Tuesday, January 31, 2006

High Scores Fail to Clear Obstacles to KIPP Growth

Program Has Struggled to Find Space for Expansion

By Jay Mathews - Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - Washington Post
It is a crucial moment for one of the most closely watched educational models, the Knowledge Is Power Program, a way of teaching fifth- through eighth-graders that has produced some of the best math and reading scores in low-income neighborhoods across the country. Despite its impressive record, administrators and policymakers are responding slowly to KIPP's desire for more space and support.

This is an excellent article that talks about the continuing and ongoing resistance to educational reform all across the nation. The NEA and the education establishment do everything in their power to delay and frustrate parents desires for education reform. No matter how successful a program, even one as successful as the program mentioned in this article, everything that can be done to stop progress is attempted by the existing school power structure.

Quagmire? Yeah - for the Democrats!

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Poll's a political landslide for Bush
By Thomas M. DeFrank - Daily News - Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON - Even the most virulent W-bashers have to concede President Bush was entitled to some serious gloating yesterday. .......

It's a rare day in Iraq where adjectives like "extraordinary," "remarkable" and "historic" are warranted. But they seemed more than fair yesterday.
What is wrong with the Democrats? Do they really not want America to win? Kerry and Kennedy seem to be so upset they are writing off anyone who is a patriotic American. An even better summation of the current situation here by the London Telegraph. They provide usefull perspective about another first election.

Compare yesterday's reports with those by the same commentators during South Africa's first democratic election. Then, too, there were many technical problems.............But these things were set in their proper context, as the backdrop against which the moving drama of people casting their first ballots was being played out. .............. No one argued that the backlash by a handful of black homeland chieftains and Boer irreconcilables made South Africa unfit for democracy.

Doesn't it make you wonder about the agenda of people who always oppose America? They have a quagmire of their own. How do you appear patriotic when you never support any action we have taken unless it is taken by a leftist administration.

Monday, January 30, 2006

What politicians don't 'get'

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Paul Jacob - January 30, 2005 - Townhall.com

Here is another article touting term limits as the panacea to bad government.

The medical and psychological benefits of one glass of wine strike many people as pretty obvious, and fairly well demonstrated. But the hazards of over-drinking are clearer yet. They have been for millennia. To set up a limit on one's drinking is not to deny the goodness of one gulp. It is to realize that the value can diminish as more is consumed. This is basic economics (ever heard of marginal utility?) as well as common horse sense. And it applies to food as well as . . . politicians.

What I don't get is how creating a revolving door of legislators provides us with better government. The writer is saying this nation was poorly served during our first 200 years. Why does he hate our history so? Can he truly argue we have been governed that poorly? There are examples where incumbency was against the people's interest. Those were exceptions and not the rule. If the problem is incumbency why does he want a lifetime ban? Why is making them sit out a term and run against an incumbent not enough? Is he afraid that the people may agree with them? If so isn't he really saying that he doesn't trust the people at all?

He uses the example of limiting alcohol. His example though would only be comparable if you accepted that because too much to drink is bad for one night, you can only have 2 drinks in one night and then are banned from drinking for the rest of your life.

Term limits have really hurt California. No one but an imbecile would argue California is better governed today than before term limits was passed. When you put in limits but offer no way to keep the good guys you create a worse problem. No one but second rate people run, and they don’t care about good government since they see themselves as short timers. California is not alone in this problem after term limits are passed.

Term limits is an idiocy of the right, much like the idiocy of the left insisting that only primaries choose party candidates. I never could understand why a system that gave us George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, had to be scrapped. Back when party leaders could pick a good candidate that party extremists would not chose did not serve us all that badly. Now we get John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George McGovern and Bill Clinton. Moderates and leaders find it hard to get elected. This is better?

If extremists on the right and the left keep changing our great system, we are going to wind up as poorly governed as the rest of the world, with only extremists getting into office. Term limits that merely keep someone from running as an incumbent, but allows them to run again after sitting out one term would accomplish what the right says they want, ending the power of incumbency. Since the right is demanding a lifetime ban it means the intention is more duplicitous and evil.

Social Security Is Going Bankrupt

Social Security is going bankrupt, however no one is going to do anything about it. George Bush nearly destroyed his Presidency trying to persuade people that something needed doing to save Social Security, but even a majority of Republicans really don't want to hear what he has to say. I have frequently criticized Bush for wasting political capital on Social Security while our nation is at war, however that criticism in no way means I doubt that the program is going to collapse. I simply do not believe the American people can be presuaded to do anything about it. The things that need to be fixed simply will never have the will of the American people behind them.

I received an email today whose source is not clear. I was amused by the list of historical "facts" in the email and decided to share them. I have not verified them, but the ones I remember seem to match history pretty close. In any event here is the email, for your smiles and enjoyment!

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 paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the; General operating fund, and therefore,would only be used 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 decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants who had never paid a dime into the system?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants move into this country, and at age 65, begin to receive Social Security payments! If they arrive after they are 65, they start drawing Social Security almost immediately.

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: Lyndon Johnson and the democraticall y controlled House andSenate.

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 Presidentof the U.S.

After doing all of this, Democrats turn around and tell you that Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Just the Right Amount of God

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

by Joseph Bottum - January 31st, 2005 - Weekly Standard

This is an article that has to be read twice to really appreciate. There are times when someone logically analyzes something brilliantly, but does not explain the analysis as clearly as the logic works. Bottum does that here. Perhaps if you get the gist of the logic on first reading it will be easier to follow on the second reading.

Still, all that God-talk--all that natural-law reasoning--was heading somewhere in Bush's speech, and the president's cultured despisers, those who tremble or rage at any trace of divinity in public, are right to be afraid. Just not for the reason they think.

It would take an act of perverse will to suppose that the 2005 inaugural address signaled the onset of a Christian theocracy in America. Every rhetorical gesture toward God was either universalized up into a sectless abstraction ("Author of Liberty"? Which faith group can't say that?) or spread down in careful pluralistic specificity ("the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people").

No, President Bush's opponents should be afraid of this speech because it signals the emergence of a single coherent philosophy within the conservative movement.

If conservatives follow Bottum's suggestion, they can change the face of the Republican party, and create consistent governing policies that embrace classsical conservatism and the new conservatism in a fashion that will be popular with the vast majority of Americans. It creates a clear moral basis for the good, effective, government that we all need.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Don't take the president's word for it - take Zarqawi's

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Jonah Goldberg - January 26, 2005 - TonwHall.com

....the notion that America is in a war for freedom over tyranny has elicited bipartisan snickering and guffawing. In the wake of Bush's inaugural, the chorus of complaints intensified. And understandably so, given the fact that his address was the most forceful articulation of his "freedom" vision to date.

But before the cackles could reach their crescendo, the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of Al-Qaida in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Since 9/11 we have suffered criticism from a number of people on the left who are convinced that America deserved to be attacked. They base this conviction on the premise that the people who attacked us did so because of the same reasons that the left hates America. We are rich and we do not do enough to spread our wealth to others. Unfortunately, the people who attacked on 9/11 were the rich, educated and upper class from the Arab societies. They could not possibly be annoyed with America for failing to share wealth when they never gave a thought to the poor of their own countries.

Now the left is repeating their misunderstanding of 9/11 by misreading what is happening in Iraq today. It is clear that much of the reason for the current disagreement over the war on terrorism is simply a world view on the left that has no basis in reality.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Main Stream Media is still our enemy

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

If you listen to the main stream media, you may well be missing a major story in the making. We are about to see a democracy arise before our very eyes in Iraq. However our media pudits cannot see it. They only see the evil they feel America does, and they sometimes have to change facts to claim someting is our fault. Another thing they miss is the blatant liberal bias they exhibit. Thomas Sowell is a great writer. In this article he lays out the case against our press reporters with his usual calm logic.

Fourth estate or fifth column
Thomas Sowell - January 25, 2005 - TownHall.com

Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those who are killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil. Iraq has become a magnet for enemies of the United States, a place where they can be killed wholesale, thousands of miles away.

John Podhoretz makes a similar point in this editorial for the New York Post. His take, "Anti-Bush partisans (in the press) — both Democrats and Leftist ideologues — understand that if the elections are seen as a triumph, they will be seen as Bush's triumph, and they cannot stomach it."

We are winning in Iraq. The key question is whether we can win fast enough that the liberal press does not throw away another victory like they did in Vietnam. Does that make them a fifth column?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Clarence Page assaults the President

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

In an editorial that bristles with sarcasm, Clarence Page compares George W. Bush to Gilda Radner.

Bush's promises? Oh, never mind - by Clarence Page - Chicago Tribune - 1/21/2005

..... even without evidence that Saddam has had WMD or the capabilities to make them since the 1991 war, Bush clung to his notion that the war "absolutely" was worth the cost in lives, dollars and our international image. "Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power," he said.

But, at what cost? Can you hate Saddam and still wonder what urgency compelled the United States to interrupt the international inspectors and rush to war against the tyrant? Is there any evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? Oh, never mind that, too.

Yes Clarence, there is evidence that Saddam had "anything to do" with 9/11. Only you on the left are pretending that Bush is saying "never mind". For starters Saddam immediately went on TV praising the people who perpetrated 9/11. At the least you must admit he approved of it.

This approval came from the man who paid the families of all Palestinian suicide killers $25,000. He had long ties with numerous of the islamofascist groups, including meetings with the same group that planned 9/11. We have not found a memo saying "I hereby agree to pay your families $25,000", but there are some memos that say he wanted to. You reject the evidence. However rational people do not.

As for WMD, you now pretend that WMD was the only reason for the war. Actually a little digging will indicate that it was one of 23 reasons listed for the war in the authorizing legislation, and it was down towards the bottom of that list of 23. It is also ironic since it was the left who protested that we should not go to war because Saddam would use WMD and now you are criticizing Bush for sharing your belief he had them.

It was argued by Bush that we could not wait until there was an imminent risk of Saddam providing nuclear weapons to the terrorists. The reason we went to war was to make sure we had time to reduce the risk that nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. You ask what urgency compelled us to go in? If you don't think this risk is enough, you will never be persuaded. Being late on nuclear arms protection is simply intolerable. How many Americans have to die before you agree?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

We are at WAR!

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

It seems that many people in America forget this, but there are battles going on daily in Iraq. This link is to a blog by Lieutenant Neil Prakash who is a tank commander in Iraq. (can't imagine how he finds time to blog.) He also recently won the Silver Star for his bravery and leadership. Sort of implies he is more than just a writer. He describes some battles that took place in November. Check out his blog. This is better than a report from a journalist anyday. This is really news from the front ........ and the men on the front! Thank God for our troops.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Hillary's Plantation

by Shelby Steele - January 23rd, 2006 - Wall Street Journal (Opinion Journal)
Hillary Clinton reveals her fear of Condi Rice.

Of course Hillary Clinton's recent claim that Republicans run the House of Representatives like a "plantation" was old-fashioned political and racial pandering. After all, she uttered this remark at what certainly would have been a prime venue for her husband: a largely black audience on Martin Luther King Day. So, clearly, she was looking to connect with this most loyal Democratic constituency. But Mrs. Clinton is possessed of a tin ear precisely where her husband is all deftness and charm. Black audiences are beyond her. The room of black faces that brings her husband alive, freezes her in overbearing rectitude.

I am very interested in one thing . . . . how do we turn this into progress in the race relations in this nation. Any continuation of the current situation where race baiters in the democratic party (especially liberal black leaders) call anyone who does not pander to blacks a racist, is simply intolerable.

He's a worldbeater, all right

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

by Mark Steyn - January 23, 2005 - Chicago Sun-Times
Over on the Democratic bench, worldwise they don't seem to have given things much thought. The differences were especially stark in the last seven days: In the first half of the week, Senate Dems badgered the incoming secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice -- culminating in the decision of West Virginia porkmeister Robert C. Byrd to delay the incoming thereof. Don't ask me why. Byrd, the former Klu Klux Klan Kleagle, is taking a stand over states' rights, or his rights over State, or some such. Whatever the reason, the sight of an old Klansman blocking a little colored girl from Birmingham from getting into her office contributed to the general retro vibe that hangs around the Democratic Party these days.

I am getting to like Mark Steyn. He definitely understands that 9/11 changed everything. Though a little harsh on our democrat friends, he makes some great points about where we should not be focusing our energies right now. Read the article to understand why "exit strategy" is a dumb expression.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

A Time for Leaving

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

The American Conservative
By William R. Polk - 1/17/2005

Leaving aside Kurdistan, where roughly a quarter of all Iraqis live, Iraq is a shattered country. Its infrastructure has been pulverized by the “shock and awe” of the American invasion. Few Iraqis today even have clean drinking water or can dispose of their waste. About 7 in 10 adult Iraqis are without employment. Factories are idle, and small shopkeepers have been squeezed out of business. Movement even within cities is difficult and dangerous. And the trend in each of these categories is downward. Iraq’s society has been torn apart, and perhaps as many as 100,000 Iraqis have died. Virtually every Iraqi has a parent, child, spouse, cousin, friend, colleague, or neighbor—or perhaps all of these—among the dead. More than half of the dead were women and children. Putting Iraq’s casualties in comparative American terms would equate to about one million American deaths. Dreadful hatreds have been generated.

This is excessive rhetoric and gives the flavor of much of this article. Isolationism is the traditional position of conservatives. It is probably the one issue that most separates them from neocons and libertarians, the other groups that make up today's "right". However there is a difference between isolationism and pessimism. I find it hard to believe that traditional conservatives really see what is happening in Iraq in such a relentlessly negative tone as this article. There are numerous credible people who talk about the significant progress that has been made since the end of the traditional war in Iraq. On a great number of issues, including some of the issues Polk addresses in this article, the reality is that things are better than they ever were under Saddam. Many Iraqis are expressing great appreciation for what has happened. They do not want us to leave. Where is the perspective in Polk's article?

Polk says "When I visited Baghdad in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the Iraqis with whom I talked were proud that they had rebuilt what had been destroyed in the 1991 war." This is the view of Saddam and his henchmen. When we arrived in Iraq what we discovered was that the infrastructure had been allowed to deteriorate. Much of our reconstruction has been harder than expected because we did not realize how wrong this statement was. Why is Polk quoting Saddam's adherents to make his position?

The islamofascist movement was actively planning for the destruction of America before 9/11. They had huge open bases in Afghanistan. They were being funded by some of the richest people in Saudi Arabia, again very openly. Today the bases in Afghanistan do not exist. Whatever attraction Iraq has for the people who used to go to Afghanistan to train for our destruction, they cannot do it openly in Iraq. If you think they can, you need to restudy the recent experience in Falluja. The Saudi's who used to fund the islamofascists (Bush calls them terrorists for tactical reasons of not making an issue of their religion) are now worrying about their own government's opposition to their activities. They are curtailing their contributions and worrying about keeping their freedom.

The position of Polk in this article is not significantly different than the position of many leftists before either the Afghanistan war, or the Iraq war. It is a new way of saying, "The Arab street will rise up if we do anything". However it has not yet. I cannot see that it will. Expecting the "street" to rise up assumes we handle these issues so the conflict is framed solely in terms of religion. Polk criticizes the use of the term "terrorist" to describe these people when that term was chosen to not make happen what he seems unwilling to accept has not happened. Pressure to "get out now" is counterproductive if winning is important.

There are a wide range of political views in this county, and frequently they define themselves by what they oppose rather than what they support. Ronald Reagan taught us better than that. Some conservatives are now attacking a war that many of us on the right feel we have to keep fighting until the islamofascist movement is no longer a threat. A nuclear bomb going off in America is still a real threat if we do not act now. We need to discourage the most conservative parts of our political spectrum from attacking those who are their natural friends over what are disagreements about tactics.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

How negative is the press really?

The world of blogging is an amazing thing. At no previous time in history could the powers of the press be so easily challenged as in the modern world of the blogosphere. Here is an article, Bad news from Iraq, that criticizes recent news coverage. It is compiled by a consistently conservative Aussie, whose blog site has an ad for Republicans who are looking for other Republicans to date. I don't think there are many Republicans in Australia. At what other time in history could a writer in Australia pay for his writing by selling ads whose only customers are in America?

Moving on to the point of the article, Chrenkoff obviously spent some hours deciphering the data in his Google searches. To have compiled his assessment, he also wrote some fairly complex criteria, obviously based on extensive analysis. He put some thought into this. The result is a really intriguing look at just how biased the press is against America. The data is compelling.

Chrenkoff is worth checking on occasionally, as he has steadfastly reported the good news out of Iraq in the face of the relentlessly negative coverage from the main stream press. He is proof that we have support more widespread than you could imagine, or at least than John Kerry can could imagine.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Inaguration Day - "To TheFuture" by George W. Bush

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

We won! (My apologies to our friends on the left) I am still astounded that the Democrat party has become the party opposing democracy, subverting free enterprise and rewriting the constitution when it doesn't match with their choices of lifestyle. In many ways they have returned to the pessimism of the Jimmy Carter years. Yet it is encouraging that in this election a majority of Americans rejected their myopic views that government is all about handouts and freedom is not as important as "peace". We are a positive and happy people. This article sums up so many of the reasons that George W. won.

"To TheFuture" by George W. Bush - 1/20/2005 - Washington Post

We are winning the war on terror because of the courage, idealism, and sacrifice of the United States military. Our men and women in uniform are making America safer and the world more peaceful. And my highest honor as President is to serve as their Commander in Chief.

Another good read on this inauguration day is "The reality of American idealism" by Suzanne Fields in Town Hall - January 20, 2005.

A clue to what the president will say in his second inaugural address this morning lies in the words he delivered four years ago: "Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations."

This article too shows much of the positive outlook that has brought so many to be George W. supporters. Today, I am hopeful that we can come together as a nation. Today all those who are patriots, on the left and the right will be more interested in celebrating our great nation, than arguing about our differences. Today is a good day. God bless America.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Qaeda 'heavily damaged'

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Terror cop: Qaeda 'heavily damaged'


WASHINGTON - Al Qaeda is "heavily damaged," constantly on the run and so financially strapped that it is having trouble making payments to the families of its dead fighters, the Daily News has learned. The terror group remains determined, however, to attack the U.S.

"What we see, and I'm including information we've seen as recently as this month, is that the remnants of the organization are not diverted from their goals of attacking us," a senior counterterrorism official told The News.

"Al Qaeda Central is heavily damaged," said the official, who requested anonymity. "But they're still plotting. These guys don't do anything else."

This sounds like good news, but that doesn't mean that the war is over. You will not hear this from the main stream media.....the war on terrorism is a race to change the face of the middle east before the nuclear war that never happened during the "cold" war becomes a reality. The islamofascists (or terrorists - you pick your term) are dedicated to a philosophy of death. We have only two choices. Fight them over there and win, or some day a nuclear bomb will go off here. Our troops understand this. And they are doing a magnificent job protecting us. I still think of the George Patton quote whenever I hear of someone dying for our freedom, "Don't mourn these men. Thank God men such as these lived." God bless our troops.

However, I worry about how poorly our borders are protected. That has to change. This article is a good read.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Myth: Schools Don't Have Enough Money

by John Stossel (archive) - January 18th, 2006 - TownHall.com

The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.

Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."

John Stossel is getting significant negative response to his efforts as he notes in the article quoted above. However it is coming from the expected groups, the educrats who are so determined that only more money in their hands will ever fix all the problems they have created.

We here in Bertie County's Community Schools SOS are also being attacked from the same groups. We have now learned that we are "liars" and "misinforming the public".

I will leave that up to each reader to decide for themselves.

Stossel's is a good article to read though as it talks about the key issue; Public schools waste money. When educrats start talking about money, they always confuse the issue, not clarify. Here in Bertie County, by the simple process of reducing the number of children at J.P. Law, they have run the per child money caluculation up so it appears higher than the other schools. They then claim that the greater success of J.P. Law students is due to the fact that they have spent more money on them.

No. The children were just as much ahead of the other schools back when there were 40 more students in the J.P. Law and the per student amount was the same as other schools in the county. You would think that people who are in the education business would be smarter than to believe their own premise when it is this obvious. Well . . . . they are. The problem is they think you are stupid enough to believe such non-sense.

The article continues with this important point.
A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student.

Read the article by Stossel and hear about the taxis used to bring students to class, the billions of dollars spent, the olympic gyms, and the utter failure of these efforts to improve education. We are building a magnificent new middle school here in Bertie County, the heart of the Inner Banks. Wait a couple of years and check the test scores of our students. That magnificent new edifice will not teach a single child anything. Bertie County scores will still be in the bottom 10% of the state. You can bet on it.

A Great News Site on the Internet - MyWay.com

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

More and more people are abandoning the practice of buyng newspapers. The cost is not that great, but most newspapers are very opinionated, and filter the news. The news sites on the Internet are much better. Even the sites run by regular newspapers are forced by competition to broaden their perspective. Even better are sites like MyWay.com.

This is a news highlight portal. It gives you the title and first paragraph of seven of the best news sources on the Internet. It also appears to be the only news highlight portal that has no popup ads!

The news sources at MyWay.com currently include:

They break each site down into categories:

This makes it easy for you to go to a category like sports, medicine or maybe politics, and then by clicking on the different news sources, compare what each is carrying in that area. If a specific story is of interest, you can then flip from one news source to another looking just at the various coverages of that story alone.

Great site. Everyone should bookmark it and visit it when you need to get as much news as you can about what is happening.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

ACLU Sues To Stop Illegal Spying On Americans . .

. . Saying President is Not Above the Law

Press Release from the ACLU - the Anarchy and Criminal Liberties Union - Tuesday January 17th, 2006

NEW YORK, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Saying that the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans must end, the ACLU today filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the National Security Agency seeking to stop a secret electronic surveillance program that has been in place since shortly after September 11, 2001.

Is this ACLU group not amazing? They say that the rights of an American Citizen to conspire with foreignors is more important than the rights of other Americans to not die as a result of their conspiracy. It is thus Constitutionally protected speech to call, or be called by known foreign terrorists, and the government may not interfere.

Why is it that this group never defends innocent people? Why is it that this group never defends those who love America? Why is it that this group never defends children from pedophiles but always defends the rights of pedophiles? Why is it this group never defends the rights of those who are harmed by crime? How is this CIVIL?

Who does the ACLU defend? Murderers. Rapists. Pedophiles. Terrorists. Flag Burners. Socialists. Foreignors. Spies against America. They always say they are doing these things to protect average Americans, but the person they side with is NEVER an average American. It is always someone who is an America hater or enemy of Americans. How is this AMERICAN?

This is truly not surprising though. This organization was founded as a communist organization, by a proponent of communism. For example "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth: communism is the goal!" is the most famous quote of Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU.

At what point does it become clear that the ACLU is an enemy of America? The Anarchy and Criminal Liberties Union. There is nothing American or Civil about them.

A teacher hits the wall after attack by student

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

By MATTHEW BOWERS - The Virginian-Pilot © January 17, 2005
SUFFOLK, VA — On paper, Lisa W. Rath’s ordeal ends Tuesday. A juvenile court judge will sentence one of her students, a girl who savagely beat her in a King’s Fork Middle School hallway last year. But not everything is in the court record.
She no longer feels safe in Suffolk. And teaching’s not the same. “I’ve put a wall up now between me and the students,” Rath said, “and I won’t let students over the wall.” So she plans to move. And, at 38, she’s preparing for a career change.

Teachers are frequently criticized for the shape of education in America. What is overlooked is that our courts and the unelected judges (through their pampering of students and the refusal to allow discipline) have gutted the education safety environment. How can you teach when students are allowed to act like animals with little consequence? How can students learn when they are told about their rights and never about their obligations?

This is one article whose lessons are important if we are going to fix our schools. And the most important lesson is that we have to give the teachers back a school system that has discipline and safety. Teachers have a right to be safe. That will require taking back our courts, and controlling the unelected judges who rule based on liberal opinion rather than law. The judges need to understand that punishment is a lesson too..... a lesson our youth never learn in the current court system, and by their edict, the school systems as well.

Monday, January 16, 2006

A worthy charity - for our troops

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Have you ever noticed that charities that have been in existence for some time always seem to become pockets of protection for people who take money and never pass it along? 9-11 proved that the Red Cross has become such a group. The vast majority of the money goes to paid staff and overhead, not the people who need it.

Even the USO has become a treadmill where most of the money goes to "admin", rather than entertaining the troops. They still do good work, but the percentages are wrong.

New charities seem to start with more idealism and purity, and for a while they do great work, and everything goes to the people who are being helped. Our troops need this during this time of war, and there is a new group of charities that is doing things really worthwhile for them.

The troops themselves are telling stories about what these people accomplish, and reporters who investigated them came back with the same conclusion, they are for real. I came across them when another blog site I regularly visit refused to take donations but instead asked that his supporters should support them.

If you would like to do something good for our troops, check them out.

Soldier's Angels

George Clooney Ego Explodes . .

. . . . Blames Himself for John Kerry Defeat

By Jim Roberts - January 15, 2006 - The National Ledger

George Clooney, who it seems considers himself a terrorism expert, now may believe himself to be an A-list political consultant if a report from the UK is to be believed. The published report makes that claim that the 'Syriana' actor is the reason that John Kerry was defeated in 2004.

Clooney speaks, voters listen? No - this is not satire.

The report seems to originate with Contact Music UK and the website notes that the actor "was one of several screen stars invited to ride on Kerry's election train." The claim - it all went downhill for the Democrat when Clooney stayed away.

CMUK quotes Clooney: "Kerry asked me to ride on his train - he had a train going cross-country after he was nominated and some actors went on board. I called him and explained that I couldn't do it."

The result. "I'd hurt him. I'd actually caused him harm at the polls."

Yea, that did it. The American voter hangs on George Clooney's every word to see which candidate they should vote for something as important as the president.

Nice ego.

Here's a glimpse of Clooney as a 'politico' as he earlier tried to explain why the suicide bombers in his film "Syriana" are sympathetically depicted as pious heroes while all the Americans in the movie are greedy or homicidal cynics.

"They [the terrorists] are, in a way, the most sympathetic, but I think that's important," Clooney said in a videotaped interview shown on Fox News Channel.

"Because if you are going to fight a war on terror, which is not a state that you can go and bomb, then you need to understand what it is that creates the people who would do such horrible things, rather then just saying - labeling them as evildoers."

Good luck selling all that on the campaign trail.

Perhaps the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will have George Clooney's assistance and he can sell the whole, 'terrorists are not evil bit,' to the American voter.

--Jim Roberts

Jim, you have said all that needs to be said. Here . . . in a nutshell . . . . is the problem with the democratic party. They really do think that the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 are the good guys and Americans are the bad guys.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Ham-handed Dems Didn't Lay A Glove On Alito

by Mark Steyn - January 15, 2005 - The Chicago Sun-Times
I find it, as grave somber Senate Democrats like to say, "troubling." Indeed, I find it not just "troubling" but sad that a party once so good at "the politics of personal destruction" has got so bad at it.

The last time they had a Supreme Court nominee to hang upside down in the Democrat bondage dungeon was the John Roberts hearings. And at least, when hatchet man Chuck Schumer professed himself "troubled" by the "fullness" of John Roberts' "heart," the crack oppo-research guys had uncovered an "inappropriate" use of the word "amigo" by Roberts back in the early '80s.

But, with Sam Alito the worst they come could up with was that he might have been around some other guy who might have used the word "amigo." Not back in the early '80s, but in the early '70s.

As a regular reader of the Inner Banks Eagle will know, I am in favor of a strong Republican Party because of a belief that the democratic party has been take over by unpatriotic socialists who are dedicated to the destruction of freedom and capitalism in America. These extremists and the party leaders who pander to them were on constant display during these hearings. Can anyone who is a patriot honestly say they are proud of the democrats claim that wire-tapping foreign terrorists when they telephone people here in America is a serious threat to our freedom?

This attack is based on the political fervor of the socialists in the democratic party who hate America's military power. Anything, absolutely anything that limits our power or exposes us to attack is preferable to them. Why would any patriot support a party that has been taken over by people who wish to destroy our form of democracy?

Saturday, January 14, 2006

The Famous Edenton Courthouse

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Posted by Hello
The North Carolina legislature has approved the NC Supreme Court meeting in the fantastic Edenton Courthouse. Built in 1767, it predates the United States, and was a courthouse while North Carolina was still a colony.

Friday, January 13, 2006

The Supreme Court vs. the Constitution

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Ben Shapiro - 1/12/2005

Why has the court consistently exceeded its powers to create prophylactic rules based only on its own, elitist value system, instead of protecting rights enumerated in the Constitution? Why have the justices subverted the rule of law by undermining that most fundamental of American rights -- the right to vote for policy-makers who will legislate -- in favor of rights that do not exist under the Constitution?

Ben Shapiro sums up the problem with America's courts in this rather sever denunciation of court abuse. He writes, 'as former Chief Justice Warren Burger once stated, "We're the Supreme Court, and we can do what we want"'. This is one quote I wish more Americans were aware of. Warren Burger is typical of the judicial arrogance that is undermining democracy in our nation.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Tell a lawyer joke, go to jail?

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Pair arrested outside Long Island courthouse
The Associated Press

"MEPSTEAD, N.Y. - Did you hear the one about the two guys arrested for telling lawyer jokes?

It happened this week to the founders of a group called Americans for Legal Reform, who were waiting in line to get into a Long Island courthouse."

People often react negatively when I tell them we have one of the most corrupt court systems in the world. I can only assume they do not read the news. Articles like this speak repeatedly of the frequent use of the court system to punish any who do not kowtow to the unelected demagogues in our courts.

Only if this particular case becomes well known will it be handled fairly. Otherwise these two individuals will be added to the long list of people mangled by the American system of extortion and injustice. Even our legislatures are subject to the court system abuse, primarily because so many representatives are a part of the lawyer lobby. Where are the Supreme Court Justices when the court system is used to destroy people gratuitously? Missing in action. Even the ones who are jokingly referred to as "non activists". All of them are activist judges when it comes to protecting their illegally usurped powers.

This just in: Bloggers had nothing to do with Rathergate

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Hugh Hewitt links to several new blog posts taking apart the hypocrisy of the CBS whitewash. You think whitewash is too exaggerated a response to the CBS report? CBS's own technical expert determined the memos were false, but the report said ""The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." You have to read the back up for the report to find out the truth. Why is CBS still trying to sell the possibility Dan Rather was right? Truth seems to be the greatest casualty of the Main Stream Media's attempt to discredit blogs!

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Americanism and Its Enemies

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

By David Gelernter
Commentary Magazine

Suppose you were to put together a bookful of pronouncements and predictions about America's destiny, ranging over four centuries. What title would you give it?

Such an anthology did appear in 1971; it was edited by an associate professor of religious studies and subtitled "Religious Interpretations of American Destiny". The book's main title was God's New Israel. From the 17th century through John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Americans kept talking about their country as if it were the biblical Israel and they were the chosen people.

This article is a long read, but very worthwhile. There are many movements in the world today that cannot explain in reasonable terms why they are either for or against America. David Gelernter has an interesting theory of what drives their support or opposition. He explains how the confidence of most Americans underlies the enmity of many of those who oppose us.

David gets to the heart of his theory with his passage "You would need some sort of fierce determination to set forth in a puny, broad-beamed, high-pooped, painfully slow, nearly undefended 17th-century ship to cross the uncharted ocean to an unknown, unmapped new world. You would need remarkable determination to push westward into the heartland away from settlement and safety. You would need ferocious bravado to provoke the dominant great power of the day on the basis of rather flimsy excuses, and ultimately to declare war and proclaim your independence."

The earliest groups that came to the part of the new world that became America had death rates that frequently exceeded 50% in the early days of each colony. America was built by the survivors, who took it on faith their survival proved they were personally chosen for greatness.

This is a part of our American heritage that influences us positively today.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Miracle on 34th Street

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

Brendan, Sarah, Mike, Kristi, Pascale and Natasha get ready for Dress Rehearsal of the Gates County Historical Society production of Miracle on 34th Street. It was directed by Dr. Joyce Brown from Sunbury. Local actors Earl Spence, Sam Tackett and Audrey Lewis played the leading roles of Fred, Doris and Susan. The play was a great success, and everyone had a great time. Posted by Hello

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Some great people keep God in their lives

Reposted as history. Originally posted in January of 2005.

How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?

12/20/2004 - eOnline.com By Ben Stein

As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end. It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it.

For many years, Ben Stein has written a biweekly column for the online website eOnline.com called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Probably one of the most important statements in this article is Ben's comment "a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to". How many of us still are in awe of famous people? How many of us have really thought through why this notoriety impresses us so? I only wish I could be more like Ben Stein's description of what he sees as important. It is an awesome perspective. Check out the article by clicking on the link above. What do you think?

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Deceptive Munich

by Jonah Goldberg - January 04, 2006 - National Review Online

Ever since World War II, the German city of Munich has been symbolic of a single, solitary political lesson: the folly of "appeasement." The 1938 Munich Pact represented the futility of compromising with evil.


Steven Spielberg would like to rewrite the meaning of Munich. In his film about the response to the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Spielberg seems determined to invest the word with a new meaning: We must not treat scorpions like scorpions.

What idiocy Spielberg has produced with this movie. Sorry. This is the second time I have mentioned this film. In my coverage of this earlier article, Hollywood Hooey, I called the film a total lie.

Jonah Goldberg has written an excellent article that everyone who is considering seeing the film should read first. Jonah dissects the film in much better detail and does a much more effective job of explaining the reasons that I feel Spielberg is excusing evil. Maybe excusing evil is not lying, but it is close.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The Soviets Had the KGB
Al Qaeda Has the NYT

by Mac Johnson - January 2nd, 2006 - Human Events

America spends $40 billion per year on intelligence operations aimed at discovering our enemies’ secret activities. All our enemies have to do is subscribe to the New York Times and, for as little as $4.65 per week, they can discover most of our secret operations -- at least as long as a Republican is President.

Recently we had the delightful experience of seeing a reporter go to jail for the arrogant belief that they are above the law. Reporters believe that the first amendment gives them an exemption from our laws. They can knowingly lie, as Dan Rather did, and there are no consequences. They can refuse to testify in a criminal case, as Judith Miller did, and there are no consequences . . . oops . . . what happened here? Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail. That was not supposed to happen. She only got out because she decided that maybe she should testify after all.

The above is an excellent article about the current situation at the New York Times, describing the numerous examples of where they have actively worked to harm our currently elected officials because they are not the ones the New York Times thinks should have been elected. If Americans involved in the war against Islamofascism happen to die, well that is just the price some have to pay for The New York Times making sure democrats win the next election.

The most important line in the article to me is, "The convicted spy Aldrich Ames sits in a Federal Prison today for communicating some of our dearest secrets to the Soviet Union. Perhaps his real crime was forgetting to “CC” the New York Times on those communications. It is time to stop treating the media elite as though they have the right to ignore without consequence any law that gets in the way of a journalistic scoop or a political agenda."