A Nation Of Wimps

by Hara Estroff Marano - Article from November 2004 - Psychology Today

Parents are going to ludicrous lengths to take the bumps out of life for their children. However, parental hyperconcern has the net effect of making kids more fragile; that may be why they're breaking down in record numbers.

No one doubts that there are significant economic forces pushing parents to invest so heavily in their children's outcome from an early age. But taking all the discomfort, disappointment and even the play out of development, especially while increasing pressure for success, turns out to be misguided by just about 180 degrees. With few challenges all their own, kids are unable to forge their creative adaptations to the normal vicissitudes of life. That not only makes them risk-averse, it makes them psychologically fragile, riddled with anxiety. In the process they're robbed of identity, meaning and a sense of accomplishment, to say nothing of a shot at real happiness. Forget, too, about perseverance, not simply a moral virtue but a necessary life skill. These turn out to be the spreading psychic fault lines of 21st-century youth. Whether we want to or not, we're on our way to creating a nation of wimps.

No one doubts it, and yet we seem unable to do anything about it. That too is a sign of this nation, dominated by Judges who have rigged everyting to be decided by our courts, and with no one accountable for anything. Someone else can be found to sue for any failure that you experience. It is not your fault. It is the fault of all those other people who made you fail or should not have kept you down.

How dare they.

Juan Williams Assails 'Phony' Black Leaders

Ronald Kessler - July 27th, 2006 - NewsMax.com

Fox News contributor Juan Williams comes out swinging against "phony" black leaders and a black "culture of failure" in his new book "Enough."

Williams gave NewsMax his first interview about the book, and he lashed out at leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who create support by focusing on "victimhood."

"That says to an individual, ‘You can't help yourself, you can't help your family, and therefore all you can do is wait for the government to do something for you," said Williams, who is also a senior correspondent for National Public Radio. "I think it is a message of weakness and ineffectual thinking that is absolutely crippling the poor and especially minorities in the United States."

Bill Cosby was the first black leader who had the courage to point out how liberals and liberal blacks are promoting failure in the black community. At least it is a reasonable argument that always blaming someone else for your problems leads to failure when that blame is not justified. I was reminded of that the other day when I was talking to a local black leader.

First he made the outrageous statement that 90% of all Republicans are racist bigots. Since 8% of the Republican Party are black, that only leaves 2% of other Republicans he does not see as racist bigots. You have to ask if that is true, why a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights legislation than Democrats? That is right. Over 55% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights legislation.

Next he insisted that he was not a democrat, but an independent. I checked, and I must say the records I saw say he is fibbing. He certainly shows as a registered Democrat. It seems that was part of an argument that he was making that he was not liberal but was in the middle of the political spectrum. Neither appears to be true.

I hope we can continue the dialog though. I would like to discuss the comments of Juan Williams, a noted liberal, with this Bertie County man. It is going to be interesting to see if like Bill Cosby, hard core black leaders condemn Juan as an Uncle Tom.

Mortal Threat To Newspapers

What do Craig's List, Greer's OC and Townhall.com all have in common?

Each is a mortal threat to newspapers.

by By Hugh Hewitt - July 27th, 2006 - Townhall.com

\snip
. . . Townhall.com is not only a one stop shopping center for news and opinion, it is now home --in its third week-- to more than 1,000 new blogs, a blog community that will grow and grow as Townhall.com penetrates further and further into the reading demographic that also wants to participate, but not according to old media's rules or who can no longer endure the MSM’s many left-wing biases.

On Monday of this week I had an interesting conversation with one of the supporters of the Bertie County Board of Education. It started when the individual found it important to insist my opinions did not matter because "blogs are not press" while we were talking about issues where we disagreed.

The essence of the argument was that we don't print a newspaper, or announce our news with a radio or TV person. We are on the Inernet and that means we are not press . . . according to this individual.

After I tried to explain why I did not agree, incuding the fact that the ACLU (a group I rarely agree with) said they were prepared to defend us as press, we could only agree to disagree. The Patriot Blogs ARE PRESS! The individual did not know that the Superintendent for Bertie County Public Education had granted us "press status" in a recent letter, after having denied us "press status" last year. She at least has learned about the power of the press, even the press that some people don't think of as press.

Hugh Hewitt has written an interesting article about blogs as news sources (and therefore press) and the Internet as a new form of advertising (both classified and retail) that is seriously under cutting the primary revenue source of newspapers. It is not blogs alone that are harming newspapers (and TV and Radio to a lesser degree), but these new forms of online advertising as well.

When you start with the fact that the liberal bias of the press has already alienated over 40% of the American public, the new technology of the Internet is changing news coverage dramatically. It is hard not to see liberal defense of Main Stream Media (MSM) as almost Luddite.

I repeat, The Patriot Blogs are press! Thanks for reading.

.

NEA Keeps Tilting To The Left

by Phyllis Schlafly - July 25th, 2006 - Townhall.com

Parents who wonder why the public schools teach so many things parents don't approve of need look no further than the official policies of the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association. Meeting in Orlando, Fla., this year in annual convention over the Fourth of July weekend, the NEA adopted a long series of left-liberal resolutions.

\snip\

But the NEA certainly doesn't believe in diversity when it comes to schools. The NEA is positively paranoid about any kind of competition, passing resolutions against voucher plans, tuition tax credits, parental option or choice plans, sectarian schools, for-profit schools, distance learning, and home schooling.

It is somewhat amusing to talk with people who support the liberal indoctrination campaign of public schools. They do not see this as something that is inappropriate. Far from it. They laud this as creating better citizens, since obviously that majority that disagrees with them are stupid, and fixing stupid is what schools are supposed to do.

This is a good article to understand just how biased and extreme this program of liberal indoctrination has become.

Gingrich Says World War III Has Begun

Staff - July 16, 2006 - NewsMax.com

World War III has begun, and the nation’s leadership is failing to deal with this reality, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich concludes.

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest individuals who is currently dealing with the crisis in the middle east. His take on this, that we are in the middle of World War III is more likely accurate than many of the liberal commentators, who have never served in the kind of powerful positions that Gingrich has held. Those positions give him a unique capability to see through the complexities of what is going on in the world.

He still holds the position of the first person to completely change the political makeup of the America in a single four year period. No matter how you feel about his capability as a leader, you cannot deny that he understood better than anyone what was happening in the world at that time. He still sees and understands the world better than most.

There are many of us who feel the probability that nuclear bombs will be used in this war by the Isamofascists before it is over is a near certainty. And yet the liberals in the democratic party are convinced that we need to pull out of Iraq. No greater disaster could be defined than pulling out. It would almost certainly assure that this war against western culture would be won by the bad guys.

Gingrich sees that. Why don't more people see it?

Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy

By Charles Krauthammer - July 19th, 2006 - The Washington Post

There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?

The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.

There are times when I wonder if there is anyone in our government who has the clarity and sanity of Charles Krauthammer?

Though he is not always right, he always seems to have a more certain grasp of the basic facts of situations than anyone in our government. The George Bush administration always seems to be pre-occupied with at least appeasing the politically correct liberals even when it does not follow their prescription for solving problems. Even now they are prattling on about the need for Israel to hold back and be patient.

Do they really want to make sure that Hezbollah survives? Are they happy with Iran having a proxy army on Israel's border? When Iran has nukes, does George Bush want it to be easy to deliver a nuke to wipe out Tel Aviv?

Sometimes I wonder.

'Great Men' Have Grating Effect On Mideast

by Mark Steyn - July 16th, 2006 - The Chicago Sun-Times

I was on the road the other night and so found myself watching CNN's coverage of Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. It was "Larry King Live," and it was one of those shows where Larry interviews great men about what needs to be done and the great men all agree that what needs to be done is that the president needs to get other great men involved to "broker" a "deal." Sen. Chuck Hagel proposed that Bush appoint Colin Powell or Jim Baker as his Special Envoy; Sen. Barbara Boxer proposed that Bush appoint Madeleine Albright as his Even More Special Envoy. Sen. George Mitchell, who himself served as Extra-Special Super-Duper Envoy a few years back, proposed that Bush involve the European Union. And someone else proposed the G-8. And Larry suggested Putin. Oh, and some smooth-talking apologist in Savile Row pinstripes proposed Chirac, because he and Bush had agreed a U.N. resolution on something or other a year or two back.

Aside from Larry's closing tribute to Red Buttons, I've never heard more rubbish in a single hour since . . . well, come to think of it, since the last time I saw "Larry King Live."

This is a great article, and at least one side attribute it can claim is that great last line above. CNN really is epitomized by "Larry King Live". The entire station is so out of the loop they think that Heather Mills is a serious world leader. A former prostitute who conned Paul McCartney into marrying her is now giving the CNN audience political and social advise.

Steyn sees things much more clearly than most of the writers on world affairs. It will be sad if people like Steyn are still being ignored when Iran's nuclear bombs start going off here in America.

'The Race' Schools: Your Tax Dollars At Work

by Michelle Malkin - July 12th, 2006 - Townhall.com

Top White House adviser Karl Rove traveled to Los Angeles this week to pay homage to the anti-immigration enforcement lobbying group for Latinos: the National Council of La Raza.

"La Raza" is Spanish for "The Race."

It's bad enough the White House lent its prestige to The Race's annual conference. But did you know the Bush administration has forked over millions of federal tax dollars directly to The Race?

According to GOP Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia, The Race snapped up $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone and more than $30 million since 1996. Undisclosed amounts went to get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions. The U.S. Department of Education funneled nearly $8 million in taxpayer grants to the group for a nationwide charter schools initiative.

The goal of this group is destruction of America and the taking of all the Southwestern United States and making it a part of Mexico. This is a publicly stated goal and they are actively working to make this happen, including stating it in the schools they run.

Don't forget, Al Qaeda has for a couple of decades stated they wish to destroy us, and yet there was a time when many government leaders laughed at the idea. George Bush and the Democratic Party still laugh at the idea that La Raza will make their goal happen. They laugh at the goal and then turn around and court La Raza votes. That we give a group dedictated to the destruction of our nation money for get-out-the-vote efforts to build their influence is unquestionably the absolutely dumbest thing that George Bush has done.

It is arguable whether fostering democracy in Iraq is the best solution. There is no way you can argue that fostering hatred for the United States is something that we should spend tax payer dollars to support. So why is George Bush doing this?

Women Are Leaving Men In The Dust

By Tamar Lewin - July 9th, 2006 - The New York Times

The New Gender Divide
At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust

A quarter-century after women became the majority on college campuses, men are trailing them in more than just enrollment.

Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women.

And in two national studies, college men reported that they studied less and socialized more than their female classmates.

Small wonder, then, that at elite institutions like Harvard, small liberal arts colleges like Dickinson, huge public universities like the University of Wisconsin and U.C.L.A. and smaller ones like Florida Atlantic University, women are walking off with a disproportionate share of the honors degrees.

After nearly 40 years of male hatred by feminists the modern world has reached the point where men are the only acceptable target for discrimination. Jokes that would be basis for lawsuits directed against any of the protected "minorities" are tolerated against men. This double standard has consequences and it is changing the behavior of men. It is important to ask whether this change is positive.

I find the attitude of many young men of all races is growing indifference to what society thinks of them. They believe that no matter how they try, they will be discriminated against and so they become less concerend with the opinion of society. This attitude has long term consequences that are not good for our society.

Mocking The Rules In Massachusetts

by Jeff Jacoby - July 10th, 2006 - Townhall.com

When the Massachusetts Legislature meets in joint session as a constitutional convention this week, the most notable item on its agenda will be a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage. A record-breaking 170,000 state residents have signed petitions to put such an amendment on the state ballot. But the Massachusetts Constitution mandates a detour: The measure must first win the support of at least 50 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative terms. Only then can it be submitted to the people. If the amendment gets past every hurdle, it will reach the ballot in November 2008.

/snip/

Lawmakers are not given a choice in the matter. The Constitution requires them to vote. If it didn't, initiatives opposed by the legislative leadership could always be aborted by simply refusing to bring them up for a vote. Instead of operating as a check and balance on the Legislature, Article 48 would then be a toothless sham. But for weeks now, same-sex marriage advocates have been telegraphing their intention to kill the marriage amendment through just such an unconstitutional ploy.

This is an example of the modern democratic party in action. With contempt for our nation's heritage and any semblance of respect for democracy, democrats have evolved to a party that believes winning is all that matters. Take an agenda item sought by any faction of the current party makeup, and the entire party will resort to any form of criminal or despicable behavior to assure victory.

There is a homosexual agenda to get special rights. It was encouraged by their success in stopping reasonable health rules designed to protect society from epidemics. Their reason was that the rules interfered with the homosexual community's promiscuous and multi partner orientation. The consequence has been the AIDS epidemic. However most in the homosexual community see their interference as a success, not a failure that resulted in human misery on a massive scale.

They now want the public to be forced to condone their lifestyle by granting them equality with the hetero sexual community. It is a campaign designed to validate their lifestyle choice. They do not care about anything but forcing the hetero sexual community to admit them to a "club" to which they are currently denied. The specific so called "rights" that they claim are harming them could be provided by many other methods that granting them the right to get married. However they reject these attempts because the rights are not what they seek. It is "respectability" for their life style that is the issue.

As such the democratic party is (all over the nation) stomping on the concept of democracy and using liberal judges and political power to shove this homsexual agenda down the throats of the American people. Watch Massachusetts if you want to know why so many people despise the modern liberal agenda, and are learning to despise democrats who (for reasons of power) support this liberal hypocrisy.

Daley Jobs Chief Guilty

by Rudolph Bush and Dan Mihalopoulos - July 6, 2006 - Chicago Tribune

Striking a resounding blow against what prosecutors called "a new machine" in Chicago politics, a federal jury Thursday convicted Mayor Richard Daley's longtime patronage chief of scheming to reward political workers with city jobs.

The prosecution of Robert Sorich and three other former city officials has reached more deeply into Daley's administration than any previous federal case, and prosecutors quickly promised that they are not done at City Hall.

"I really can't say anything more than 'stay tuned,'" said First Assistant U.S. Atty. Gary Shapiro.

The most amazing part of this article is the outrage exhibited by Democrats that anyone would think rigging jobs for political cronies was a crime. Anthony Sorkin, a Democrat attorney said "I find there to be a big difference between taking money and going to work and doing your job . . . ." Despite testimony that "they falsified job interview ratings forms and staged sham interviews to make sure that jobs went to politically connected applicants" the defendents insisted that this was not wrong. They seem to feel this is merely the Democratic way.

The sad part is that for many years, this has been the Democratic way all over America.

“The Good Guys” Won?!

by Robert Alt - July 5th, 2006 - National Review Online

Walter Dellinger, the former acting solicitor general for the Clinton administration, exclaimed that “Hamdan is simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever, ever” and concluded that “this really is a wonderful day for the rule of law.” It is simply absurd to call Hamdan the most important decision on presidential power ever. This is not a partisan judgment; it is the simple legal sense of the matter. Much of Hamdan is little more than a questionable patchwork of statutory interpretation.

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court has ruled that Osama bin Laden’s personal driver and bodyguard, Salim Ahmed Hamdan has the right to stop our government from incarcerating him . . . but without awarding him rights under our Constitution. Not content with running our nation's murder rate up to the highest in the world (by their revolving door criminal justice system that is designed to assure that criminals can easily steal enough from American citizens to pay attorneys their outrageous fees) the Supreme "Tyrants" seem determined to assure that our soldiers cannot fight in battle without an attorney as well. There is no reason not to label the five justices who made this ruling, "Enemies of America", as they most assuredly are. We have moved one step closer to the lawyer's dream world that every person in America must ask permission from a lawyer and a Judge before they may take any action. And yet as noted, Democrats want to go even further.

Democratic politicians have asserted that that the decision recognized constitutional rights for non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said “This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights.”

What I cannot understand is how Democrats see this as protecting Americans. Since when did an enemy of our nation become someone the Democratic Party defends. Since when did they become Americans. Does the Democratic Party really see everyone in the world as deserving of the title American? This man is an enemy of our nation. Only the most perverted sense of defending our respect for fair treatment sees this as an issue of importance, and even that cannot possibly justify the current exuberance at what is a decision that will harm our soldiers.

The war continues. Why are Democrats so concerned with these prisoners?

Independence Day Book Review

Ann Coulter is the author of New York Times #1 best seller "Godless". It is a book that before it was even released was being condemned by liberal writers all over America, including a couple who admitted they had not even read the book.

In my desire to assure that the Inner Banks Eagle is up to speed on the literary discussions of the day, I purchased the book "Godless" over the Internet a couple of weeks ago. I was encouraged in this by my 84 year old mother, Nancy Adams, who was intrigued by the triviality of logic being used by those on TV who attacked the book. Mom read it first when we received it. She loved it!

I picked it up to read this morning. I was not planning to do anything today, and wanted something that would amuse and relax. Mom said that it was a funny book. She was right. It has been an interesting read and it is definitely funny.

As an example, Ann takes on the liberal love for murderers and talks about all the ways liberals distort the record to protect these criminals. She comments on the notion that it would be worse to sentence the murderer to life in prison since "Life in prison spent thinking about the crimes is worse that death" according to liberals. Her response? "Evidently not to the murderers on death row who regularly fight their executions tooth and nail. But just so we understand: Is the problem that the death penalty is too humane or not humane enough?" She uses statistics to prove that liberal's love for murderers has significantly increased the number of people killed in America over the last 40 years. The book is not all humor.

Ann also has a great deal of fun with the war heros of the liberals, John Kerry, Dick Murtha and Max Cleland. Anyone who disagrees with these three is usually labelled a "chcken hawk" by liberals and denounced. However they sometimes get a little overly enthusiastic with their denunciations of Republicans. Max Cleland once denounced a group of Republicans as "chicken hawks" obviously unaware that "Five of the six Republicans Cleland attacked were combat veterans, and the one who was not had spent thirty years in the Army Reserves. Among the five was Representative Sam Johnston (R-TX), who flew sixty-two combat missions in Korea and twenty-five over North Vietnam, was shot down in combat over Vietnam, and was tortured as a POW for six and a half years." Yeah. That sounds like these Republicans were chicken hawks doesn't it?

Ann also has fun with the ACLU. After noting that "The ACLU sued a school district in Cobb County, Georgia, merely for putting stickers in biology textbooks that urged students to study evolution 'with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered'. According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the 'separation of church and state' which appears in the Constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses." With comments such as this, can anyone not appreciate Ann likes to be funny by exaggerating? I guess not because liberals denounce Ann as if her tongue in cheek exaggerations are meant literally.

The theory of the book is that liberalism is a religion. Ann belabors the point endlessly and makes a credible argument. In the process you will learn a lot that is in fact true that you would not believe if you only read or listen to what is called the main stream media. However for my money, the most important parts of the book are the Chapters on Darwinism and evolution. If you believe in God, Ann will reward you with an utter conviction you are right. Ann proves herself to be both an amazing researcher and a brilliant writer. It is probably this support for a true belief in God that so enrages the liberals.

I definitely recommend this book, but only if you are a Republican or an Independent. If a Democrat you should only read it if you are fed up with liberal support for socialism, illegal immigration and the certainty that God is dead. However in that case you are probably already considering leaving the party! By the third time you laugh at one of Ann's humorous constructs, you are well on your way to being a Republican.

A True Story: Illegals are Voting Now

by Paige Forrester - June 30th, 2006

The incumbent greets voters at the polls on Election Day. He has chosen the most populous county among the ones he represents – even though they are all quite rural.

A woman approaches him and says, “I wanted you to know that I voted for you!” Excited by this news from the voter, the candidate shakes her hand and thanks her for her support.

The woman then leans towards him and quietly whispers, “Now, do you think you can help me get my green card?”

Yes, you heard correctly. An illegal alien voted in the election. How is this possible? Let me explain.

In NC, you are not required to prove legal status to get a driver’s license. When applying for a license, everyone is asked if they want to register to vote.

When we go to the polls to vote, we are required to give our name, have it checked off the list of registered voters, confirm our address and sign a voter card. That’s it. At no time are we required to present a photo ID or show proof of citizenship.

If illegals are voting in rural NC, you know it must be happening all over our country. Millions of illegals are voting, perhaps even affecting the outcome of our elections.

This is happening in NC and all around the country. I for one am ready for NC to change the laws on requirements for obtaining a driver’s license AND for voting in an election.

How about you?