In My Opinion

America not only has an economy problem, we have an economic educational problem that compounds the issue and our ability to resolve it. Most of our younger generation have been victims of educational malpractice as a result of liberalism and political correctness that infiltrated our educational system going back a few decades, and it will take a concerted effort, and a few more decades to overcome it. The curricula emphasis on diversity and political correctness took the place of history and economics and has produced a generation of ill informed, over emotional people with a distorted understanding of our Constitution and capitalism. One of our resident liberal teachers here has said on many occasion that the Constitution is racist and misogynistic, and even a liberal Supreme Court justice has said that if she were beginning a new country, she would not look towards the US Constitution as a foundational document, preferring instead to look towards other countries philosophy of governance. Unbelievable as that is, it’s true. The US Constitution is inarguably the greatest governing document ever written, and needs to be taught as such. The US Constitution is responsible for this country becoming the most powerful economy in the world, offering the most civil rights and liberties than any other country hands down.

Re: economics, too many people are financially illiterate as to capitalism, the private sector, and the role of government. Let me begin by simply saying that wealth is not a zero sum game, capitalism is the best economic platform hands down as “a rising tide lifts all boats” (think: JFK), and the role of government is simply that of a referee. Free markets are the foundation of the capitalist platform, and the Federal Governments role is to see that the rules are abided by, and the Federal Government has failed at this core responsibility so to think that they can perform any other function properly defies common sense. There should have been investigations, indictments, prosecutions and convictions stemming from the 2008 housing crash, but those investigations would have revealed some very uncomfortable truths for some very well politically connected people so the fact that those investigations never took place, should be disturbing to us all. The fact is, that more people can be lifted from poverty and the lower class via a healthy private sector, than any government program could ever accomplish, and the more money that the government extracts from the private sector, the less ability that private sector has to turn that money, creating wealth, jobs and ….. wait for it …… tax revenue. It’s all about the turns and any retailer, wholesaler and manufacturer can attest to that. The more you turn your inventory, the more income is produced, the more profit is produced, the more jobs are produced, which exposes more dollars to taxation. It’s better to tax a dollar that is turned 5x at 20%, than it is to tax that same dollar turned 1x at 40%, and any liberal that desires more revenue to the federal government needs to understand this basic economic fact. Sadly, this is not taught often enough in our primary and secondary educational levels.

As a country we owe our children an honest education, and there are certainly people who do take advantage of our capitalist system, as the very nature of the system can invite corruption, but if our federal government was more focused on it’s proper role, those instances would be few. Our children need to understand how the blend of our Constitution and our capitalist economy has created the most powerful, free country in the world unequaled by any other. As it is now, the misunderstanding of those two foundational components of our country has resulted in our current slide into malaise and mediocrity.

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “In My Opinion

  1. Bob1 December 8, 2012 / 1:56 pm

    Not only have we failed to teach subsequent generations of Americans about the wise strengths of our Constitution and capitalism, but we have failed to enforce some very basic laws that would protect both systems from being corrupted or otherwise destroyed in our society. We are now trapped in a social and civic system that is ignorant of its basic strengths and comfortable enough with its illegal operations to make any changes. The consequences that we all face will be severe.

    • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 2:44 pm

      When you take God out of the equation you have removed all restraints.
      We have elected sodomites, cheats, liars, thieves, atheists,
      Hispanics one generation out of banana republics, & squalor, africans whose great Grandparents who were tribesman and headhunters, told them they are victims of eeeeevil white oppressors, and “educated” them so they graduate with a third grade level comprehension. Then gathered them onto the donk plantation and let them live on OPM.
      We have now two generations of self loathing whites who have bought into the leftist BS, and they too have the education of a moth.

      We have a long hill to climb to undo the damage the commie left has done to this country

      • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 2:46 pm

        I believe EVERY young man should serve at least 2 years in the military.

      • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        OT….but, RUT RO

        Japan poised to shoot down North Korean missile
        The Japanese government has ordered its military to shoot down the missile that is expected to be launched by North Korea as early as Monday.

      • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        Crist Makes it Official, Will Join Democratic Party

        next week he will exit the closet………

      • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 3:11 pm

        unbelievable

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        Neo,

        I used to believe the same. “I believe EVERY young man should serve at least 2 years in the military. but found no way to do so without damaging the all volunteer military we currently have. Maybe different battalions that our current military would not have to rely on. Two other exceptions to your proposal would be ‘everyone’ in lieu of ‘every young man’ and the addition to opt-into something like the ‘peace corps’ as long as they have to serve two years in a real third-world craphole before they return to the ‘Land of the big PX.’

  2. 02casper December 8, 2012 / 3:18 pm

    “One of our resident liberal teachers here has said on many occasion that the Constitution is racist and misogynistic”

    I don’t believe I’ve ever stated it that way. What I’ve said was that the Constitution as originally written did not include the right to vote for women and that it allowed slavery. Both of which are true.

    • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 3:24 pm

      catspuke

      Constitution as originally written did not include the right to vote for women and that it allowed slavery. Both of which are true.

      SHOW us that in the constitution

      • 02casper December 8, 2012 / 4:01 pm

        Neo,
        I can’t show you something that doesn’t exist. Why don’t you point out the section that gives women the right to vote or the section banning slavery.

      • Amazona December 8, 2012 / 4:27 pm

        ” Why don’t you point out the section that gives women the right to vote or the section banning slavery.”

        The Constitution did not even discuss whether or not women could vote. The Constitution did not even discuss whether or not slavery was a good thing, or a bad thing, or its legality. If you want to play this silly Leftist game, we can come up with a very long list of things the Constitution did not specifically endorse or prohibit

        The closest thing the Constitution said, regarding slavery, was that for the purposes of establishing population, 3/5 of those who were not free would be counted toward the total population of that state. This was to keep the slave states from gaining more representation by counting slaves in the population, which would have actually INCREASED the chances of slavery spreading. It was a compromise with the intent of limiting the political power of the slave states. Surely you understand this, and the motive behind it. Surely even YOU can understand that a Constitution whose writers favored and supported slavery would not have been so intent on restricting the political power of slave states.

        And casper, you are not being honest here. When we were discussing Supreme Court nominations and some of us were strongly in favor of justices who see the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, NOT AS IT IS INTERPRETED you stated quite clearly that in your opinion the Constitution AS WRITTEN supports slavery and denying women the vote.

        You and I argued about it, over several posts. You kept insisting that the Constitution as written would allow slavery and I kept telling you that you were wrong, because the Constitution as it is written includes every amendment ever passed—that an amendment becomes an integral part of the Constitution.

        What you are doing is a favorite ploy of the Left—–claiming, falsely, that the Constitution supported slavery, or allowed it, when in fact it did not address the issue of slavery and only peripherally addressed the fact that there was, at the time, a population that was not free.

        The list of things the Constitution did not address is nearly infinite, and to claim that if something was not forbidden by the Constitution it was approved of is the silliest and stupidest of arguments.

        What the Constitution DID do was define the role of the federal government, in laying out 17 specific duties required of it. It was ratified only because of the solemn promise that it would soon be amended to add a Bill of Rights, which would balance the requirements of the federal government with restrictions upon it. The last of the Bill of Rights amendments stated that if something was not delegated to the federal government it was up to the states, or to the people, to deal with—unless it was specifically prohibited by the Constitution itself.

        The original Constitution did not address the right of women to vote, the right of people to own guns, the right to free speech, etc. Yet I do not see the RRL squealing that the Constitution supported suppression of free speech or the banning of weapons.

        What it did do was state that some (few) things were in the purview of the federal government, and the 10th Amendment confirmed and clarified that everything else was up to the states. There was no judgment passed on any of the things that were, at that time, left up to the states, including slavery and the right of women to vote.

        You are now misstating what you said before, casper, and this is a very weaselly thing to do.

    • Amazona December 8, 2012 / 6:39 pm

      casper. first you say “…the Constitution as originally written did not include the right to vote for women and that it allowed slavery. Both of which are true.” When you are asked where in the Constitution it says that it allows slavery or mentions the right of women to vote, you reply “I can’t show you something that doesn’t exist.”

      In less than an hour you take two opposing positions—that may be a new record, even for you. And you admit that the position you have taken all along, about the alleged permission granted, by the Constitution, for slavery does not exist, nor does a prohibition on women voting.

      So where IS this allowance of slavery? Where is it stated? Where IS this ban on women voting? Where is it stated?

      As you admit, neither of these are stated—yet you repeatedly assert that they are true. “Both of which are true.”

      Your position is evidently that if the Constitution does not come right out and say someone can do something, then he can’t do it, and if it doesn’t say he can’t, then he can.

      And THIS is the quality of teaching some poor parents are unknowingly imposing on their children in Casper Wyoming. According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution allowing, children from the age of four to work twelve hours a day in sweat shops. According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution allowing, a fisherman to sink his competitor’s boats. According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution allowing, men to have up to six wives and get rid of them by stoning. According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution allowing, public nudity.

      According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution prohibiting the preparation of meat by smoking. According to what passes for a thought process for casper, the Founders approved of, and wrote a Constitution prohibiting painting houses pink.

      And so on.

      If one is going to consistently apply the bizarre reasoning of such as casper, which is really just anti-Constitutional propaganda spread by the RRL, one would have to contend that anything under the sun not prohibited by the Constitution was approval, and anything not sanctioned by the Constitution was proof of the Founders intent to prohibit it.

    • ricorun December 8, 2012 / 11:49 pm

      Cluster: “One of our resident liberal teachers here has said on many occasion that the Constitution is racist and misogynistic”

      Casper (the teacher in question, replied): I don’t believe I’ve ever stated it that way. What I’ve said was that the Constitution as originally written did not include the right to vote for women and that it allowed slavery. Both of which are true.

      To be fair to you, Casper, I don’t recall your earlier comments. That said, this current one sounds like a waffle to me. And it wasn’t necessary because you’re re-interpretation is STILL consistent with Cluster’s portrayal of it: the Constitution was racist and misogynistic.

      You didn’t have to waffle because it’s true: according to all the modern definitions of the terms involved, the original Constitution WAS racist and misogynistic. There is no logical way around it. For starters, despite the lofty rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence about “all men are created equal”, that ideal was certainly NOT embodied in the original Constitution. In fact, many states had the additional requirement of property ownership as a prerequisite for suffrage. If that wasn’t bad enough, some states even had religious affiliation requirements for suffrage “rights”. Nonetheless, in all cases, “population” was counted not on the basis of who was eligible to vote, or even on the basis of who might be eligible to vote once they attained the age of maturity, but on the basis of the fact that they were living in the state, REGARDLESS of whether they had ANY chance of voting, given the laws in effect at the time they were counted. One person, one vote? I don’t think so.

      Weirdly, Amazona said the following as if it was a good thing: “The closest thing the Constitution said, regarding slavery, was that for the purposes of establishing population, 3/5 of those who were not free would be counted toward the total population of that state.

      I’m sorry, but because neither male or female slaves had any hope of suffrage rights, or ANY woman, black, white, or otherwise — or in some states, ANY non-landowner — there is clear evidence of both racism and misogyny, not to mention elitism. All you did, Amazona, was indicate that it could have been even worse. And that’s fair, so far as it goes, because it really could have been worse.

      The good news is that our Constitution — as well as American society at large — has proven themselves to be incredibly enduring, even self-correcting, despite how fast life is changing. What our forefathers crafted in the American Constitution really does represent a revolution in thought. Especially considering there had never been anything like it on a scale anywhere close, ever, it was a remarkable achievement which cannot be trivialized.

      But that was then and this is now. IMO, it has always been better to think of the Constitution as a seed — a framework — upon which to grow, not as an end in itself. And most certainly, not to revere it as somehow fully bloomed in its original state — or in any state in which it currently exists, for that matter. The Constitution is a living thing — and every single law enacted by the Congress, every single decision made by the Supreme Court, are its branches. It is appropriate to prune when considered necessary. But to assume we can prune back to the root (which it appears is what you and others here want to do) is a recipe for disaster. Most simply put: how can you gaze into the future if your head is so obviously turned in the direction of the past?

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 12:02 am

        Aside from the very fact that you, RicoRun, are a simplistic moron (read parts of my post below), I do not have the energy to counter your simplistic and misguided arguments this evening.

        Moderator, rather than getting removed for not providing arguments–give me 12 hours to respond from which we will hear nothing but more of the above gabberwokky from Rico.

      • Cluster December 9, 2012 / 12:06 am

        Those who forget the past Rico, are doomed to repeat it. You have heard of that saying right? And it’s just unfortunate that someone of your infinite wisdom wasn’t around to correct those old, white, religious, racist, sexist men Rico. We could have really used you.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 12:07 am

        Here is a start.

        The original Constitution was designed to unify a nation and the 3/5ths clause was a compromise. Not one that accepted slavery but one to unify a new nation in spite of. Women were treated as equal citizens with exception of land ownership for the most part and therefore voting rights. Women who owned land were allowed to vote.

        BTW, you do understand the “non-difference” between “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property” — Don’t you? and how that phase directly affected the “slaves”, Constitution and relations between the States at the time? Come’ on Whiz Kid. Fill us in before I get up in the morning.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 12:09 am

        Maybe Casper can help you?

      • ricorun December 9, 2012 / 1:12 am

        dbschmidt: The original Constitution was designed to unify a nation and the 3/5ths clause was a compromise. Not one that accepted slavery but one to unify a new nation in spite of.

        Yeah, I understand that. In fact, I applaud it. As I said, the good news is that our Constitution — as well as American society at large — has proven themselves to be incredibly enduring, even self-correcting, and what our forefathers crafted in the American Constitution really does represent a revolution in thought. But it doesn’t change the fact that many aspects of it were what they were… which is to say compromises.

        One of the ironies I see in all this is that folks like dbschmidt are willing to extol the virtues of compromise in the distant past, yet find compromise totally distasteful in the here and now. The fact is that revolutions in thought can come about through compromise. And I think that’s something the GOP should keep in mind as they try to find a way forward.

      • ricorun December 9, 2012 / 1:29 am

        Cluster: Those who forget the past Rico, are doomed to repeat it. You have heard of that saying right?

        Yes, I believe I have.

        And it’s just unfortunate that someone of your infinite wisdom wasn’t around to correct those old, white, religious, racist, sexist men Rico. We could have really used you.

        We? … ? Isn’t that just a tad presumptive of you?

      • ricorun December 9, 2012 / 1:42 am

        dbschmidt: BTW, you do understand the “non-difference” between “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property” — Don’t you? and how that phase directly affected the “slaves”, Constitution and relations between the States at the time? Come’ on Whiz Kid. Fill us in before I get up in the morning.

        I am certainly not the “Whiz Kid” you are making me out to be. So please, fill me in when you get up in the morning — particularly your view on how that “non-difference” affected the “slaves”, the Constitution, and relations between the states.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        Rico,
        Sorry about the “moron” comment if you are actually here to learn. But I do not have the time, nor energy, to complete said education in a single post but will do my best as needed.

        Cluster,
        My bad for taking away from the actual posting but IMHO the Constitution and the Bill of Rights–the so called “Apple of Gold in a Frame of Silver” by Lincoln who went on to state “The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple-not the apple for the picture” deals directly with the economic (among many others) prosperity and wealth of the citizens of the United States. This was founded on property rights, free markets, and a solid education in both.

        Generally, Rico, since Casper has no idea:
        “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property” are only different for one major reason. “the pursuit of Property” was part of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States of [original 13 colonies] (among many other Confederations at the time) in order to bind the colonies in their mutual battle with our independence from King George (IIRC).

        Without all of the minutia involved the words “the pursuit of Property” were changed to “the pursuit of Happiness” directly because the forefathers were concerned with slavery and the possible misconstruction of the words “of Property” being used to
        represent slaves and extend their servitude longer than necessary.

        Also, IIRC, America was the shortest lived, from start to finish, nation with slavery when compared world-wide. As a bonus or two, the first slave to buy his freedom from slavery became the first black slave owner–it became his profession. Second, since manservant or any servants of any kind were allowed inside the locked doors of the first Continental discussions on the US Constitution–can Casper,/Rico or anyone else explain the blacks that were present? The were not slaves but law makers. ‘splain that. Or maybe the ones in the “Washington crosses the Delaware” painting which has blacks and women in the boat. Real segregation and the beginning of folks being depressed for color or sex started
        under President Wilson. There is your “racist and misogynistic” beginnings.

      • ricorun December 11, 2012 / 9:20 pm

        DB: Sorry about the “moron” comment if you are actually here to learn. But I do not have the time, nor energy, to complete said education in a single post but will do my best as needed.

        I fully understand your concerns. Who among us has such time? Moreover, I commend you in the most effusive way for your last response on this particular sub-thread (I haven’t read the others yet: I’m working from top to bottom). You could have slammed me for “blasphemy”, because you could have pointed out that it wasn’t so much the Constitution that was misogynist and racist at the time (though I said it was), it was far more the American society. As originally written the only inequity codified in the Constitution was the 3/5ths clause which, as you pointed out, was a compromise. Sometimes it’s necessary to take a step back to make two steps forward, wouldn’t you agree? Considering your historical knowledge, perhaps you might also agree that racism in American society increased, rather than diminished, in the years leading up to the Civil War. As a result, Lincoln had to deal with a very polarized society.

        I’m not saying the conditions then are exactly the same as the present society, but it’s close enough to wonder, as Cluster said, “Those who forget the past Rico, are doomed to repeat it.” The details are different, as they always are, of course. And I sure as hell don’t want to aggrandize Obama in saying this. But one could compellingly argue that the Republican Party (especially the Tea Party faction) is on the other side of the argument this time around. The worst part is that it doesn’t have to be so. The best part is, (to paraphrase Mark Twain) reports of the death of the party have been greatly exaggerated.

        The bottom line, IMO, is that the GOP is not dead. They just have to accept a more reality oriented (in terms of science), and a more modern (in terms of demographics) conception of current society. And IMO, neither of those things are impossible — presuming the party is willing to compromise on issues that really don’t affect the overall economy.

  3. 02casper December 8, 2012 / 3:20 pm

    “The US Constitution is inarguably the greatest governing document ever written, and needs to be taught as such.”

    Not only do I agree with you on that, that is also what I’ve taught.

    • neocon01 December 8, 2012 / 3:28 pm

      Not only do I agree with you on that, that is also what I’ve taught.

      I throw the BS flag on that one, you belong to a party that whizzes on the constitution, murders it’s citizens babies, wants to “marry” men together, steals through taxation, and redistribution of OPM….NONE of which are in the constitution.
      Where did you get your education from? the back of a matchbook home study course?

      • Amazona December 8, 2012 / 4:32 pm

        casper is being typically weaselly. I once asked if the parents of his students know that he teaches that the Constitution as it is written favors slavery and not allowing women to vote. He came unwound at this, accused me of stalking him, and more to the point accused me of trying to get him fired—his words. This was proof to me that he was fully aware of the consequences of having the parents of his students learn about the lies he was teaching, from his radical Leftist perspective. It was a tacit admission that the truth about what he was teaching could get him fired.

        So now he has to backtrack and claim he said what he did not say, and meant something different from what he actually argued. it is Classic Casper.

      • M. Noonan December 8, 2012 / 9:58 pm

        Amazona,

        In a bit of defense of Casper, the Constitution as originally ratified permitted slavery by referring to “persons held to service” – but so reluctant were the Founders to have it in there (even our Southern Founders) that they refused to use the word “slave”. Lincoln was very much right in the 1850’s when he argued that the Founders, unable to just willy-nilly do away with it in the 1780’s, did set up a system where gradual emancipation would become the rule…and so it transpired until circumstances turned out to make slavery exceptionally profitable and thus built is a vested interest to keep it around (and, indeed, seek to spread it – and thank God for Lincoln because had he not been there, slavery would have continued, and grown…the whole world was tending towards it as the industrial revolution took hold).

        But as far as women’s votes goes, it makes no mention of it one way or the other…the States decided who would be a voter and that was that…it was only post-Civil War that the federal government took an interest in who was voting because we wanted to ensure that the returned Southern States didn’t disenfranchise the newly freed slaves.

      • Cluster December 8, 2012 / 11:14 pm

        This is kind of a ridiculous conversation to have. Slavery was a widely employed labor practice of the time and while some founding fathers had slaves, others detested the practice and the Consitituion was written so that it could be ratified by all colonies. Abigail Adams implored John to write abolishment into the Constitution but he knew he couldn’t get the votes needed to pass if he had. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it allowed for the perfection of the union to continue, and it did.

      • ricorun December 9, 2012 / 12:36 am

        Cluster: This is kind of a ridiculous conversation to have. Slavery was a widely employed labor practice of the time and while some founding fathers had slaves, others detested the practice and the Consitituion was written so that it could be ratified by all colonies.

        While that is largely true, a case could also be made that one of the reasons why the American colonists (at least in the southern regions) were motivated to break with Great Britain was because Parliament was in the process of outlawing slavery. Thus, assuming independence didn’t include a similar restriction, it was seen as the less odious alternative.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 5:35 pm

        Mark,

        The comment “persons held to service” was not restricted just to blacks. Reparations, rather than punishment, for crimes of one person against another quite often lead to “persons held to service” until their “debt” was paid in full.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 5:39 pm

        Rico,

        Spend an afternoon, or a couple of hours at least and read the Declaration of Independence. It lists the exact charges against the King and the reasons we fought to become a free nation. Really interesting if you can find a good source.

        For both you, and Casper–no malevolence intended, and completely free: http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/ Start from the beginning and most videos are under 40 mins each ~ just like a lecture because they are.

      • M. Noonan December 9, 2012 / 10:16 pm

        DB,

        Indeed – we had this beautiful, race- and gender-neutral governing document and then our liberals came along and messed it all up…

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 11:35 pm

        Mark,

        Indeed we did if you allow for property rights. Owning property gave one the right to vote. Man, women or for the most part anyone. I am stating it was anywhere near perfect because a lot depended on the colony one was associated with but in a lot of ways better than the other options available.

  4. dbschmidt December 8, 2012 / 11:14 pm

    History is an interesting thing with over the past hundred years or so we have had both Progressives and Liberals gnawing at our very founding documents. To dispel Casper’s myths –the original Constitution was designed to unify a nation and the 3/5ths clause was a compromise. Not one that accepted slavery but one to unify a new nation in spite of. Women were treated as equal citizens with exception of land ownership for the most part and therefore voting rights. Women who owned land were allowed to vote.

    Woodrow Wilson would be our first left leaning elitist president. Under the Wilson administration, the founding principles of America would be dramatically altered. Not only did the banking interest get their central bank (Jekyll Island), but the principle of State’s rights took a nearly fatal blow when enough states ratify the 17th Amendment to elect Senators by popular vote instead of the states having the right to appoint their Senators. Also, under Wilson the federal government got the right to tax our income. There the stage was set for our central government to grow in size and power. Wilson, as a final blow to the unification of America segregated the Federal Government and military. You know, blacks are the less’ers to whites. I could mimic the NBPP but I try not to be so vile.

    Our second left leaning elitist president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) who was the first to adopt the principle of never letting a crisis go to waste; Social Security was born out of the Great Depression. Eventually the socialist ideologues would take control of the Democratic Party.

    Following FDR was Lyndon (Ly’ing Bastard) Johnson who, if wasn’t directly responsible for JFK’s death was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his “War on Poverty.” Liberals all “Hail to the Chief” but this was the beginning of the economic ruin of America.

    Later, Jimmy Carter, a very ineffective president or certainly by the time Bill Clinton, who was very effective for them living on a Republican set of policies. Now we have the very left leaning Barack Obama who was just elected to a second term and we can’t deny how effective he has been to advancing the socialist agenda.

    Wilson did his damage, as did FDR and LBJ but this is how far back “we” need to go to start to resurrect this ship. Education was only since the late 60’s ~ early 70’s. The work ethic was a little earlier and now we are reaping what we have sown. Moochers.

    Completely different subject is Casper’s ;

    “The US Constitution is inarguably (sic) the greatest governing document ever written, and needs to be taught as such.”
    Not only do I agree with you on that, that is also what I’ve taught.

    The U.S. Constitution demonstrate a conservative principal that has lasted a great deal longer than SS; nevertheless, as you try to claim this was actually a Liberal “collective” document—please show me where you, as a State or City teacher, deserves a single Federal dollar.

    There are several others that have subverted the Constitution but for the limited learning abilities of our lefties–I have limited this post.

  5. GMB December 9, 2012 / 7:27 am

    One minor quibble here. The federal government has always had the right to tax income. What they did not have was the right to tax income without apportionment among the states. Lincoln, If my memory does not fail me, instituted a income tax during the Civil War.

    Another quibble. If look through our country’s history, this is our third go around with a federal central bank.

    And my final thought.

    The political party that was founded on the principle of dealing with the most important social issue of the day now wants those of us who want to deal with social issues along with economic issues to just shut up.

    Times do change, I guess.

    • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 10:43 am

      GMB, are you suggesting that the Republican Party should join the Left in efforts to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government?

      Because unless you can point to which of the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government would encompass social and/or economic issues, this seems to be what you are saying, if you are saying you would like the national GOP to take on these issues.

      This is the problem with standing on principle: It is restrictive, if you are going to be consistent and not hypocritical. And this is where people get confused.

      I contend that on the national level, the party should run on a purely political platform—that is, how best to govern the nation. I believe that this platform should be the Constitution of the United States, and all that means.

      On the STATE level, that’s another story, because it is at the state level that most of the power still exists, in spite of efforts to shift it to Washington. Here is where we elect our state LEGISLATORS, and here is where we need to know what they believe in.

      Strictly speaking, even at the national Congressional level, our legislators should still be constrained by the Constitution, as they legislate national or federal law, so strictly speaking even here their positions on social issues should not be of much concern.

      At the state level, though, the personal beliefs of our legislators are of great importance, because it is at the state level we see votes on things like gay “marriage” and the legality of abortion, the structure of divorce law, and so on.

      • GMB December 10, 2012 / 6:40 am

        Ridiculous to even suggest that I am calling for a bigger government. I have stated several times what I am calling for. More than several times.

        If anything, the whole federal government could disappear today and it would not bother me in the least.

      • ricorun December 11, 2012 / 9:46 pm

        GMB: If anything, the whole federal government could disappear today and it would not bother me in the least.

        Better Big Business fills the void, right? After all, all evidence suggests that’s SO much better.

      • Amazona December 11, 2012 / 10:12 pm

        Right, rico—because that is the choice—Big Fed or Big Business.

        Too bad there are not any smaller governments, sovereign in their own right yet united under a national identity, to assume the power and authority vacated by the loss of the federal government.

        If only……..

      • Amazona December 11, 2012 / 10:15 pm

        Well, GMB, you did seem to be complaining that the GOP was abandoning social issues which are not even in the scope of a Constitutional United States federal government.

        “The political party that was founded on the principle of dealing with the most important social issue of the day now wants those of us who want to deal with social issues along with economic issues to just shut up.”

        Maybe I misunderstood but I took this to mean you are disappointed that the Republican Party “….wants those of us who want to deal with social issues along with economic issues to just shut up.”

  6. Cluster December 9, 2012 / 9:49 am

    If liberals insist on calling our Founders racist and sexist, then they may as well call them stupid as well for not using electricity, but I am a little disappointed that the conversation thus far has all centered around the constitution, ignoring the economical illiteracy that is rampant in our current society. Too many people of our younger generations have no clue as to the virtues of capitalism, the circulation of money, wealth creation, risk, capital, etc., etc. They have only been taught that capitalism is evil and that wealth is a zero sum game by old hippie liberals that sought the comforts of government tenured positions rather than subject themselves to free enterprise.

    The truth is that our capitalistic society has resulted in a higher standard of living for more people than any other economic platform. In addition to that, capitalism has created more wealth, and resulted in more innovation than any other economic model, yet it continues to be disparaged and diluted by those who don’t understand it and by those who desire to rein it in in favor of governmental control.

    • Retired Spook December 9, 2012 / 11:01 am

      Too many people of our younger generations have no clue as to the virtues of capitalism, the circulation of money, wealth creation, risk, capital, etc., etc. They have only been taught that capitalism is evil and that wealth is a zero sum game by old hippie liberals that sought the comforts of government tenured positions rather than subject themselves to free enterprise.

      And anyone who thinks that has happened by accident has no clue as well. To reverse that trend will take decades, perhaps generations, and that’s assuming Conservatives have the will and the wherewithal to gain control of the education system. And any Conservative who has ever run for a local school board or knows a Conservative who has run for a local school board knows exactly what an uphill battle that is. Progressives are firmly entrenched at virtually every level of primary and secondary public education. And Progressives own higher education.

      A massive economic reset with only Democrat/Progressive fingerprints on it would give the pendulum a massive push the other way and would shorten the process dramatically. Unless you aren’t prepared to survive such an economic and accompanying societal upheaval, I’m not sure why any Conservative would be opposed to it. I know the Count and I vehemently disagree on this, but that’s OK. We’re adults and we can disagree without being disagreeable. One of us is right; it just has yet to be determined which one. I would remind the Count that, from the mid 50’s to the mid 90’s, the GOP was the go-along to get-along party, content to keep their powder dry and live to fight another day, and another and another and another. It wasn’t until the Conservative wing of the party got control and decided, if they were ever going to be a political force, they were going to have to, not just stand for something, but work to enact the principles they stood for.

      • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        Spook, last year in Douglas County, a county on the southern border of the Denver metropolitan area, several school board positions were open, and three conservatives ran as a group, supported by the state GOP, and won. They were in favor of fighting to retain the recently passed voucher program, which would have allowed Douglas County parents to apply education funds from the state to private schools.

        They had intense opposition from the teachers union and from Liberal sources and funding, but they had a clear and coherent message, they stuck to it, and they prevailed.

      • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Spook & Ama,

        I, also, was taught to aspire to those that did well by themselves though non-nefarious means. Do not have any idea when that went away. I voted for Mitt even though he wasn’t my first choice. Nevertheless, the more I seen and understood–he is a great man and role-model. Sad, we elected a narcissist. Injecting himself into history like he has ever possessed the balls or the spine to do any of it himself.

    • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 11:47 am

      Cluster, I understand and agree with your frustration at the underlying problem in this country, which is the political and historical ignorance of most of its population.

      We talked about this last night. I remember when, in our small town in a small and poor farming community, a man was building a house that cost, so rumor went, $30,000 . This was like building a million dollar house today, and it was the talk of the community. I remember talking about it at school, and even in second or third grade our focus was on how this man became wealthy enough to do this, and how we, too, could achieve that level of financial success.

      I remember a general attitude of aspiring to rise to that level, of being inspired by this trapping of success and motivated to strive to achieve it ourselves. I remember the lesson taught by my parents and my aunts and uncles and the parents of my school friends being that we, too, could do something like this some day—-if we studied hard, got good educations, worked hard, there was no reason at all we, too, would not someday be building our own beautiful homes.

      This was the attitude that made this nation great—-of aspirations, of goals, of opportunity.

      Sadly, today the attitude is not to aspire to something greater, but to tear it down and bring it down to the level of the have-nots.

      The recent disgraceful treatment of Mitt Romney is an excellent example of this kind of thinking.

      This man should have been a role model for the nation. He gave away his inheritance and moved away from the sphere of his father’s influence, to make his own way. He took on the immense task of working on two post graduate degrees simultaneously, in business and in law, showing a strong work ethic. He put in grueling hours of hard work, building a business which not only made him rich but supported many families directly, and many hundreds more through the businesses he saved and rebuilt. He remained a faithful and loving husband and was a good father, taking his family on long car trips to learn about the country he loved and taught them to love. He did not just talk about loving his country, he took a leave of absence from his job and volunteered to work, for free, to salvage the Olympics, and thanks to his organizational expertise and hard work made it a success. He served his state, as governor, again taking no pay for the job. He served his fellow man, putting in untold hours of personal time and energy reaching out to help people, not just by throwing money at them (though he did donate many millions of dollars to charity) but by physically being with them when they needed someone, by caring for a child when his parent had to be at a hospital with an ill sibling, by actually cooking a holiday dinner for a family too distracted by personal tragedy to do this for themselves. He offered to serve his nation even more than he had been doing his whole life.

      And look at how he was treated—with scorn and contempt. He was attacked, vilified, slandered and libeled, ridiculed, and savaged for the very success that should have inspired Americans as proof of the success of our Constitutional political system. It was a disgraceful display of a significant portion of the American public as nothing more than jackals, and an example of how far we have fallen from the ideals that made this country great. All we have to do is look at the alternative the majority of voting Americans chose to see how far we have fallen.

      • Cluster December 9, 2012 / 11:56 am

        I agree 100%. Mitt Romney is someone who every American should aspire to be. Barack Obama is someone who no one should aspire to be. Mitt is selfless, successful, Faithful, honorable, and compassionate. Barack is selfish, narcissistic, inexperienced, and opportunistic.

        I am for the first time in my life, very disappointed with this country.

      • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 1:10 pm

        Cluster, I have no personal resentment toward Obama—-it would make as much sense as resenting a snake for biting. He is what he is, and he does what his identity tells him he should do.

        My attitude toward the people who voted for him, again, is far less kind. I hold these people responsible, individually and collectively, for the miseries that lay ahead of us.

        I do think they may have inadvertently created a business opportunity—such as a bumper sticker business featuring signs like:

        MY TAXES JUST WENT UP—–THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        MY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS JUST WENT UP—THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        INFLATION IS EATING UP MY INCOME—THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        MY COMMUNITY JUST LOST THOUSANDS OF JOBS—-THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        MY ELECTRICITY BILL JUST SKYROCKETED—THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        I JUST LOST MY JOB—THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        WE JUST GOT ATTACKED AGAIN BECAUSE THE WORLD THINKS WE’RE WEAK—-THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        MY PENSION PLAN IS NOW WORTHLESS—-THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        MY DOCTOR JUST RETIRED EARLY DUE TO OBAMACARE—THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO BUY MY HOUSE—-THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

        AT LEAST WE DON’T HAVE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE—-THANK YOU, OBAMA VOTER

      • Cluster December 9, 2012 / 1:13 pm

        I have no personal animosity towards Obama either. I am simply pointing out that he is the type of individual that should not be held in high esteem.

      • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 1:48 pm

        Cluster, I certainly did not intend to imply the slightest respect or admiration for Obama as a person. Far from it.

        I find him to be, as an individual, thoroughly despicable. I believe he is a willing participant and accomplice in what history will show to be the biggest and most significant fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people, with the intention of being the most destructive to the very fabric of American identity and its rule of law. Aside from his inherent dishonesty, I find him to be rude, arrogant, narcissistic, and condescending when not being contemptuous. I also think he is incredibly weak, regarding his character. If I were to have to find a redeeming quality in the man, it would be that he seems to love his children.

        I merely meant that knowing all of this about him, I can’t be surprised or even angry when he acts consistently with what we know about him—-and he would not have the power to be relevant if it were not for the determined ignorance and stupidity of so many Americans.

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        Amazona December 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

        Aaaaaaamen to that!!!!

    • dbschmidt December 9, 2012 / 6:06 pm

      Cluster,

      I agree with you that without the shiny city on the hill, we, as a nation, could not have become the nation that regular folks flee to, rely on, and is (until recently) the honest broker in world conflicts. Economic, IMHO, education begins with property rights continues through actual economics (Public v. Private sectors) and can be resolved by retaking the educational system for three or four generations and teaching a solid, what was once known as a, ‘liberal education.’

      My point in these is as the KGB (included) knew and the liberals/Progressives adapted is education (aka. indoctrination) is the key. Below is a short version of an ex-KGB agent but the full broadcast is still available.

    • ricorun December 11, 2012 / 11:34 pm

      Cluster: If liberals insist on calling our Founders racist and sexist, then they may as well call them stupid as well for not using electricity, but I am a little disappointed that the conversation thus far has all centered around the constitution, ignoring the economical illiteracy that is rampant in our current society.

      Perhaps I am coming late to the party, but I would say the fundamental shortcoming in our secondary school system is a lack of literacy in logic, not economics. I’m not saying the latter is not lacking, what I’m saying is that one cannot understand the latter in any true sense without a fundamental understanding of the former (logic). Furthermore, an understanding of the former (logic) is FAR more generally applicable.

      After all, an in-depth understanding of logic helps one to think for oneself — and also to realize when one isn’t. The knowledge of how to think for oneself (and when one isn’t) is FAR more preferable to any spoon-fed demagogic creed, from ANY teacher, about which version of economics (or anything else) one should believe.

  7. Amazona December 9, 2012 / 12:30 pm

    Ignorance is not related only to the amount of education one has received, but to the nature of that “education”. I think we can agree that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has had the benefit of attending some of the most prestigious schools in the United States. But his abject ignorance of the need for objective reporting of news, of a true free press, is revealed:

    “Robert F. Kennedy Jr told HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps in an interview Friday that he believes conservative media outlets such as Fox News are damaging the country.

    Asked how he thought things have changed in the political landscape, Kennedy pointed to “big money” and “the right wing control of the American media, starting with Fox News” as hurtful to collaboration between differing political interests.

    “Twenty-two percent of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News,” Kennedy told HuffPost Live. “It’s divided our country in a way that we haven’t been divided probably since the Civil War, and its empowered large corporations to get certain kinds of politicians and ideologues who are in the United State Congress elected — the Tea Party ideologues who control the Republican Party.”

    Admittedly, Kennedy might not be speaking from a position of true ignorance or stupidity, but from a commitment to Leftist demagoguery. After all, he is quoting the new Leftist claim that the Right controls American media, and his comments are so transparently false and ridiculous that it is hard to believe that he actually believes what he is saying.

    Just these two paragraphs are packed with Leftist lies, so densely that there would not be room for the truth even if there was an inclination to let it in.

    Starting with the dismissal of the big money of the Left, including Soros and the Tides Foundation and going on to Hollywood money and people like Warren Buffet, it lurches into the bizarre claim that the Right controls the American media. Even a feint toward the center would be such a rightward move from such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and most of the print media that we would notice it—-and it hasn’t happened. They are all still so far left of center, so blatantly biased, so fearlessly using their bastardized and unrecognizable spin on “journalism” to promote the Leftist agenda and ignore conservative input, Kennedy has to know this is a Big Lie of immense proportions.

    Then he explains that having access to information not provided by the lap dogs of the Left (identified above) is just terribly, terribly, awfully, horribly, DIVISIVE. Yeah, Bobby, we get it. Students of the International Left and its incursions into various nations have always been aware of the fact that the Left really prefers a unified perspective based solely on what they have decided to feed the sheeple. We’ve seen the takeover of media when the Left has taken over, we have read the instructions of people like Marx and Alinksy about the need to control all sources of information to create and maintain Leftist control. We get it.

    What strikes me is the cluelessness of the New American Left. The minders at the top understand that the manipulation of the press, the control of information, must be covert. But the newbies to the movement are so starry-eyed and so clueless that they don’t grasp the need to be sly about the strategy, so they blurt, like Kennedy did, their objection to people having access to information that does not come from approved Leftist sources. To people like Kennedy, this is the way it SHOULD be—people are told only what they should be told, and this is decided by the hierarchy of the Left. Having access to different points of view, different information, will only confuse people and might lead them to developing the ‘wrong’ opinions. Leadership decides what people should be told, and allowing people to think for themselves just leads to trouble. It’s a core concept of the Left—-but it is not spoken of openly. After all, the mushrooms might resent learning that they are mushrooms, might decide they would like some sunlight and a different diet, so the fact that they are being fed only selected information is not something the leaders want made public.

    This is the cold-eyed analysis of Leftist leaders. But they have to deal with giddy ideologues like Kennedy, who actually BELIEVE in all this gobbeldygook, and don’t recognize that it is really just manipulative strategy, and they blunder about bleating about how DIVISIVE it is to allow people access to uncontrolled, unedited, information. It’s really kind of funny to watch. The leaders can’t take the Kennedy types aside, slap them upside the head, and tell them to shut up because they are telegraphing a manipulative strategy that depends on no one talking about it, because some of these starry-eyed ideologues might catch on, realize they have been sucked in by a fantasy veiling a harsh and brutal reality, and move to the other side, as David Horowitz did

    • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 12:48 pm

      I get the impression that Kennedy would be happier with the old USSR-type control over what is made available to the public.

      From wikipedia: emphasis mine

      Control over information.

      All media in the Soviet Union were controlled by the state including television and radio broadcasting, newspaper, magazine and book publishing. This was achieved by state ownership of all production facilities, thus making all those employed in media state employees. This extended to the fine arts including the theater, opera and ballet. Art and music was controlled by ownership of distribution and performance venues.

      Censorship was backed in cases where performances did not meet with the favor of the Soviet leadership with newspaper campaigns against offending material and sanctions applied though party controlled professional organizations.

      In the case of book publishing a manuscript had to pass censorship and the decision of a state owned publishing house to publish and distribute the book. Books which met with official favor, for example, the collected speeches of Leonid Brezhnev were printed in vast quantities while less favored literary material might be published in limited numbers and not distributed widely. Popular escapist literature such as the popular best-sellers, mysteries and romances which form the bulk of Western publishing was nearly non-existent.

      Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.

      It was the practice of libraries in the Soviet Union to restrict access to back issues of journals and newspapers more than three years old.
      Jamming of foreign radio stations

      Due to the appearance of the foreign radio stations broadcasting in Russian and inaccessible for censorship, as well as appearance of a large number of shortwave receivers, massive jamming of these stations was applied in USSR using high-power radio-electronic equipment. It continued for almost 60 years. Soviet radio censorship network was the most powerful in the world.

      All information related to radio jamming and usage of corresponding equipment was concerned as a state secret. On the eve of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow the Olympic Panorama magazine intended to publish a photo with a hardly noticeable jamming tower located in the Fili district. Despite the photo being made from a public place it was approved for publication only after the tower was cut from it.

      One more way to limit Soviet citizens in access to outer information was the control over the production of receivers with frequency range shorter than 25 meters. Receivers with those ranges were primarily exported and were sold very rarely within the country.”

      I suggest that the misleadlingly-named “Fairness Doctrine” is a necessary first step toward this kind of limitation on what people can hear and read.

      But I’ll say this for the Russkies—they did keep a lid on that pesky “divisiveness” for a while.

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 1:48 pm

        liberal “comedy”

        SNL: Foxx Celebrates ‘Kill[ing] All The White People’ in New Film

        Breitbart ^ | 9 Dec 2012
        On Saturday Night Live, guest host Jamie Foxx told the amped-up crowd now in his new movie, Django Unchained, he gets to “kill all the white people … How GREAT is that?” The live audience erupted in cheers and laughter.

    • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 12:57 pm

      yeah racist old white guys………the leftist LIE continues to be spread by dumbed down useful idiots like catspuke and reek-O

      DIXIE’S CENSORED SUBJECT
      BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

      By Robert M. Grooms

      Sesquicentennial Monthly, Congress Plans Freedom for the Slaves, What Happened in December 1860?, What Happened in January 1861?, The Confederate Government is Formed

      In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

      The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

      http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 1:05 pm

        WHITE SKIN BLACK MASK

        The majority of the colored masters were mulattoes and their slaves were overwhelmingly of black skin. There was strong division between the two classes based on color, class, status and a culture of whiteness. There was a color and cultural clash between the two groups. The mulatto community in Charleston separated themselves from the dark skinned people, and they banned dark skinned people from their social clubs and seldom married unmixed blacks.

        They created exclusionary societies such as the Brown Fellowship society. Membership was based on brown skin meaning the sons and daughters of slave masters. They formed schools and benevolent groups to provide mutual aid and operated a burial ground and society. Among its members were John W. Gordon, William T. Oliver, Edward P. and Lafayette F. Wall, Richard Dereef and Robert Houston.

        Richard Edward Dereef was one of the richest black men in Charleston. He had a Wharf at the end of Chapel Street, was in the wood business, and owned slaves and rental properties, most of which were located on the east side of Charleston. Richard Dereef would never have been accepted into Charleston’s elite mulatto society, but he claimed to be an Indian- and had money. For the most part the mulatto slave owner aligned themselves with the white ruling class and helped to preserve the system of slavery.

        Among black slave holders the free mulattoes owners were over

        http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

        merchants.

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 1:10 pm

        • Without black African slave owners there would have been no slavery in America.

        Henry Louis Gates of the White House ‘Beer Summit’ fame enraged his base in 2010 by strongly opposing repartions to blacks. According to Gates the slave trade was almost wholly the result of black slave owners selling their human wares to Europeans.

        He wrote:

        “While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.”

        “The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.” [Emphasis added]

        The notion of White European raiding parties descending on unsuspecting African villages is a gross distortion of reality. Not only does the historical record argue against White raiding parties, but such parties would have been costly and inefficient compared to purchasing Africans already held in slavery. White slave traders would not endure the risk related to such incursions. Furthermore, Africans already held as slaves would be less willing to resist, particularly among those whose African owners were brutal enemies.

        [Source: Ending the Slavery Blame-Game, Henry Louis Gates, The New York Times April 22, 2010]

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1336262149
        • Beating black slaves in the South was extremely uncommon.

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 1:14 pm

        I then made it my business, when finding an older teacher, to ask if education had been “dumbed down.” To a person, I found that this question unleashed volatile diatribes on how dull children had become since the responders had begun as idealistic young men and women in the field. Algebra teachers informed me that every year they were forced to eliminate problem sets that previous years had mastered.

        English teachers who once taught Shakespeare and Dante were now reduced to leading seniors through Orwell’s Animal Farm or postmodern novels featuring teens in existential moral dilemmas. Moreover, the analysis of themes in book reports had been deconstructed into not what the author was attempting to portray, but what personal emotions were elicited in the reader.

        Teachers, who are part and parcel the products of our New Education, can never be fully aware of what diminution has been wrought subsequent to the Great Divide. From elementary school and into the colleges, disciplines of objective knowledge have been either discounted or leveled, and critical thinking has been pushed aside for the subtle indoctrination of a specific worldview. Students are deemed to be merely clever animals, and the slow, simmering replacement of a spiritual for a biological self-definition is therefore woven into the fabric of how they are taught life and the world.

        Campus speech codes and filtered curricula have denuded the classical goal of the acquisition of a free and analytic mind. The capacity to seek and apprehend truth has devolved into the project to fashion pliable minds with correct and

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/educations_great_divide_my_time_in_the_trenches.html#ixzz2EZlONyAO

      • neocon01 December 9, 2012 / 1:35 pm

        sound familiar??

        Answering Liberals’ ‘Gotcha’ Questions
        By Trevor Thomas

        As much as the establishment GOP would like for the “social” (I prefer “moral”) issues to go away, liberals simply won’t allow it. But contrary to GOP establishment beliefs, this is not a bad thing.

        So, as a public service to conservative Christians everywhere, but especially to those running for public office, this column is a primer for how to answer those “gotcha” questions that any candidate opposing a liberal will inevitably have to answer.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/answering_liberals_gotcha_questions.html#ixzz2EZqxrKnz

      • Jeremiah December 9, 2012 / 1:40 pm

        Lee and ol’ Traveler! 🙂
        There’s a place up on the mountain here they call “Lee’s tree” … it’s the tree where Robert E. Lee tied his horse, Traveler. A big sugar maple, the original died, then the second one burnt up from a house fire, now they’re trying to get a new one planted, trying to get the state to replace it. Then up above there is the hill where Gen. Lee camped his men. The trench is still there.

        You know he rode that horse all the way to South Carolina. Some 600 – 700 miles. I thought, lordy be, how rough that would be. A good rear blisterin’.

      • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 2:44 pm

        From the “American Thinker—time in the trenches..” article:

        ….. the current texts had been scaled down to what used to be a grammar-school understanding, and they carried within them a jaundiced view of America, preferring to accentuate the warts and blemishes rather than the achievements of our political system.

        And my questions are, just how does this contribute to an educated society and a stronger and more prosperous nation?

        And as Spook said, this degeneration cannot have been accidental. There had to be a time at which a decision was made that educated teachers could not teach in a way that challenged students or celebrated the greatness of this nation. After that point, the graduates of the dumbed-down systems would of course be “teaching” according to their dumbed-down ability. It would be an interesting research project, to nail down the time and source of that pivot point. I’m inclined to suspect the teachers unions, as it seemed to be a simultaneous shift toward both academic mediocrity and Leftist anti-American indoctrination.

        And it’s everywhere. In Wyoming, I lived in a pretty conservative community, and I remember a recent high school graduate solemnly explaining to me that the “problem” with the Constitution is that it is old, outdated, and not relevant to the modern world. I knew the kid, and could almost guarantee that he did no outside reading on his own, so this had to come from a “teacher”.

        I am a voracious reader, and in the past few years have found myself overcoming the reverence I was taught to have for books—no dogeared pages in MY books, by golly!!—as I have tried to wade through a best seller celebrated as a literary masterpiece and finally given up and tossed it in the trash, fed up with the abysmal sentence structure and free-form substitution of homonyms.

        It is just a matter of teaching to impart the knowledge that a sentence has to contain, at the very least, a verb. It’s not really all that hard. Yet books today are rife with pseudo-sentences, mere groupings of words with a dot at the end.

        And it takes years of exposure to develop the mental pathways that automatically recognize the context of a word and apply the correct form, or to recognize the form of a word and understand it in its correct context. It takes the discipline to study by rote, working on sight recognition, and practice of usage, to understand a phrase such as “I’d like to write an article on the right of a boy to undergo the kind of rite of passage into manhood so common in the past.” It takes exposure to language usage to immediately, without thought, recognize “reign”—or ruling over—and “rain”—-liquid precipitation—and “rein”—-to slow or halt, or a device used to slow or halt. We see it all the time—-sight/cite/site, or discrete/discreet. (Yes, I am often casual about sentence structure on the blog—-but at least I KNOW it!)

        Good teaching is hard, and sloppy teaching and teaching about social issues are much easier. So the easy path to teaching is the one most taken. Learning complex facts and the process of analytical thinking are hard, but learning that polar bear cubs are suffocating because the United States has too many cars is easy, so this is what sticks in the youthful brain.

        And the easy way out, for students and for teachers, is what makes the Leftist dumbing down of America so successful.

      • Cluster December 9, 2012 / 3:03 pm

        In a word – laziness. It’s easier to teach easy, emotional subjects rather than difficult, analytical subjects. It’s easier to get food stamps than to wake up in the morning, work two jobs and pay for your own food. It’s easier to demonize the rich, than applaud them and learn from their success.

      • Amazona December 9, 2012 / 3:15 pm

        Jeremiah, Traveler was a Saddlebred, a breed with a genetic predisposition to a lateral gait, and when properly trained would probably not have trotted at all.

        A trot is a diagonal gait. That is, the left front and right rear feet move forward at the same time, then the horse kind of hops in the air and switches diagonals, so then the right front and left rear feet are moved forward. In a trot, the horse is actually off the ground, and it is the concussion of its landing on every stride that makes the gait so rough.

        But a laterally gaited horse moves both right feet forward at the same time. If both feet land at the same time, this is called a pace. While it is smoother than a trot, it is still not as smooth as what is called a broken pace or an asynchronous lateral gait, where both feet come forward at the same time but the rear foot lands before the other does, creating a four-beat RR-RF-LR-LF gait. This is a remarkably smooth gait, as the horse is never off the ground and kind of glides, gently shifting from one side to the other but not bouncing very much at all. There are variations on this gait, which is also called a “singlefoot” gait, but in general it is a four-beat lateral gait.

        I have ridden horses of different breeds with this four-beat lateral gait and it is night and day, the difference between this and a trot. So I would not fret too much about the beating General Lee’s posterior took on his journeys on Traveler. He had himself a good ride.

      • Jeremiah December 9, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        Amazona,

        I don’t doubt that any.

        Thank you for sharing that bit of info.

        I love horses. Such beautiful, majestic creatures. One of man’s closest friends if treated and cared for properly.

        I’m sure that you are well versed in the types and breeds of riding horses from the many years of experience you’ve dealt with horses. So, I wouldn’t try to dispute what you’ve said regarding their types.

        What I said about Gen. Lee was only a bit of sarcastic humor. But one would think that after a few hundred miles on horseback that a little saddle soreness wouldn’t be out of the question. On the inner thigh and calf, especially.

  8. halfspin December 14, 2012 / 7:54 am

    You don’t think the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, was racist or misogynist?

    • Amazona December 14, 2012 / 10:42 am

      Of course not. There is not one single word in it that reflects disdain for women or refers to any race or ethnicity. You chose to post this little snot nugget on this topic—why didn’t you bother to read the other posts first, and learn, if you didn’t already know it, that people in service included all races and also did not refer exclusively to slaves—the wording was carefully chosen because of the knowledge that many people were in involuntary servitude, including indentured servants, etc.

      And you would know that women were not prohibited from voting.

      Cling to your Leftist lies if they comfort your and make it easier for you to support a political system antithetical to the Constitution but do not come up with some new name and scurry back here to unload more of your anti-American bigotry.

      Just stand up and admit that you think we should abandon the Constitution because it does not allow the kind of expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government that you and your kind want to keep seeing.

    • Amazona December 14, 2012 / 10:52 am

      If you truly want to fret about racism, then put together a post on the inherent racism of Affirmative Action and other policies that reflect the lowered expectations of minorities by the Left. There’s a lot to talk about, regarding racism, in the effort to establish lower educational standards for Latinos and black people.

      And a presidential election campaign based on the conviction that American women care about nothing above the belt, are silly and weak and helpless little sex machines who can be lured into believing the most bizarre of lies if they are couched in terms referring to reproduction (at any stage) has to be the single most misogynistic thing I have seen in my lifetime. (As well as the most depressing, being so accurate and all.)

      The Left has a history of scorn for women, often openly expressed, such as the Left’s dismissal of a rape complaint against a Leftist icon with “She’s too ugly to rape”, and sometimes it combines with racism, as in the Leftist cartoonist’s depiction of Condoleeza Rice as a caricature of Aunt Jemima, with headscarf and grossly exaggerated lips, showing contempt for her race AND her gender.

      Sorry, “new” Lefty, but you are going to have to find something less thoroughly debunked than this tired old Leftist effort.

Comments are closed.