Liberals Are Coming After Our Future

If you don’t think that Liberal professors are a problem you are dead wrong. I remember when I was a NYC paramedic, going to a community college in Brooklyn, I was told by my professors that the science department put the classes at 9 am and the labs at 4pm to discourage people with jobs from taking the course! He told me if I had to work I didn’t need to be there! What a great educator huh?

The first 3 days of biology was spent on trying to convince religious people that they are superstitious nuts! I am not a religious person, but it was a complete waste of my time.

This was just my personal experience, and it was many years ago. Things have gotten worse.

Educators, now a days, want you to just regurgitate whatever they are teaching. If you intelligently disagree, you get poor grades. After all the professor is teacher and right, so you must agree with him or her right?

Have you looked at your children’s text books? A few years ago I had to complain to the state about my daughters High School U.S. History book. For one thing 3/4s of every page was a picture. Then there was a whole chapter on homosexual history. When I turned to the U.S. Constitution I noticed along the side were boxes explaining the meaning of each individual article. Well, guess what it said the Second Amendment ment? You guessed it, the so called PHD stated it meant the state has a right to a National Guard! It stated it as pure fact. Anyone who is a PHD in U.S. History has read the papers of the founding fathers. This would include the author of The U.S. Constitution; Thomas Jefferson. Well the founding fathers clearly stated the 2nd amendment was an individual right to bear arms. It exists to protect against a tyranical Governement. It is for protection and food gathering. So how can a text book state otherwise?

Wake up folks! The left cannot win through the legislative branch so they are coming after our children! Their plan seems to be to change our country through the judiciary and educational institutions. What are you going to do about it?

Advertisements

Creationism, Evolution, Who Cares?

Creationism, evolution, who cares? The scientific community has certainly had enough time to prove the “theory” of evolution. But they haven’t proved it. So why is it taught as a fact? It is not a fact, it is an unproven, and some say, failed “theory”.

Let us go back to educated our children in the basics and facts. Let us stop trying to brain wash them with beliefs. Be that from the left or the right. But we know which is doing the brainwashing right now.

Schools need to stay out of teaching that religious beliefs are superstitious nonsense, everything is ok, and there is no right or wrong, ect. Teachers need to go back to teaching what is factual, and not social beliefs.

If you cannot prove something don’t teach it; Simple. It is not the government or teachers job to be the parent. As for philosophy, it needs to be taught as a self exploring concept; not the teachers view of the world.

Teachers are so idiotic as to no longer teach Phonics! Come on folks that is ridiculous! They worry about nonsense like, don’t use a red pen to make corrections. It makes students “feel” bad. Use happy colors like purple. What?? I never felt bad because there was a bunch of red ink on my paper; I felt bad because I did poorly. I worked harder and improved.

How about we all focus on what is important. Left wing Liberals and Right wing Conservatives ALL annoy me! I do not wish to live in a theocracy or a socialist country

Liberals Plan For Our Future

Taken from a Blog called constitution 2020:

We live increasingly in a legal landscape imagined largely by conservatives. Conservatives have captured the intellectual initiative in popular and even much elite discourse. Their success in framing and communicating fundamental conservative principles has contributed to real legal and political change over the last two decades. Will we allow narrow and sterile conservative interpretations of our Constitutionâââs vital principles and protections to reshape our national character and control our daily lives?

Our answer, on this weekend and on every day of the coming years, is a resounding ââÅNo.ââ? It is time to reclaim our Constitution. The Constitution in the 21st Century is a multi-year initiative to advance our nationâââs commitment to a constitutional democracy that safeguards individual rights and liberties, genuine equality and access to justice. Our task is to do the deep, careful thinking necessary to formulate and advance a progressive constitutional vision that is intellectually sound, practically relevant, and faithful to our constitutional values and heritage. This effort will need to proceed on a number of fronts: we need to develop and disseminate progressive interpretations on a wide range of issues; debunk constitutional rationales that use misleading or disingenuous interpretations to mask conservative policy objectives; and communicate our ideas and values in language that is relevant to peopleâââs daily lives. Our work must be focused on both the short-term and the long-term âââ using the tools we have today to move forward where we can and visualizing where we want to be in twenty years and how to get there.

The Constitution is a binding legal document between the Government and its people; it is not living, breathing or progressive. If legal documents where living documents we would have national chaos!

Liberal or progressive interpretations have no place in our legal system. Have you never heard of “the letter of the law”?

New Study Confirms The Majority Of College Professors Are Liberal

Hat tip to the word from the right blog in pointing me to this article

A new study has confirmed the long-held belief that U.S. universities are dominated by liberal faculty. The study found that 72 percent of professors identify themselves as liberal while merely 15 percent identify themselves as conservative.

At elite schools the imbalance is even larger — 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“We wanted to compare political views between administrators and faculty,” said Stanley Rothman, co-editor of the study and professor emeritus of government at Smith College. He added that not all the data have been analyzed yet.

The results are based on a national survey of 1,643 faculty members from 183 four-year colleges. The research was culled from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey.

This of course is no news to any informed, thinking person in this country. I had constant battles with my daughters High School and the state for using obviously biased text books. But it is not like I got anywhere on the subject.

Rathergate Bloggergate

The whole reason I stayed away from the issue about the Republican memo on the Terri Shiavo debacle, is I could not figure out if it was real or not. This did not stop the Conservative Bloggers from going nuts trying to prove it was a Hoax. The 2 most egregious sites I visited were that of Michelle Malkin, and Powerline. I only point them out because they are big players in the blogosphere. There were many who ran with the idea that the memo was a fake.

There is a very good article from Flynn Files on this topic; please read it. Here is an excerpt:

Republican bloggers have egg on their faces.

The memo’s real author did what political operatives always do: he wondered how a political issue might be turned to his party’s advantage. The bloggers did what good writers never do: let partisanship rather than facts guide them. The latter is more troublesome than the former.

The conservative blogosphere is at its best when it acts as watchdog to the mainstream media. It’s at its worst when it imitates them. The same partisan zeal that drove CBS to Rathergate drove bloggers to overreach on this story.

U.S. And China To Hold Regular “senior-level” Talks

President Bush has decided the United States and China should begin holding regular senior-level talks on a range of political, security and possibly economic issues, signifying both China’s interest in the prestige of such sessions and the administration’s efforts to come to grips with China’s rising influence in Asia, senior administration officials said.

Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick has been assigned to head the U.S. delegation, and a Chinese vice foreign minister will be his counterpart, officials said. Regular meetings between the two countries have never been held at such a level.

Chinese President Hu Jintao formally asked Bush to consider engaging in what the Chinese call a “strategic dialogue” during an economic meeting in Chile last November. During a visit to Beijing last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the United States is interested in regular senior-level talks, but the administration has chosen to call the meetings a “global dialogue” because, officials say, the phrase “strategic dialogue” is reserved for close U.S. allies.

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in February, warned that China was “facing a strategic crossroads” and that “if it wants to continue to prosper, it will choose a benign path that will allow the world to accommodate its rise peacefully.” Otherwise, he said, there would be “a truly gigantic problem in international affairs.”

Jing Quan, a Chinese diplomat who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the talks with the United States would provide “a platform, a basis for the two countries to have direct, frank and deep dialogue.” He said that “through such effective communication, both sides would be in the position to avoid actions and policies that would lead to misunderstandings.”

The story can be read on the Washington post site.

Senator Byrd Advocated Getting Rid of Filibuster.

From an article by The Washington Post:

On Thursday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a news release asserting that Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), the Democrats’ point man in the effort to preserve the filibuster, was himself an advocate for replacing supermajority votes with simple majority votes back in the 1970s, when he was the majority leader and Republicans were using the filibuster.

The Republicans, in the release titled “An Elephant Never Forgets,” pointed out that Byrd:

â⢠Originated a proposal in 1975 to reduce the supermajority from two-thirds to three-fifths.

â⢠Broke a filibuster in 1977 with a simple majority vote.

â⢠Threatened in 1979 to change Senate rules to break a filibuster, asserting that “this Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past” and that “rules have been changed from time to time.”

â⢠Made other parliamentary maneuvers in 1980 and 1987 to stifle debate.

But while an elephant may never forget, he occasionally omits mitigating details. Or so says Byrd. “They’re trying to make me the issue rather than the nuclear option,” he said in an interview Thursday. “Everything the Senate did back then was to strengthen Senate rules.”

Specifically, Byrd asserts:

â⢠That his 1975 action was to prevent the Senate from switching to a simple majority vote.

â⢠In the 1977 case, the Senate had already voted 77 to 17 to cut off debate when senators attempted a “post-cloture” filibuster.

â⢠In the 1979 case, also about “post-cloture” filibusters, he was supported by Senate Republican leader Howard Baker (Tenn.).

â⢠That his actions in 1980 and 1987 “did not contravene any precedent or standing rule” and “ensured that Senate procedure would conform more closely” to the rules.
Still, Byrd probably regrets that bit about the “dead hand of the past” or his observation that rules “have been changed from time to time.”

I recently wrote another article on Judicial filibusters that can be reviewed here.