I am so shocked and disgusted with the Democrats and the American people that I am speechless. (Obviously since I've posted only once this month.) I've been trying to decide who is to blame and I've decided that the American education system, the NEA and most teachers in the US are to blame. They have been so interested in their so-called "low pay status" that they have neglected to teach children the necessity to doubt the American press and the necessity to research important issues for themselves. They have also neglected to teach students that the opinions they hold in youth will not necessarily be theirs as they age. Most important they haven't taught American students to think for themselves.
If they had, we wouldn't be confronted with an electorate that is so easily swayed by political lies. Voters would look, for example, at the events leading up to the war in Iraq and turn a deaf ear to Democrats who twist the truth.
They would look at statements made by court nominees and ask what they think now. Most important, they would object loudly and clearly to being taken for the dunces that Democrats, some Republicans and the Mainstream Media obviously take them for.
I have been angry. Very angry. So angry I can't write.
Thursday, November 17
Friday, November 4
The Poll at ABC News
It's time we refused to accept publication of a poll without simultaneous publication of how many were polled, their location and, in political polls, their political affiliation. We should also be told exactly what questions were asked. Only when we have at least that much knowledge can we determine the authenticity -- and authority -- of the results.
Wednesday night ABC Nightly News headlined a poll they claim says the American people no longer trust President Bush. The media has been telling us not to trust him in one way or another since he was elected, but tonight ABC decided to "authenticate" that conclusion with a "scientific poll." What they neglected to say is they polled 934 people. And 24% of the people polled were Republicans, 76% were Democrats. No independents. They neglected to say where those people lived, how old they are and just what questions were asked.
I guess all of us have participated in polls where the pollster asked a question and if they didn't get the answer they wanted, they immediately terminated the poll. I've had that happen both on telephone inquiries and when participating in online polls. I've also been asked qualifying questions at the beginning such as "Do you support freedom of choice?"
Let's hold the mainstream media's "feet to the fire" when they issue these polls.
Wednesday night ABC Nightly News headlined a poll they claim says the American people no longer trust President Bush. The media has been telling us not to trust him in one way or another since he was elected, but tonight ABC decided to "authenticate" that conclusion with a "scientific poll." What they neglected to say is they polled 934 people. And 24% of the people polled were Republicans, 76% were Democrats. No independents. They neglected to say where those people lived, how old they are and just what questions were asked.
I guess all of us have participated in polls where the pollster asked a question and if they didn't get the answer they wanted, they immediately terminated the poll. I've had that happen both on telephone inquiries and when participating in online polls. I've also been asked qualifying questions at the beginning such as "Do you support freedom of choice?"
Let's hold the mainstream media's "feet to the fire" when they issue these polls.
Tuesday, November 1
Out of Iraq? Not If We Want A Free America
In 1970 the American military was whipping the bejeebers out of North Vietnam. Battle after battle was won by US troops. But that wasn't the way the war was portrayed by the media to the nation. Progressive/socialists led anti-war protests and people like John Kerry falsely accused the troops of horrible war crimes. And then Congress got into the act.
The United States didn't lose the Viet Nam war. They pulled out because Congress refused to fund it.
So here we go again.
The Democrats (Progressives/Socialists) are threatening to vote against funding the Iraq war. Socialists like Jonathan Schell, writing for The Nation, say "The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the United States, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgment of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end, of an argument.
"To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something on offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The United States should supply it. Perhaps--it's hard to find out--they also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker or a C-5A. It is a homegrown construct, which must flow from the will of the people involved. The expression of that will is, in fact, what democracy is.
But today the United States seeks to impose a government on Iraq in the teeth of an increasingly powerful popular opposition." That is one of the most irresponsible statements ever published in American journalism.
Schell is ignoring a rather important fact, and that is that the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves in spite of the threat of death and mayhem to vote for that government. It's hardly accurate, also, to say the government is imposed by the US when it is being fabricated by Iraqi leaders of the various religious factions in the country. The Iraqi people voted in numbers far exceeding the usual turnout in US elections. And when they stood in those lines, they had no idea whether a truck would pull up beside them and explode. Would YOU go to the polls under those circumstances?
One of Schell's big complaints is the usual one about getting into the war in the first place. He (and those who scream loudest about our invading Iraq) has not read the Butler Report -- the review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Schell has also forgotten the history of Hussein's defiance of UN sanctions for the decade leading up to the war. Most of all, he refuses to acknowledge that there were connections firmly established linking Hussein to Al Quaida.
Progressives believe -- and operate on the belief -- that Goebbels was right when he said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. So now we face a growing cacaphony of anti-war protests. From a mother who dishonors the memory of a son who chose to fight and die for his country to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who calls for troops to begin to leave next month, the irresponsible and the feckless are doing all they can to make Iraq as much like Viet Nam as they can.
There's no similarity between the two. The South Vietnamese never had a chance for a free vote. When the Americans left, the North Vietnamese came in and slaughtered them. To this day they know only dictatorship and fear.
My Pentagon sources tell me that Rumsfeld is as poor a Secretary of Defense as we have ever had. He is worse than McNamara. His ego is far too large to allow him to listen to and take the advice he needs. He has done a truly lousy job as Secretary of Defense and should be ousted as fast as possible. When the fog has cleared, history will show him for what he is and has been: The worst possible.
Still our troops are safer in Bagdad than they are on the nation's highways. They are the best trained and, for the most part, the most loyal troops in the nation's history. They believe in their mission -- as my grandson said, "We are not killers. We are nation builders."
America is the only nation in history that rebuilds the nations it defeats in war. Germany, Japan, Italy are all examples of prosperous countries that we helped to rebuild after we had to defeat them. They govern themselves with free elections and without our "help." Socialist/Progressives who sneer at "American Colonialism" simply perpetuate another lie.
The United States was right to invade Iraq. We should be thankful that the Iraqi people are willing to die for their freedom and that we have raised young men and women who are willing to sacrifice so that another nation has a chance at what we have.
Schell writes: "Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Muslim group represented on the so-called Governing Council, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, 'The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed.'
Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake--costing more lives, American and Iraqi, disorganizing and pulverizing the society, and reducing, not fostering, any chances for a better future for the country." And he is dead wrong. We must stay not only to benefit the Iraqis but to plant a free society in the midst of Islam. If Iraq reverts to another dictatorship the terrorists regain their training camps and America loses far more than a war.
We must NOT allow Congress to cut the necessary funding to get the job done, and done right.
The United States didn't lose the Viet Nam war. They pulled out because Congress refused to fund it.
So here we go again.
The Democrats (Progressives/Socialists) are threatening to vote against funding the Iraq war. Socialists like Jonathan Schell, writing for The Nation, say "The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the United States, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgment of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end, of an argument.
"To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something on offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The United States should supply it. Perhaps--it's hard to find out--they also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker or a C-5A. It is a homegrown construct, which must flow from the will of the people involved. The expression of that will is, in fact, what democracy is.
But today the United States seeks to impose a government on Iraq in the teeth of an increasingly powerful popular opposition." That is one of the most irresponsible statements ever published in American journalism.
Schell is ignoring a rather important fact, and that is that the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves in spite of the threat of death and mayhem to vote for that government. It's hardly accurate, also, to say the government is imposed by the US when it is being fabricated by Iraqi leaders of the various religious factions in the country. The Iraqi people voted in numbers far exceeding the usual turnout in US elections. And when they stood in those lines, they had no idea whether a truck would pull up beside them and explode. Would YOU go to the polls under those circumstances?
One of Schell's big complaints is the usual one about getting into the war in the first place. He (and those who scream loudest about our invading Iraq) has not read the Butler Report -- the review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Schell has also forgotten the history of Hussein's defiance of UN sanctions for the decade leading up to the war. Most of all, he refuses to acknowledge that there were connections firmly established linking Hussein to Al Quaida.
Progressives believe -- and operate on the belief -- that Goebbels was right when he said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. So now we face a growing cacaphony of anti-war protests. From a mother who dishonors the memory of a son who chose to fight and die for his country to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who calls for troops to begin to leave next month, the irresponsible and the feckless are doing all they can to make Iraq as much like Viet Nam as they can.
There's no similarity between the two. The South Vietnamese never had a chance for a free vote. When the Americans left, the North Vietnamese came in and slaughtered them. To this day they know only dictatorship and fear.
My Pentagon sources tell me that Rumsfeld is as poor a Secretary of Defense as we have ever had. He is worse than McNamara. His ego is far too large to allow him to listen to and take the advice he needs. He has done a truly lousy job as Secretary of Defense and should be ousted as fast as possible. When the fog has cleared, history will show him for what he is and has been: The worst possible.
Still our troops are safer in Bagdad than they are on the nation's highways. They are the best trained and, for the most part, the most loyal troops in the nation's history. They believe in their mission -- as my grandson said, "We are not killers. We are nation builders."
America is the only nation in history that rebuilds the nations it defeats in war. Germany, Japan, Italy are all examples of prosperous countries that we helped to rebuild after we had to defeat them. They govern themselves with free elections and without our "help." Socialist/Progressives who sneer at "American Colonialism" simply perpetuate another lie.
The United States was right to invade Iraq. We should be thankful that the Iraqi people are willing to die for their freedom and that we have raised young men and women who are willing to sacrifice so that another nation has a chance at what we have.
Schell writes: "Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Muslim group represented on the so-called Governing Council, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, 'The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed.'
Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake--costing more lives, American and Iraqi, disorganizing and pulverizing the society, and reducing, not fostering, any chances for a better future for the country." And he is dead wrong. We must stay not only to benefit the Iraqis but to plant a free society in the midst of Islam. If Iraq reverts to another dictatorship the terrorists regain their training camps and America loses far more than a war.
We must NOT allow Congress to cut the necessary funding to get the job done, and done right.
Wednesday, October 26
Commander in Chief: Bad TV, Worse for Woman President
You know me -- I LOVE political movies and television. So I guess it was inevitable that I, in a fit of curiosity, would turn in to see "Commander In Chief" again. The announcement that ABC had hired Sandy (oops-I-inadvertently-hid-secret-National-Archives-documents-in-my-pants-and-lost-them-when-I-got-home) Berger as an advisor cast a ray of hope, so I tried again.
I suppose it's too early to see a change because last night's episode was worse than the first one. And I would have bet that wasn't possible!
So let's look at some of the more blatant errors of their ways:
First: the Attorney General deals with an international incident that definitely should have been on the level of Secretary of Defense. She locks horns with the President on the issue of prisoner abuse and she uses semantics to put one over on the Pres. Any mother of a third grader would have recognized the semantic manipulation but it goes right over the head of the President.
Second: The President's teen-aged son gets involved in a schoolyard brawl without a secret service man in sight.
Third: The President spends a lot of time standing in a portico of the White House waving goodbye or in the residence dealing with childrens' problems.
Fourth: The use of deux ex machina: The Crisis-of-the-Day is quite conveniently wrapped up by the end of the episode. It was so predictable that it was downright sickening.
Fifth: Characters are black and white. The Attorney General disagrees with the President and manipulates her. The President fires the AG but not because she recognizes the manipulation but because the result was achieved by means she didn't like. A complicated issue (prisoner abuse) was addressed on one level only. That issue has many levels that need to be addressed.
Sixth: The Speaker of the House is the obvious week-to-week villain of the piece and is utterly transparent in his opposition. The President keeps giving him wide-eyed, uncomprehending looks.
Seventh: The dialogue is straight out of soap operaville. One thing that distinguishes the West Wing from all other television is the use of rapid-fire comebacks and double-sided discussions of issues. The dialogue style is straight out of old 1930s and 1940s movies and an absolute delight. It keeps watchers coming back to re-runs to pick up subtleties they might have missed in earlier viewings.
Eighth: White House staffers are obviously second- and third- string players. There's no particular respect paid to the President (the Chief of Staff never says "Thank you, Madam President," for example) and President MacKensie comes off like a cardboard figure playing a role. Which, of course, she is.
Ninth: No sense of reality to the show. It's entertainment and the viewer doesn't get involved like in the West Wing.
Tenth: The portrayal of the First Man is downright sickening. He doesn't tell his wife he has been offered the position of Baseball Commissioner. Why? Is he afraid she'll say no? What kind of man is that? What kind of woman is that?
Eleventh: There's no explanation of who is handling the First Lady's traditional jobs -- speeches, charities, entertaining, campaigning, appearances as representative of the US government, etc.
Twelfth: Funny the only time they mention a previous President or family, it's a Democrat. Republicans have been in that office more than twice the time since FDR's day.
Thirteenth: The set of the Oval Office and the hallways are straight out of the West Wing, including paintings on the wall. Couldn't ABC afford their own set?
Fourteenth: The characters aren't distinctive and defined. There's little interplay between them and no sense of respect for history like we get from the West Wing. One thing the West Wing does is portray the sense of awe and respect most Americans feel for the office of the President. You don't get that from CIC.
Face it, ABC. CIC is a BAD show -- the writers don't have the intellect, the researchers don't have the skill and the actors don't have the sensitivity to pull off a good, thought-provoking television program.
You may get TV "critics" pandering to Hillary and the network trying to convince the public the show is worth their time but it isn't. Even replacing Geena Davis with someone with more intellectual credibility like Allison Janney wouldn't fix it. Commander in Chief is a real loser.
It portrays everyone's nightmare of having a woman President: half-hearted interest and limited understanding in foreign affairs, emotional administration, even a family gone amuk because of confusion about parental roles. This show does more harm than good when it comes to promoting the idea of a woman President.
The professional "critics" may love it (but hey, look what else they love!) but I believe the American people have the intellect, the respect for the office and the concern for the country to see "Commander in Chief" for the fourth rate sham that it is.
I suppose it's too early to see a change because last night's episode was worse than the first one. And I would have bet that wasn't possible!
So let's look at some of the more blatant errors of their ways:
First: the Attorney General deals with an international incident that definitely should have been on the level of Secretary of Defense. She locks horns with the President on the issue of prisoner abuse and she uses semantics to put one over on the Pres. Any mother of a third grader would have recognized the semantic manipulation but it goes right over the head of the President.
Second: The President's teen-aged son gets involved in a schoolyard brawl without a secret service man in sight.
Third: The President spends a lot of time standing in a portico of the White House waving goodbye or in the residence dealing with childrens' problems.
Fourth: The use of deux ex machina: The Crisis-of-the-Day is quite conveniently wrapped up by the end of the episode. It was so predictable that it was downright sickening.
Fifth: Characters are black and white. The Attorney General disagrees with the President and manipulates her. The President fires the AG but not because she recognizes the manipulation but because the result was achieved by means she didn't like. A complicated issue (prisoner abuse) was addressed on one level only. That issue has many levels that need to be addressed.
Sixth: The Speaker of the House is the obvious week-to-week villain of the piece and is utterly transparent in his opposition. The President keeps giving him wide-eyed, uncomprehending looks.
Seventh: The dialogue is straight out of soap operaville. One thing that distinguishes the West Wing from all other television is the use of rapid-fire comebacks and double-sided discussions of issues. The dialogue style is straight out of old 1930s and 1940s movies and an absolute delight. It keeps watchers coming back to re-runs to pick up subtleties they might have missed in earlier viewings.
Eighth: White House staffers are obviously second- and third- string players. There's no particular respect paid to the President (the Chief of Staff never says "Thank you, Madam President," for example) and President MacKensie comes off like a cardboard figure playing a role. Which, of course, she is.
Ninth: No sense of reality to the show. It's entertainment and the viewer doesn't get involved like in the West Wing.
Tenth: The portrayal of the First Man is downright sickening. He doesn't tell his wife he has been offered the position of Baseball Commissioner. Why? Is he afraid she'll say no? What kind of man is that? What kind of woman is that?
Eleventh: There's no explanation of who is handling the First Lady's traditional jobs -- speeches, charities, entertaining, campaigning, appearances as representative of the US government, etc.
Twelfth: Funny the only time they mention a previous President or family, it's a Democrat. Republicans have been in that office more than twice the time since FDR's day.
Thirteenth: The set of the Oval Office and the hallways are straight out of the West Wing, including paintings on the wall. Couldn't ABC afford their own set?
Fourteenth: The characters aren't distinctive and defined. There's little interplay between them and no sense of respect for history like we get from the West Wing. One thing the West Wing does is portray the sense of awe and respect most Americans feel for the office of the President. You don't get that from CIC.
Face it, ABC. CIC is a BAD show -- the writers don't have the intellect, the researchers don't have the skill and the actors don't have the sensitivity to pull off a good, thought-provoking television program.
You may get TV "critics" pandering to Hillary and the network trying to convince the public the show is worth their time but it isn't. Even replacing Geena Davis with someone with more intellectual credibility like Allison Janney wouldn't fix it. Commander in Chief is a real loser.
It portrays everyone's nightmare of having a woman President: half-hearted interest and limited understanding in foreign affairs, emotional administration, even a family gone amuk because of confusion about parental roles. This show does more harm than good when it comes to promoting the idea of a woman President.
The professional "critics" may love it (but hey, look what else they love!) but I believe the American people have the intellect, the respect for the office and the concern for the country to see "Commander in Chief" for the fourth rate sham that it is.
Friday, October 21
Rights and Academia
Last March when Ann Coulter spoke at the University of Kansas, she was heckled and cursed by some of the students in the audience. So I wasn't surprised to see that Dr. David Horowitz had a security guard with him when he appeared at the University of Missouri in Kansas City this month. It's a sad commentary on our times to realize that the man standing quietly to the side, facing the audience, is there to protect the speaker's right to free speech. This is, after all, America.
But times have changed in America. David Horowitz, author, speaker, former- liberal-turned-conservative, is the head of a national organization that is working for students' rights in university classrooms.
His organization is "Students For Academic Freedom" and its purpose is "dedicated to restoring acdemic freedom and educational values to America's institutions of higher learning." Its goals are: "1. To promote intellectual diversity on campuses. 2. To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious beliefs. 3. To promote fairness, civility and inclusion in student affairs. 4. To secure the adoption of the 'Academic Bill of Rights' as official university policy."
The problem Gary Sarrett describes in his blog titled "College Professors: Making Debate Obsolete One Student At A Time!" at GOP Insight is much too common for the good of healthy discourse in this country. Conservative students in colleges all over the country, from the Ivy League to State Universities to Community Colleges find that most of their professors are leftists in their political views (which is fine) and that those professors actively indoctrinate their students and punish those who dare to challenge their points of view (which is NOT fine) even in subjects that have nothing to do with the political arena.
Horowitz has been collecting stories from abused students for quite some time. Typical is the student who was, three weeks after the fall of Bagdad in May 2003, required to answer a "question" on her final exam that instructed students to "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal." The student explained instead why she thought Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. She received an "F."
In his booklet, "The Campaign For Academic Freedom," Dr. Horowitz gives specific examples of why this campaign is necessary. "When students go to their professors' offices," he writes, "they go for help. When professors plaster their doors with partisan cartoons that mock the deeply held beliefs of students of matters like abortion and party affiliation -- which they regularly do -- this creates a wall between faculty and students, which is injurious to the counseling process. How can a professor teach a student whom he regards as a partisan adversary? The answer is he cannot."
He also tells of his experience in trying to point out to colleges the errors of their ways and trying to get them to change. Dr. Horowitz has lectured and written on the subject for several years with what he describes as "little impact." He says, "The only result of my reviewing these facts has been to inspire an attack on my integrity by the American Association of University Professors." The opposition doesn't seem to care that the very principles espoused are the ones first published in 1915 in the famous report, "The Principles of Tenure and Academic Freedom" which were immediately embraced by institutions of higher education all over the US.
Enduring personal attacks in articles full of misrepresentation and downright lies published against him, Horowitz realized that he was up against the proverbial brick wall. College administrators were happy with the status quo and there was nothing he could do to change them. Except hit them where it hurts -- in the purse.
So Dr. Horowitz drafted legislation to protect students' rights and has been going to state legislatures to gain their support. The legislatures of each state -- as elected representatives of the people whose taxes support and finance the educational institutions -- have a fiduciary responsibility to their constituents to remedy the situation.
Interestingly, the University of Colorado (home of "progressive" liberal Ward Churchill) became one of Dr. Horowitz's first successes. (Ohio is another.) After a series of hearings and discussions, university administrators realized that intellectual diversity no longer existed on their campus. In collaboration with the Colorado House, the Presidents of the University of Colorado and other Colorado universities signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they pledged to provide protections to students of all political viewpoints.
Shortly after this, the Colorado legislature overwhelmingly adopted Senate Joint Resolution 04-033, which commended the presidents for their willingness to provide those needed protections and requesting regular reports on their progress.
Dr. Horowitz is dedicating his time, fortune and effort to promoting academic freedom for all. His national organization, Students For Academic Freedom can use all the help it can get. For more information contact Sara Dogan at sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org or telephone 202-393-0123. Visit the web site at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org.
It's important. The future of America depends on it.
But times have changed in America. David Horowitz, author, speaker, former- liberal-turned-conservative, is the head of a national organization that is working for students' rights in university classrooms.
His organization is "Students For Academic Freedom" and its purpose is "dedicated to restoring acdemic freedom and educational values to America's institutions of higher learning." Its goals are: "1. To promote intellectual diversity on campuses. 2. To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious beliefs. 3. To promote fairness, civility and inclusion in student affairs. 4. To secure the adoption of the 'Academic Bill of Rights' as official university policy."
The problem Gary Sarrett describes in his blog titled "College Professors: Making Debate Obsolete One Student At A Time!" at GOP Insight is much too common for the good of healthy discourse in this country. Conservative students in colleges all over the country, from the Ivy League to State Universities to Community Colleges find that most of their professors are leftists in their political views (which is fine) and that those professors actively indoctrinate their students and punish those who dare to challenge their points of view (which is NOT fine) even in subjects that have nothing to do with the political arena.
Horowitz has been collecting stories from abused students for quite some time. Typical is the student who was, three weeks after the fall of Bagdad in May 2003, required to answer a "question" on her final exam that instructed students to "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal." The student explained instead why she thought Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. She received an "F."
In his booklet, "The Campaign For Academic Freedom," Dr. Horowitz gives specific examples of why this campaign is necessary. "When students go to their professors' offices," he writes, "they go for help. When professors plaster their doors with partisan cartoons that mock the deeply held beliefs of students of matters like abortion and party affiliation -- which they regularly do -- this creates a wall between faculty and students, which is injurious to the counseling process. How can a professor teach a student whom he regards as a partisan adversary? The answer is he cannot."
He also tells of his experience in trying to point out to colleges the errors of their ways and trying to get them to change. Dr. Horowitz has lectured and written on the subject for several years with what he describes as "little impact." He says, "The only result of my reviewing these facts has been to inspire an attack on my integrity by the American Association of University Professors." The opposition doesn't seem to care that the very principles espoused are the ones first published in 1915 in the famous report, "The Principles of Tenure and Academic Freedom" which were immediately embraced by institutions of higher education all over the US.
Enduring personal attacks in articles full of misrepresentation and downright lies published against him, Horowitz realized that he was up against the proverbial brick wall. College administrators were happy with the status quo and there was nothing he could do to change them. Except hit them where it hurts -- in the purse.
So Dr. Horowitz drafted legislation to protect students' rights and has been going to state legislatures to gain their support. The legislatures of each state -- as elected representatives of the people whose taxes support and finance the educational institutions -- have a fiduciary responsibility to their constituents to remedy the situation.
Interestingly, the University of Colorado (home of "progressive" liberal Ward Churchill) became one of Dr. Horowitz's first successes. (Ohio is another.) After a series of hearings and discussions, university administrators realized that intellectual diversity no longer existed on their campus. In collaboration with the Colorado House, the Presidents of the University of Colorado and other Colorado universities signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they pledged to provide protections to students of all political viewpoints.
Shortly after this, the Colorado legislature overwhelmingly adopted Senate Joint Resolution 04-033, which commended the presidents for their willingness to provide those needed protections and requesting regular reports on their progress.
Dr. Horowitz is dedicating his time, fortune and effort to promoting academic freedom for all. His national organization, Students For Academic Freedom can use all the help it can get. For more information contact Sara Dogan at sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org or telephone 202-393-0123. Visit the web site at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org.
It's important. The future of America depends on it.
Wednesday, October 19
The Washington Time, Editor Coombs and Ms. Miers
Today's Washington Times blog has an article titled "Miers spat is a family affair" in which managing editor Fran Coombs writes, "Enter Harriet Miers, undoubtedly a fine and talented individual but singularly ill-prepared to serve on America’s most powerful court. This is cronyism run amok. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent supporters find themselves making torturous defenses of a nomination that cannot be defended." This is an example of Washington elitism par excellance. Keep the status quo: don't let an outsider in. The strongest case against Ms. Miers is that she has never served as a judge and therefore has not handed down opinions to critique.
There is not now -- nor has there ever been -- a rule that says only serving judges may be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. In that past that has served us well since some of our finest justices had no judicial experience when they were elected. Justice John Marshall was one. A new justice with little experience on the bench brings fresh thoughts and ideas to a moldy, staid and somewhat jaded set of minds.
Coombs continues, "You know the White House is in trouble when it is reduced to smearing Ms. Miers’ conservative opponents as “elitists” and “sexists.” This is the kind of rhetoric one expects from Hillary “vast right-wing media conspiracy” Clinton and other leftists for whom the only political defense is a below-the-belt punch. But for a White House that at least ostensibly labels itself conservative to fling the empty canards of the Left at fellow conservatives is downright insulting." It's a rather left-handed compliment to the White House that the editor finds that discourse insulting. It's true that the "right" has let the "left" use that kind of language in the past but perhaps it's time to call a spade a spade. Refusing to consider someone other than a judge IS elitist. I don't agree with the sexist charge but will chalk that one up to justifiable anger.
Coombs again: "Mr. President, woo the disaffected on the Right as if they were members of your own family. “Yes, I understand your concerns, but trust me, bear with me on this,” you should say." All he should do is what he has been doing. He shouldn't have to "woo" anyone. "Wooing" in this case would be the same as explaning or apologizing and he should not have to do that. He is right to assume his supporters will trust his judgement.
Yes, I admit I trust the President. I have not always agreed with his decisions but I have always been able to see why he made them and (most important) I recognize that he is doing what he believes is right for the country. Right in the sense of best, for I don't believe conservatives are the best for the country all the time. And I don't believe liberals are EVER the best for the country! But I trust President Bush and would not have voted to put him where he is if I were not prepared to do so.
Congress should place Meirs on the court BECAUSE she has no judicial experience. Congressional members should NEVER assume that what someone thought or believed, wrote or said 20 or 30 years ago is an indication of what they believe, would write, say or do now.
If someone is that fixed in attitude and closed in mind, they should not serve in any public capacity. What government servants (in Congress, on the Court or in the Executive Branch) need are open minds, patriotic hearts, elephantine skins and a "do unto others as I want done unto me" morality.
Give the Supreme Court a fresh, unfettered mind, eager and willing to learn. A touch of the early Patriot, if you will. What Congress should be ascertaining is Miers' patriotism and if she is dedicated to upholding the Constitution. After all, that's all we can ask of her -- or anyone.
There is not now -- nor has there ever been -- a rule that says only serving judges may be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. In that past that has served us well since some of our finest justices had no judicial experience when they were elected. Justice John Marshall was one. A new justice with little experience on the bench brings fresh thoughts and ideas to a moldy, staid and somewhat jaded set of minds.
Coombs continues, "You know the White House is in trouble when it is reduced to smearing Ms. Miers’ conservative opponents as “elitists” and “sexists.” This is the kind of rhetoric one expects from Hillary “vast right-wing media conspiracy” Clinton and other leftists for whom the only political defense is a below-the-belt punch. But for a White House that at least ostensibly labels itself conservative to fling the empty canards of the Left at fellow conservatives is downright insulting." It's a rather left-handed compliment to the White House that the editor finds that discourse insulting. It's true that the "right" has let the "left" use that kind of language in the past but perhaps it's time to call a spade a spade. Refusing to consider someone other than a judge IS elitist. I don't agree with the sexist charge but will chalk that one up to justifiable anger.
Coombs again: "Mr. President, woo the disaffected on the Right as if they were members of your own family. “Yes, I understand your concerns, but trust me, bear with me on this,” you should say." All he should do is what he has been doing. He shouldn't have to "woo" anyone. "Wooing" in this case would be the same as explaning or apologizing and he should not have to do that. He is right to assume his supporters will trust his judgement.
Yes, I admit I trust the President. I have not always agreed with his decisions but I have always been able to see why he made them and (most important) I recognize that he is doing what he believes is right for the country. Right in the sense of best, for I don't believe conservatives are the best for the country all the time. And I don't believe liberals are EVER the best for the country! But I trust President Bush and would not have voted to put him where he is if I were not prepared to do so.
Congress should place Meirs on the court BECAUSE she has no judicial experience. Congressional members should NEVER assume that what someone thought or believed, wrote or said 20 or 30 years ago is an indication of what they believe, would write, say or do now.
If someone is that fixed in attitude and closed in mind, they should not serve in any public capacity. What government servants (in Congress, on the Court or in the Executive Branch) need are open minds, patriotic hearts, elephantine skins and a "do unto others as I want done unto me" morality.
Give the Supreme Court a fresh, unfettered mind, eager and willing to learn. A touch of the early Patriot, if you will. What Congress should be ascertaining is Miers' patriotism and if she is dedicated to upholding the Constitution. After all, that's all we can ask of her -- or anyone.
Tuesday, October 18
SS -- Seriously
Since the earliest days of this country, Americans have been generous to orphaned children, the poor and the elderly. When the nation was mostly agricultural -- that is, up to the 1870s -- communities took care of their poor. Local villages and towns developed poor relief systems and even workhouses. Poor Mothers' Pensions were developed prior to WWI to help indigent mothers care for their children rather than put them in foster homes or institutions.
By the mid-twenties some states were experimenting with old-age assistance and aid to the blind. Then the politicos began to develop the idea that a social insurance system would be appropriate for a more-and-more industrialized society. They decided that contributory financing of social insurance would make that security a matter of rights as opposed to a public assistance approach where only those in need would receive help.
This insurance first began with workers' compensation. In 1908 the Federal Government adopted a law covering Federal employees in hazardous jobs and the first State compensation law to be held Constitutional was adopted in 1911. By 1928, workers' comp laws were in effect in all but four states. These laws paid only on death or severe injury of the insuree. Families took care of the elderly or they took care of themselves unless they were police officers, teachers or firemen. New Jersey's teachers' pension plan, the oldest in the nation for government employees, was established in 1896. By the early 1900s several local governments had set up retirement plans for police officers and fire fighters. In 1920 the Civil Service Retirement System was set up for Federal employees.
Veterans' Benefits were also established early. These initially consisted of widows' pensions, compensation for war disabled and land grants. After WWI, a full-scale hospital system was developed, including medical care benefits. And the fist-sized snowball was picking up steam as it began the downhill roll.
The Great Depression of the 1930s gave the greatest impetus to Federal welfare action. Neither the states nor local communities had the resources to cope with the growing problem. In 1932, the Federal Government made loans, then grants, to states to pay for relief, both direct and work related. FDR proposed the Social Security Act of 1935 and Congress passed it.
This law established two social insurance programs on a national scale to help the elderly and the unemployed. It set up benefits for retired workers who had been employed in industry and commerce along with a Federal state system of insurance -- Grants-in-Aid to the states for programs of Old Age Assistance and Aid to the Blind for those who were not eligible for social security.
In 1939 the additions began: Aid to Dependent Children, Tax on Employers of Eight or More, Public Health Aid, Unemployment Insurance, Railroad Retirement System and more.
And the snowball had just begun to grow.
It grew again in the 1940s and 1950s with weekly cash benefits to the temporarily disabled and more complicated health benefits for Federal workers. Veterans' benefits were expanded and increased
By 1964 the Federal Food Stamp Program was added along with other nutrition programs including school breakfasts and lunches. In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Medicaid was created in 1965. Public assistance provisions expanded in 1972. In 1983 coverage became compulsory and the age of eligibility for benefits was increased from 65 to 67.
Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable as income. All funds collected for Social Security went into the Social Security Trust Fund and were used exclusively for benefits. Excesses above those required for immediate benefits were (and are) invested in US Treasury bonds. These funds may be used by the government in any way Congress sees fit.
No matter who's to blame for the mess social security is in there are two facts about it that are downright felonous:
First, today up to 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed. If benefits were simply reduced the funds collected from Social Security payroll taxes and not paid out because of the reduction in payments would REMAIN IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. But by making the benefits taxable, $21 billion a year that is collected for the Social Security Trust fund is paid out to beneficiaries and is then collected back in the form of Income taxes. These funds are deposited in the General fund of the United States. Each year then $21 billion dollars of Social Security Payroll taxes are siphoned out of the Social Security Trust fund and placed in the general fund to be used for other than what the tax was originally intended.
And Second: In the words of President Bush, "The trust fund is just an empty IOU, just a piece of paper. You pay your payroll tax; we pay for the people who have retired, and if there's any money left over, we spend it on government. That's how it works."
So the $1.5 Trillion social security "trust fund" is really nothing but worthless, non-marketable IOU pieces of paper.
Actually that's all it is supposed to be. My parents' generation paid for their parents' retirement, we paid for our parents' and expected our children to pay for ours, their children to pay for theirs. But the catch lies in the last sentence of the President's statement: "if there's any money left over, we spend it on government." THAT is the crux of the problem.
It's not the social security system that is in trouble; it's the way Congress handles it. Congress should be held accountable by the people, even if it means they all go to jail.
By the mid-twenties some states were experimenting with old-age assistance and aid to the blind. Then the politicos began to develop the idea that a social insurance system would be appropriate for a more-and-more industrialized society. They decided that contributory financing of social insurance would make that security a matter of rights as opposed to a public assistance approach where only those in need would receive help.
This insurance first began with workers' compensation. In 1908 the Federal Government adopted a law covering Federal employees in hazardous jobs and the first State compensation law to be held Constitutional was adopted in 1911. By 1928, workers' comp laws were in effect in all but four states. These laws paid only on death or severe injury of the insuree. Families took care of the elderly or they took care of themselves unless they were police officers, teachers or firemen. New Jersey's teachers' pension plan, the oldest in the nation for government employees, was established in 1896. By the early 1900s several local governments had set up retirement plans for police officers and fire fighters. In 1920 the Civil Service Retirement System was set up for Federal employees.
Veterans' Benefits were also established early. These initially consisted of widows' pensions, compensation for war disabled and land grants. After WWI, a full-scale hospital system was developed, including medical care benefits. And the fist-sized snowball was picking up steam as it began the downhill roll.
The Great Depression of the 1930s gave the greatest impetus to Federal welfare action. Neither the states nor local communities had the resources to cope with the growing problem. In 1932, the Federal Government made loans, then grants, to states to pay for relief, both direct and work related. FDR proposed the Social Security Act of 1935 and Congress passed it.
This law established two social insurance programs on a national scale to help the elderly and the unemployed. It set up benefits for retired workers who had been employed in industry and commerce along with a Federal state system of insurance -- Grants-in-Aid to the states for programs of Old Age Assistance and Aid to the Blind for those who were not eligible for social security.
In 1939 the additions began: Aid to Dependent Children, Tax on Employers of Eight or More, Public Health Aid, Unemployment Insurance, Railroad Retirement System and more.
And the snowball had just begun to grow.
It grew again in the 1940s and 1950s with weekly cash benefits to the temporarily disabled and more complicated health benefits for Federal workers. Veterans' benefits were expanded and increased
By 1964 the Federal Food Stamp Program was added along with other nutrition programs including school breakfasts and lunches. In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Medicaid was created in 1965. Public assistance provisions expanded in 1972. In 1983 coverage became compulsory and the age of eligibility for benefits was increased from 65 to 67.
Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable as income. All funds collected for Social Security went into the Social Security Trust Fund and were used exclusively for benefits. Excesses above those required for immediate benefits were (and are) invested in US Treasury bonds. These funds may be used by the government in any way Congress sees fit.
No matter who's to blame for the mess social security is in there are two facts about it that are downright felonous:
First, today up to 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed. If benefits were simply reduced the funds collected from Social Security payroll taxes and not paid out because of the reduction in payments would REMAIN IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. But by making the benefits taxable, $21 billion a year that is collected for the Social Security Trust fund is paid out to beneficiaries and is then collected back in the form of Income taxes. These funds are deposited in the General fund of the United States. Each year then $21 billion dollars of Social Security Payroll taxes are siphoned out of the Social Security Trust fund and placed in the general fund to be used for other than what the tax was originally intended.
And Second: In the words of President Bush, "The trust fund is just an empty IOU, just a piece of paper. You pay your payroll tax; we pay for the people who have retired, and if there's any money left over, we spend it on government. That's how it works."
So the $1.5 Trillion social security "trust fund" is really nothing but worthless, non-marketable IOU pieces of paper.
Actually that's all it is supposed to be. My parents' generation paid for their parents' retirement, we paid for our parents' and expected our children to pay for ours, their children to pay for theirs. But the catch lies in the last sentence of the President's statement: "if there's any money left over, we spend it on government." THAT is the crux of the problem.
It's not the social security system that is in trouble; it's the way Congress handles it. Congress should be held accountable by the people, even if it means they all go to jail.
Monday, October 17
Social Security -- Say Wha?
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would be used ONLY to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on
85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would be used ONLY to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on
85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
Thursday, October 13
Wednesday, October 12
STOP It, Children!
We have to stop the hatred in political discourse in the United States.
Democrats are always saying they hate Republicans. They've even published books about it. Like "The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything." Now the GOP may be wrong about everything but that's no reason for hatred. That's a reason for two-way discussion. Passionate, sure. Hatred, no.
Then there's "888 Reasons to Hate Republicans: An A to Z Guide to Everything Loathsome About the Party of the Arrogant Rich."
Then there's the song, "I hate Republicans" which is featured on a web site that is a video that ignores the truth about the good things we do like the Ownership Society that made it possible for our son, who is severely retarded and has an income of less than $15,000.00 a year to buy his own home.
I'm a Republican but I'm not rich. I know people who are and the ones I know are faultlessly generous in their giving -- of time as well as money -- to those less fortunate than they.
But I digress. Howard Dean, one of the best the Democratic Party has to offer said, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization." The most quoted part of that statement is the first part.
They even have t-shirts. Do a google hit on "hate Republicans" and you'll get 6,800,000 hits. Six MILLION, eight hundred thousand.
But the Republicans aren't blameless in all this. Google "hate Democrats" and you get 7,840,000 hits. The problem with that number, however, is that it is contaminated by Democrats saying that Republicans hate them. Not Republicans saying they do -- just Democrats. Guilt, I suppose.
The first hit is "Why Americans Hate Democrats -- A Dialogue, The unteachable ignorance of the red states." by Jane Smiley. Her entire article could have been written without hatred, but it wasn't. And it was a liberal's hatred of republicans that is expressed.
Actually, those hits mostly discuss how Democrats hate Republicans. As in this piece by John David Powell, titled "Politics And Hate: The Democrats’ Not-So-Subtle Message" in which he writes, "Those who pull the political strings within the Democratic Party put out the word in the days leading up to their national convention that Bush bashing, divisive rhetoric, and other forms of hate-filled language were not welcomed. The memo read something like: 'Anyone caught violating the tenets of our newly found political compassion toward those we hate will be thrashed wickedly like a colorfully headed child from another marriage (because 'beating you like a rented mule' doesn't sound good given that our party's symbol is a donkey).
"There is wisdom to this kinder, gentler form of politics, but it may be too foreign and too late for a large segment of Democrats who cannot utter the words Bush or Republican without adding the word hate somewhere. While Democratic delegates engaged in their orchestrated love fest on the convention floor, the scene outside was somewhat more hate filled, probably because the memo wasn't passed around among the general population."
Still, there is some expression of hatred toward Democrats. I dropped off a Republican e-mail list because of it. I will not be a part of hatred if I can possibly avoid it, whether it's from a Republican or a Democrat.
Because hatred always has repercussions. Hatred is what assassinated President Kennedy and hatred is behind a threat on President Bush's life that is posted in the comments on this web site. Hatred is what caused 9/11 and is causing genocide in Africa and murder in the Holy Land.
It is all right to disagree and it's fine to disagree with passion -- but not with hatred.
Please, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressive and Libertarians: Stop hating. Fight and argue but don't hate. Everytime someone expresses hatred we are all diminished. Nothing good can ever come of it.
Democrats are always saying they hate Republicans. They've even published books about it. Like "The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything." Now the GOP may be wrong about everything but that's no reason for hatred. That's a reason for two-way discussion. Passionate, sure. Hatred, no.
Then there's "888 Reasons to Hate Republicans: An A to Z Guide to Everything Loathsome About the Party of the Arrogant Rich."
Then there's the song, "I hate Republicans" which is featured on a web site that is a video that ignores the truth about the good things we do like the Ownership Society that made it possible for our son, who is severely retarded and has an income of less than $15,000.00 a year to buy his own home.
I'm a Republican but I'm not rich. I know people who are and the ones I know are faultlessly generous in their giving -- of time as well as money -- to those less fortunate than they.
But I digress. Howard Dean, one of the best the Democratic Party has to offer said, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization." The most quoted part of that statement is the first part.
They even have t-shirts. Do a google hit on "hate Republicans" and you'll get 6,800,000 hits. Six MILLION, eight hundred thousand.
But the Republicans aren't blameless in all this. Google "hate Democrats" and you get 7,840,000 hits. The problem with that number, however, is that it is contaminated by Democrats saying that Republicans hate them. Not Republicans saying they do -- just Democrats. Guilt, I suppose.
The first hit is "Why Americans Hate Democrats -- A Dialogue, The unteachable ignorance of the red states." by Jane Smiley. Her entire article could have been written without hatred, but it wasn't. And it was a liberal's hatred of republicans that is expressed.
Actually, those hits mostly discuss how Democrats hate Republicans. As in this piece by John David Powell, titled "Politics And Hate: The Democrats’ Not-So-Subtle Message" in which he writes, "Those who pull the political strings within the Democratic Party put out the word in the days leading up to their national convention that Bush bashing, divisive rhetoric, and other forms of hate-filled language were not welcomed. The memo read something like: 'Anyone caught violating the tenets of our newly found political compassion toward those we hate will be thrashed wickedly like a colorfully headed child from another marriage (because 'beating you like a rented mule' doesn't sound good given that our party's symbol is a donkey).
"There is wisdom to this kinder, gentler form of politics, but it may be too foreign and too late for a large segment of Democrats who cannot utter the words Bush or Republican without adding the word hate somewhere. While Democratic delegates engaged in their orchestrated love fest on the convention floor, the scene outside was somewhat more hate filled, probably because the memo wasn't passed around among the general population."
Still, there is some expression of hatred toward Democrats. I dropped off a Republican e-mail list because of it. I will not be a part of hatred if I can possibly avoid it, whether it's from a Republican or a Democrat.
Because hatred always has repercussions. Hatred is what assassinated President Kennedy and hatred is behind a threat on President Bush's life that is posted in the comments on this web site. Hatred is what caused 9/11 and is causing genocide in Africa and murder in the Holy Land.
It is all right to disagree and it's fine to disagree with passion -- but not with hatred.
Please, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressive and Libertarians: Stop hating. Fight and argue but don't hate. Everytime someone expresses hatred we are all diminished. Nothing good can ever come of it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)