a-holes." (Whistleblower.)
Science and Technology Czar John Holdren: He's a champion of global warming and a protege of Paul Ehrlich. In 1986 he said global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. (Newsmax.) He has argued the U.S. Constitution would permit compulsory bitch control methods, including involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children permitted to be born as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being." (Whistleblower.)
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd: Lloyd called Hugo Chavez's takeover of Venezuela "an incredible revolution, a Democratic revolution." He supports a fee or tax on commercial broadcasters that would go to support public broadcasters such as NPR. (Newsmax.) He specifically instructs liberal activists to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to public broadcasting. Lloyd praised communist dictator Hugo Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform. (Whistleblower.)
Global-Warming Czar Carol Browner: She served on the board of John Podesta's far-left Center for American Progress and the Alliance for Climate Protections organization founded by Al Gore. Socialist International, which advocates "global governance" listed Browner as one of the leaders of its Commission for a Sustainable World Society. (Newsmax.)
Safe-Schools Czar Kevin Jennings: He founded the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (Newsmax.) In a 2000 GLSEN-sponsored event, adult homosexual activists were caught in an ACORN-style sting teaching children as young as 13 the horrific practice of "fisting." Jennings' response? He defended the event and even filed suit in an attempt to coverup the scandal. An anti-Christian bigot, he once said of Christians, "F--k 'em! . . . . Drop Dead!" (Whistleblower.)
De facto Health-Care Czar Ezekiel Emanuel: He thinks America needs to ration health care, favoring those who can fully participate in society. He wrote, "covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is nor guaranteeing health serves to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason." Emanuel concedes his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination . . . . Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." (Whistleblower.)
White House Communications Czar Anita Dunn: She revealed in a speech that Mao Tse-tung was one of her two favorite "political philosophers" to whom "I turn to most" for answers to important questions. (The Phyllis Schlafly Report.)
Infotech/Information Czar Vivek Kundra: A week after he was appointed, federal agents raided his former D.C. Technology Department, seeking evidence of fraud and bribes involving other employees. (Newsmax.)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Czar Chai R. Feldblum: In 2006 she signed a manifesto endorsing polygamous households. (The Phyllis Schlafly Report.)
Auto-Recovery Czar Ed Montgomery: He has absolutely no experience in the auto industry. (Whistleblower.)
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske: He is a strong advocate of gun control. (Whistleblower.)
AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley: He's an open homosexual. (Whistleblower.)
Political Affairs Czar Patrick Gaspard. He has been described as "ACORN's man in the White House." (Whistleblower.)

Of course there are dozens more czars in the Obama administration. Each is working passionately on Obama's agenda to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor noted, "By appointing a virtual army of 'czars' -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress, yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions."

Keep in mind it was Barack Obama who said, "The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." (Whistleblower.)

Sources: Newsmax, December 2009, pages 52-68. The Phyllis Schlafly Report, December 2009, pages 1-2. WhistleBlower, November 2009, pages 6-10, 14-22.

Exercising and Escalating Centralized Power
Posted here for 1-18-10

It has been political practice for ages: the party in power gives perks to party loyalists. Contracts are awarded to companies that give the most to the winning party's coffers. States with governors of the same party as the president are favored in the distribution of federal funds. Stimulus dollars go to those faithful to the party, not to those opposed. Passing out perks in this way is a long-standing practice.

But Obama seems to have taken the practice to a new level. Numerous reports (here are a couple: 1. 2. 3.) suggest that when he nationalized the automobile industry, many dealership owners who voted Republican were put out of business, while those who voted Democrat went unscathed. This is high corruption. But of course this is an administration with deep Chicago roots. And this is an administration that is worshipped by the mainstream media, so the general public doesn't hear much about the scandal.

It seems General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is betting his company on perks to be handed out by the federal government. Immelt had established a warm, NBC-and-MSNBC-and-CNBC-will-love-you-and-praise-you-forever campaign, in hopes GE will become a Cap-and-Trade legislation beneficiary. This could mean literally billions of dollars of profit for GE! And it looks like this strategy is working.

Then there's SEIU and Acorn, which, in true Chicago style, appear to be the community organizing dirty-work doers and thugs of the Obama administration. They're the ones who beat up people (video) and conduct voter fraud all over the country.

We are now about to witness a big push in Congress to get all the illegal aliens in the country signed up as citizens . . . and of course signed up as Democrats. There are perhaps 20 million of them. So, if Obama is successful at rounding up 20 million new-citizen votes, he and his Democrat buddies will have a lock on power for decades.

As healthcare legislation becomes law and morphs into a government-run health monopoly (that's what Obama wants), health services will become more and more scarce. Do you suppose our president would have the gall to allocate those services based on political affiliation? If a Democrat and a Republican need a heart transplant, but only one heart is available to be transplanted, will the Democrat be the lucky one -- just like the auto dealers?

If this is what happens, then voters will very quickly realize that for their own good health, they need to register and vote Democrat, and perhaps contribute liberally to Democrat candidates. And the Democrat Party will forever after be in power. And the America envisioned by this country's founders will be no more.

Misanthropes
Posted here for 1-11-10

Population control and population reduction are ideas very much in vogue these days, in certain quarters. Some quotations will prove the point. (These are from my new book, I Can't Believe You Said That.)

"In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." -- Jacques Cousteau, in an interview published in the UNESCO Courier, November 1991.

"Eradicating smallpox was wrong. [Smallpox] played an important part in balancing ecosystems." -- John Davis, editor of Wild Earth and the Earth First Journal.

"We need compulsory birth regulation . . . [through] the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food." -- Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies and biology at Stamford University, and author of The Population Bomb.

"AIDS is not a malediction, but the welcome and natural remedy to reduce the population of the planet. [. . .] Should human beings disappear, I surely wouldn't mind." -- David Foreman, co-founder of the radical environmental movement Earth First!, and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, as quoted in European newspapers, June 1987.

"If you give [the idea of a world with no people] a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of earth-dwellling species. [. . .] Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." -- David Foreman, in an article titled "Voluntary Human Extinction," in the Wild Earth magazine.

"Cut the population by 90%, and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage." -- Sam Keen, author, professor, philosopher, and for 20 years a contributing editor at Psychology Today magazine.

"[My] chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem." -- Alexander King, pioneer of the sustainable development movement.

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, writing in a foreword to If I Were an Animal.

"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion." -- Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and active in the environmental movement and animal rights movement, in his article, "The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know It on Planet Earth? There Is a Biocentric Solution."

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world overpopulation problem." -- LaMont Cole, Yale University environmentalist.

It appears these misanthropes have something in common: they tend to be environmentalists and they tend to be liberals.

Just imagine what would happen if folks like these were laced throughout government; writing laws, setting policy, implementing their vision of society. Just imagine what would happen if folks like there were in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, or the Senate. Or the White House.

More and More Government
Posted here for 1-4-10

A month ago or so I finished reading The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Mark W. Smith. Very interesting. Several stats caught my attention:

"Federal financial aid for college students jumped from $19 billion in 1990 to $63 billion in 2000." [During that time the percent of college students who graduated from baccalaureate institutions within five years of initial enrollment dropped from 54.9% to 51.2%." Source.]
"America's tort system imposes a staggering annual cost of $865 billion on the U.S. economy. That is equivalent to an annual 'tort tax' of $9,827 for a family of four. Lawsuits cause companies to shed $684 billion annually in shareholder value, while cutbacks in research and development stemming from litigation expenses cost them over $367 billion in lost sales every year. [. . .] Liability costs now account for over 90 percent of the price of childhood vaccines, resulting in a drop in the number of children being vaccinated by an estimated 1 million."
"Since 2000, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4 percent -- meaning the average family in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit."
"Under a 1992 federal law, toilets installed in American homes must be limited to 1.6 gallons per flush; shower heads must limit water usage to 2.5 gallons per minute."
"The Small Business Administration estimates that small businesses have to pay $5,000 for each employee every year just to keep up with the niggling rules and mountains of paperwork that the government requires."
"The American Medical Association declared that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists insists that there are no circumstances in which partial-birth abortion would be the only procedure that could save a woman's life or health." [Thus, though partial-birth abortion is clearly murder, it remains legal, in spite of the Declaration of Independence's assertion that life is an unalienable right.]
Some of the countless nonsense laws in the U.S.

-- In Belton, Missouri, it is against the law to throw a snowball.
-- In Oregon and New Jersey, it is illegal to pump your own gas.
-- In Kern County, California, it is against the law to play bingo while drunk.
-- In Illinois, it is illegal to hunt bullfrogs with a firearm.
-- In Massachusetts, it is against the law to deface a milk carton.
-- In Fairfax, Virginia, the use of pogo sticks is illegal on city buses.
-- In Palm Harbor, Florida, it is against the law to have an artificial lawn.

The book was written in 2008, one year BOE (before the Obama Era), and things have gotten a lot worse since. It looks like there's but one antidote to the life-threatening disease our country is being subjected to right now. And that's conservatism: lower taxes, less government interference, strong national defense, individual responsibility, family values, and especially . . . freedom!.