Indoctrination? Parents Wary of Obama's Address to Students

Much has been made of president Obama's plan to address the nation's school children. I can't imagine the kind of furor this event is causing occurring during my school years, whether it was Carter, Reagan or Bush Sr. so why is it such a big deal now?

I suggest that it is the lack of trust that so many have in this president. So many of his truly radical left ideals have finally sunk in to the public only after his election.

Obama's association with William Ayers, no matter how the administration tries to downplay it, is a matter of fact. Their work together on education reform in Chicago is well documented and Ayers makes no secret of the fact that he is a "small 'c' communist" as Andy McCarthy reports.

The truly disturbing nature of that relationship is not Ayer's past terrorism but his current agenda of indoctrinating children with socialist ideals through education. In a speech given by Ayers as a guest of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Ayers made clear that the path to "revolution" is through shaping the minds of our children.

… education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space – what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom?

Contrast that with Obama advisor David Axelrod's statement that "There's nothing political about [the speech], and it's a shame that some people have tried to politicize it."

I hope David Axelrod will forgive parents if the evidence tends to cast a little doubt on his statement. We tend to be a little skittish about the co-opting of our children.

Bad Company

Anthony "Van" Jones has resigned his post as Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" citing "lies and distortions [intended] to distract and divide."

I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Michelle Malkin points out the lie by the NY Times that attributes the attention that Glenn Beck has given Jones to retaliation for Jones' support of the advertiser boycott of his show.

Nobody has to lie or distort in order to "smear" Jones. Shortly after his appointment as White House Environmental Adviser, details of Jones' associations published on the internet. Among the various and revealing statements readily available since 2005 is this from the East Bay Express speaking of his arrest during the Rodney King riots:

I met all these young radical people of color - I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th, by August, I was a communist.

I don't believe for a moment that the vetting process has (yet again) failed Barrack "judge me by the people I surround myself with" Obama. I think that Obama misjudged the gullibility of the American people, the power of his own personality and the ability of the mainstream media to cover up the distasteful nature of "the people he surrounds himself with."

The Envelope, Please...

Cuba's Fidel Castro has been named the U.N.'s "World Hero of Solidarity." If by "solidarity" they mean restricting the freedom of your people and imprisoning political dissenters then, yes, I think the U.N. made the right call. Otherwise this move only strengthens my belief that the U.N.'s values and those of the United States are, current administration notwithstanding, wildly divergent.

Besides Morales, the former Cuban head of state Fidel Castro has been named “World Hero of Solidarity” and the late ex-president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, will be honored as “World Hero of Social Justice.”



“What we want to do is present these three people to the world and say that they embody virtues and values worth emulation by all of us,” said D’Escoto, who like the socialist Morales is a staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.

Fidel Castro embodies virtues and values worth emulation by all of us? Hell, Fidel Castro barely embodies Fidel Castro! I wonder what would happen if we held a three party presidential election and pitted a "Reagan" Republican, a "Dean" Democrat and a "Castro" Marxist against each other. Imagine the confusion as voters try to discern which is the Democrat and which is the Marxist.

Still, I'm left wondering: just how common can our interest be with those of the U.N. if this is what they value?

Lie, Spin, Cheat Your Way to "Reform"

Offices have been vandalized, free speech has been violently suppressed and appendages have been violently severed in the continuing struggle between health care reformers and those opposed to the currently proposed health care legislation. If you think that the "Tea party protesters" have gone too far, you're not alone. And you're wrong. You're not wrong in thinking that these actions are reprehensible and that their perpetrators have crossed the line, you're wrong in attributing them to the "Tea Partiers."

A Los Angeles man approached a group of counter demonstrators near a pro health reform demonstration organized by "moveon.org." According to the A.P., William Rice simply wanted to find out what was going on. One of the "moveon.org" demonstrators then crossed the street and started a violent confrontation during which he bit the tip of Rice's little finger off at the first knuckle. Rice had not taken sides in the debate, was not carrying a sign or opposing anything. He just happened to be in the path of this rabid lunatic who lumped him in with the rest of the counter demonstrators.

When the Democratic Party headquarters in Colorado were vandalized recently, the vandal left behind an "anti health care reform poster." The chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, Patty Waak, called the vandalism "an effort on the other side to stir up hate." As it turns out, the vandal was a paid canvasser in 2008 for a Democrat running for the Colorado state House as well as a paid canvasser for the Colorado Citizens' Coalition. Oops.

Several members of the Service Employees International Union beat a protester at a town hall meeting for handing out "Don't Tread on Me" signs. The SEIU later issued an ad decrying violence at town hall meetings. The ad featured edited and non sequential clips from the video of the incident. The editing left the distinct impression that the union members were victims of the violence rather than the perpetrators. The truth, however, is clearly evident in the unedited version. The lie is blatant. The reasoning given by the attackers? "He attacked America."

If you attributed any or all of these events to conservatives, "Tea Partiers" or Republicans, it's not entirely your fault. That's the distinct slant that the media has deliberately given coverage of these events.

I was disappointed to hear, in the mainstream media, reports that an opponent of Obama's health care proposals had brought a handgun to an event where the president was scheduled to speak. I should have known better than to take the story at face value. The man was not "near" where the president was to speak, he was three miles away, at a church, hours before the president was scheduled to arrive. He also did not "bring a gun to a protest" so much as he showed up at a protest openly carrying a handgun as he does every day whether protesting or not.

This perpetual misrepresentation of facts by the Democrats indicates an inability to stand firmly on their own issues. Instead, they must attempt to undercut their opponents through deceit, intimidation and smear tactics. This begs the question: If you have the support of the people, why do you have to lie to them? More importantly, since it's the people themselves who oppose the legislation, why must you lie about them?

Withdrawing troops from Iraq

I was actually in favor of the Iraq war when we first entered. I don't know if anyone remembers how the UN issued warning after escalated warning regarding letting inspectors in and how Saddam did everything he could to give the impression that he did indeed have WMD. It finally got to the point that the UN was completely marginalized by repeatedly threatening action and ultimately not acting.

The trouble is that Saddam was like a bank robber in a bank full of robbers. Take out the guy in control and the rest of them clamor to be the next to hand the teller their own note.

Overall, I am disappointed in the way this has been handled from "Mission Accomplished" on. It is high time the Iraqi's took much more responsibility for their own security. The trouble is, I don't think they're ever going to be much better at it than most other Islamic pseudo-theocracies. In a sense, the hard deadline may be good for the Iraqi government if it provides them the motivation to get their stuff together. On the other hand, it may just serve to announce to the bank robbers exactly what time the vault is scheduled to be opened.

The Federal Reserve

I've recently been studying the Federal Reserve system and I've learned some interesting facts. First, "The Fed" is not a government agency. It is a collection of private banks under the governorship of a board, some members of which are government appointees. The rest are representatives of various interests, among them agriculture, manufacturing as well as banking and financial.

It's interesting the control that this organization has on the U.S. economy and disturbing to realize that the Fed is not wholly acting in the interest of the taxpayer. By controlling the expansion and contraction of the money supply, the Fed can manufacture booms and economic bubbles such as we've seen with housing. It does this in several ways, among them, lowering the interest rate at which banks can borrow short term capital. When this capital is cheap, banks can lend more to consumers and investors who, in turn, purchase homes, invest in businesses, buy cars and the like. But this can only be sustained for a limited amount of time. At some point the Fed either has to print more money to cover the demand, which increases inflation, or they have to raise interest rates to slow down the borrowing process. This causes lenders to shorten up the credit supply and call in loans, bursting the bubble.

The trouble with the Federal Reserve Bank is that they can manufacture this cycle at will. If, for instance, the banking interests on the Federal reserve board of governors wish to increase their holdings in a particular sector of the economy, they have unregulated power to create and then burst a bubble, devaluing the assets that they wish to acquire so that they can be purchased at a bargain. Conspiracy theorists will tell that that this was the cause of the 1929 collapse and subsequent depression.

Whether the Fed has or has not used undue influence to further the fortunes of the banking elite is immaterial. The trouble is that they have the power, without oversight, to do so if they wish.

Do some research... just Google "Federal Reserve". The stuff that Ron Paul has to say about it is generally right on. The Mises Institute has some interesting views as well.

Civilian Casualties in Gaza

According to the mainstream media, international outcry is growing in response to Israel's actions in Gaza. I'm confident that I am being conservative when I say that statement should probably be qualified as "Liberal" outcry.

If one takes an honest look at what has transpired, Israel’s reaction is measured and reasonable. Consider that Gaza’s elected leadership has been overthrown and taken over by Hamas, a known terrorist organization. Since that time, Israeli soldiers have been kidnapped, taken into Gaza by way of secret cross-border tunnels, tortured and killed and/or imprisoned. Hamas has a history of firing rockets across the border into Israeli civilian targets and has done so steadily in the past few weeks. Israel has been under attack by an aggressor who's stated purpose is the utter decimation of Israel itself.

In response, Israel has flattened every known Hamas hideout and every Hamas weapons cache it can find. The problem is that what Hamas lacks in military might, they make up for in public relations savvy. Hamas, you see, has hidden their weapons and their leaders in mosques, private homes and schools. Israel, if they want to eliminate the threat against their citizens, is faced with targeting locations the destruction of which makes them look heartless, cruel or incompetent in the eyes of the international public (or, at least, the press).

In the past Israel has backed off of similar campaigns in response to this “outcry”. The result has been to embolden Hamas and allow continued terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Clearly Israel has reached the more than logical end of their diplomatic patience. What Israel seems to recognize that the media does not is that Hamas’ placement of civilians around strategic targets is a weapon in itself. As horrible as it is to see women and children injured and killed, it is not a result of recklessness or disregard on the part of Israel. It is, in fact, evidence of the heartlessness of the Hamas leadership who have, by design, placed the citizens of Gaza in that position. Human pawns in a game of terrorist, Muslim extremist chicken.