Wake Up Call: E-mail to Soledad O'Brien

Perhaps you have seen the interview Rep. Alan West gave Soledad O'Brien of CNN regarding his communist allegations.  Those who know Ms. O'Brien are well familiar with her committed progressive views.  As such, the interview went predictably, with Soledad trying hopelessly to mock Rep. West:



As I had written in an American Thinker piece last year, the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) was originally set up as a front group for socialists and communists who get elected as Democrats.  They have been extremely successful in infiltrating the Democrat Party.  It is over these types of shenanigans that likes of Georgia senator Zell Miller, author of A National Party No More, to quit politics several years ago.  But, apparently, Ms. O'Brien is not aware of what is going on in Democrat Party politics that she is so entangled with.  So, I decided to write to her:

Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM

To: Soledad.OBrien@cnn.com

Mrs. O'Brien:

in your interview with Rep. Alan West, you asked how did he know that CPC memebers were tied to the CPUSA. I believe I can provide that answer for you.
In 2010, at the CPUSA 29th national convention, the leaders of the party disclosed clearly that "When members do run for office, it is within the auspices of the Democratic Party." Here is the appropriate, first hand, link:
http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-a-time-to-grow/

I am sure, in the name of fairness, you will be hurrying to report this to the public since you, in a thinly veiled fashion, condescendingly ridiculed Rep. West.
On second thought, maybe not since your standards of reporting are different depending on the side that is being pilloried.
Best regards,

--
I'll let you know if I recieve a reply but I doubt it.  You see, progressives are like so many cockroaches.  When you shine the light on them, they scatter out of sight.  I did not mean to insult cockroaches, but that is the way it is.

Is It Too Late to Save The Constitutional Republic?

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has some alarming news.  It appears that more the American public finds out about the Tea Party, more they dislike it. 

The immediate question that comes to mind is “what is to dislike about smaller, more responsible central government that is guided by our founding principals”?  I am afraid the answer to that question is one many of us constitutional conservatives do not want to face. 

The only possible reasons for the poll results to show that the prominent movement to re-establish constitutional government is becoming increasingly unpopular are:

      1)      The poll results are skewed on purpose in an election year attempt by partisan hacks to affect the results in their favor;

      2)      Reaction to the in-fighting that has taken over the Tea Party movement between factions that want to stay above politics and those who want the movement to be more activist in nature; and

      3)      Reflection of societal transformation as a result of another three years of policies to promote ever increasing government dependence.

I am afraid the answer may not be as comforting as the first two possibilities.

Benjamin Franklin astutely observed “Once the people find out they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic”.  Thus goes the history of the greatest, most successful Constitutional Republic the world has witnessed. 

Actually, Franklin was only off in his prediction by about a century in that we did not start our journey down the slippery slope of socialism until the turn of the 20^th century – the period known as the Progressive Era.  History of progressive largesse can be traced back to that great Republican – Theodore Roosevelt – who in the grand Northeastern Republican fashion believed in government action to mitigate social ills at any cost as encapsulated in his Square Deal program, and the courts to yield to the executive branch on anti-trust matters. 

T.R. was the father of American progressivism but by no means is the only personification of the great progressive tradition that has come to undermine our Constitutional Republic to what now is a perilous point.  With the exceptions of Presidents Coolidge and, to a lesser extent, Reagan, all American presidents in the modern era have carried the water of progressivism, with the worst offenders being Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and the current resident of the White House.

Whether it was the New Deal, the War on Poverty, or many other ill-advised pieces of legislation passed by progressives from both parties, the great American experiment in self governance may have finally bore its bitter fruit in conformance with human nature which seeks security at any cost.  The ultimate cost of dependence on the state, in terms of losing one’s liberties, is lost on all but the few who have had the benefit of developing critical thinking skills, which our educational system has purposefully neglected thanks to the systematic implementation of cultural Marxism in schools since the 1950s.   Progressive politicians realize and capitalize on this fact with policies that increase dependency on the state, thus robbing any trace of individuality left in an ever increasing segment of the society.  All the while, progressives elsewhere – most notably in education, culture, and courts – have been steadily eroding the traditional value system of the society which must be gradually replaced with a modern, utilitarian progressive outlook if the transformation to utopian collectivism is to be successfully implemented.

This utopian collectivist vision of what America should look like is all but reality in the eyes of the fifth column.  The question is, have we really reached that critical tipping point where welfare mentality is more prevalent than rugged individualism?  Maybe, maybe not.  One thing is for sure though.  Constitutional conservatives have to come to the sobering realization that reversing this destructive trend toward the ever present state in our lives will take great dedication and patience; the type progressives have shown for over a century now.  If not to Franklin and our other founding fathers, we certainly owe it to our children. 

The Greatest Obituary Ever Written

The following obituary is from Denver Post.
Mike, I did not know you but you surely were one hell of a guy.  A life fully lived, indeed.  Rest In Peace.

Michael "Flathead" Blanchard


1944 ~ 2012

A Celebration of the life of Michael "Flathead" Blanchard will be held on April 14th, 3 pm 8160 Rosemary St, Commerce City. Weary of reading obituaries noting someone's courageous battle with death, Mike wanted it known that he died as a result of being stubborn, refusing to follow doctors' orders and raising hell for more than six decades. He enjoyed booze, guns, cars and younger women until the day he died.

Mike was born July 1944 in Colorado to Clyde and Ethel Blanchard. A community activist, he is noted for saving the Dr. Justina Ford house from demolition and defending those who could not defend themselves. He was a Republican delegate, life member of the NRA, founder and President of the Dead Cats MC. He loved music.

Mike was preceded in death by Clyde and Ethel Blanchard, survived by his beloved sons Mike and Chopper, former wife Jane Transue, brother Stephen Blanchard (Susan), Uncle Don and Aunt Cynthia Blanchard(his favorite); Uncle Dill and Aunt Dot, cousins and nephews, Baba Yaga can kiss his butt. So many of his childhood friends that weren't killed in Vietnam went on to become criminals, prostitutes and/or Democrats. He asks that you stop by and re-tell the stories he can no longer tell. As the Celebration will contain Adult material we respectfully ask that no children under 18 attend.

Indoctrination at FCPS Continues

Less than three weeks ago, I wrote about the middle school teacher at our (Fairfax County) local school system who took it upon himself to instruct his students to do opposition research on Republican presidential candidates and send their findings along with any suggestions to the Obama campaign.  I also included the text of the e-mail exchange I had with the school system, in which they predictably denied any sinister, obviously political, motivations.

In the three short weeks since then, we have had two other incidences.
First involves an elementary school teacher who said to her students that Republicans are "stupid" and that they "do not care about anyone but themselves".  The teacher also told her students that she voted for Obama, and Democrats did a lot more for education (undoubtedly meaning for the Teachers' unions) than evil Republicans. 
As expected, the school system responded to the parent complaints as they did to mine as I outlined in my earlier post!

Then on Friday, I recieved the weekly communique from my daughter's middle school principal.  The second paragraph reads:

President Obama Responds: Ms. Donohues students wrote to President Obama as part of a class project, and he sent back a signed letter that read in part: “Americas potential can be measured by the creative ideas and inquisitive minds of our students. Your eagerness to explore the world around you and engage others in discussing important issues will help you improve the future your generation will inherit.”

I couldn't help wonder what the critical issues these 13 year olds are supposedly engaging others in discussion with.  My daughter does not have Ms. Donohue as a teacher, thank God.  Well, with the help of my daughter's friends at the school, I confirmed my initial suspicion: the important issue communicated to the president at the urging of their teacher was man made global warming. 

So, the indoctrination goes on unabated.

Reich Gets It About Higher Ed Ideals

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes, and even a broken clock is right twice a day!

I recently read an article by the prominent pseudo economist, Robert Reich, on student loans being the next bubble waiting to burst.  At about a trillion dollars, outstanding student loans are not necessarily huge (compared to mortgages or credit card debt for example) but the impact of widespread defaults would nevertheless be felt throughout the economy.  Reich concludes that college is not right for everyone.  He is right, as amazing as that is!

For decades now, progressive elitists have been encouraging college as a must if one has lofty caeer/financial goals.  As such, the government has made it easy, in fact enticing to some, to attend college.  The soaring demand for colleges has naturally caused tuition inflation that more than holds itself against rising healthcare, housing, and energy costs.  It is simple supply-demand relationship where increased demand and a relatively steady supply of the providers have resulted in tuition inflation. 



At the same time, the quality of education received at these colleges has arguably declined as more and more students are crammed in to classes.  So, now the problem is not only socialist/Marxist sympathizing professors continuing the brainwashing of public schools, but thoroughly unprepared students being crammed in to classes like cans of sardines where they learn nothing substantive. And how could they? 

Almost all people are born with the ability to critically analyze issues, but this ability remains dormant unless the mind is unleashed by proper training during formative years.  In the classical sense, education is a three stage process. There is a learning stage (called the grammar stage) when children are thought how to learn. Then, there is the logic stage when we are supposed to learn cause and affect relationships (how things relate in a logical framework). Finally, in the rhetoric stage, we sharpen our eloquence in conveying ideas. The shortcoming of many modern day school systems is that they do not effectively go past stage one – quite on purpose for those who have read my articles on cultural Marxism.  Had they done this, we would not be reading about studies that show that substantial portions of college students enter college sorely uninformed and graduate not much better off.

In contrast to the U.S., countries like Germany place great emphasis on technical vocational schools.  Not everyone is meant to become a scientist or an economist due to a variety of reasons.  These reasons can be intellectual in nature or as simple as lacking genuine interest in such fields.  After all, a society has just as legitimate needs for plumbers, electricians, and mechanics as it does for scientists or engineers.  Besides, what is better: getting a degree in art history at a cost of $200,000 and end up driving a truck or working as a retail clerk, or getting vocational training in, say, plumbing and making $30-$40 per hour (or more if one is enterprising in nature)?

Student loans are also a symptom of bigger problems:

1. The US spends twice as much per student as any other industrialized nation.
2. There are 1.2 support personnel for every teacher in the US
3. Support personnel account for 70% of discretionary education expenditures
4. 50% of degree plans have no value added component in the free market

Spending more money simply raises the cost further. It was Laffer who pointed out that no matter how much money is spent on a government entity that is not held accountable on a cost/benefit construct will always spend more than resources applied warrant.

Education is top heavy with people who have political agendas that are irrelevant to educating students. Billions of dollars is wasted on these positions to promote such that have no economic or social value.

It is abhorrent that student loans are granted for the self actualization degrees that have no economic value such as art history. If you want to "find" yourself, fine. Just don't stick us with the tab for your search for your inner self... and end up unemployable.

America At The Crossroads

Last week, the SCOTUS listened to three days of arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Based on the stunning incompetency displayed by the Solicitor General as well as the pointed questions posed not only by the conservative justices but some of the progressive ones, it looks pretty promising that the Court will strike at least the individual mandate down, if not the whole legislation. 

If parts of this legislation survive, that would be disastrous in my opinion. 

This is an unworkable legislation because it was meant to be.  How do we know this?  Simple.  The U.S. healthcare is burdened by an inefficient third party payor system, which is further disadvantaged by anti competitive regulations and a run away litigous legal environment frought with abuse.  Any body of responsible legislators would have taken the above problems one by one and fix them by injecting free market based solutions like opening the HC market to competition, undertaking serious tort reform (which in itself would cut about 15% off existing costs), and encouraging the use of MSAs.

This body of legislators, however, did nothing at all to open the insurance market to interstate competition, institute any resemblence of tort reform, or facilitate use of MSAs (in fact Obamacare effectively does away with catastrophic care policies that allows consumers to pay for minor stuff out of pocket).  Instead, the government is poised to decide what is "approved" coverage under HR3590.

In other words, Obamacare is doomed to fail as it stands today, but it is even more destructive without the individual mandate.  If the Justices decide to let congress fix the individual mandate portion of the law without striking all of it down, do not expect the Obama Administration to write off the remaining portions of what happens to be the crown achievement of any socialist at heart.  In fact, I do believe that this would be a gift to the collectivist Democrat ideologues in that it would hasten the demise of the healthcare system as it exists, facilitating the passage to full blown socialized health care.

I am, therefore, tampering my optimism with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially since the SCOTUS has a history of taking decisions that are true head scratchers. 

Some view this as an argument for health care, but the correct argument is liberty vs. totalitarianism. Plato stated the best ruler would be the Philosopher King but concluded we would never have one based on human nature so you had to watch out for strong central government. Good King today, bad King tomorrow: it does not matter so much if you have controls on the King in the first place. The Federal Government has become the King and most Americans today have become the serfs - at least in spirit.  May god give wisdom to the nine Justices who are faced with making the most critical determination in the Court's recent history.