For Those Who Belittle the Tea Party Folk…..

I should like to remind you of the famous and not-to-be-forgotten quote by William F. Buckley:  

“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston directory than in a society governed by 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University.”

I admit loudly and often, that if totally agree with Mr. Buckley’s statement.   And remember, much of the disaster our population is now entertaining, is we have been governed into this mess, ‘by 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University” or their clones…..and one is still president.

How Does One Recognize a Good Teacher?

I bought a few copies of the Minneapolis StarTribune this week to check out as many of the election results as possible.   I miss my local newspaper.  Before the disease of the one Party leftwing press contaminating  nearly every major metropolitan area in the nation, I felt the morning paper was on my list of needs for life.

Then came the sweep to push for Marxism and its bigotted leftwing zealots  to make America no longer America.   University graduates in the newspaper business abandoned journalism in favor of preaching  human management to create the New Soviet-American citizen.   They, like the university professors in the social sciences who taught them, jumped on the bandwagon to program  Americans to think the way the left thinks, to do the things the left does, to write the way the left writes, to eat the foods the left permits, to denigrate America they way the left denigrates its enemies, and to become politically correct in all thought, word, and deed……and above all to vote the way the Left votes.  All knowledge has been forced through the prism of the “Liberal Arts” university leftwing mind………a mind resentful of the country which hires their leftwing bodies…..a mind that permits little to no diversity, and no academic freedom…..Soviet-like.

Our nation has been programmed to become Sovietized, believing that everything in life is formed by economic conditions…..that there is no God, ……that America is racially flawed and religiously  evil, for it still clings to the primitive Christian myths which have   allegedly  driven   white people greedily toward world domination, their primary drug of speech.

The Modern Left  loves the other drugs, too.  It preaches its brands of freedom.

Tomorrow’s America will be what we teach our children……and that should be horrifying to everyone at home and abroad.

“Schools look for ways to identify good teachers” is a headline of an article I wanted to read.  

 I taught for eight years in the Minneapolis Public School system and four years before that at the University of Minnesota High School on the Minneapolis campus.    I was fired from the public school system for not filling out a form properly….therefore the charge was insubordination.  

I was the kind of a teacher no student is likely to forget.  I enjoyed the profession tremendously, and believe it fair to say I was a leader in a few areas…..the areas which caused the troubles.  

I taught at two Minneapolis public high schools.   At one, Edison Senior High School, if I had been principal, I can think of no one I would have fired for being incompetent, and I knew all the teachers quite well….They elected me Faculty Council President, but not because of my popularity.   There were only a few teachers one might describe as academically outstanding, but most liked what they did and that was a good start.   Nearly all were much brighter than the Establishment thought them to be and treated them to be.   

It was an easy school in which to teach.  Adults were in control.

The teachers kept order in a school population which was remarkably orderly.   The nasty bits were the folks at the Central Administration which ‘ran’ the system.   It had a lot to lie about and did so.  The school had been struck by its teachers in 1970.  It was facing the Leftwing order of the day, forced busing.    The faculty was an able one, but was treated as if it were just another bunch of students.  Most teachers were respected by the students, but that may have ressulted from  the rules  of the families from which they came.   Families included  a mother and a father.

It was great fun going to school at Edison, from 1964-1971, as a teacher and in my best professional guess, as a student.   I still communicate with a number of my former students.  They agree with me.

My last year in the system, I taught at Central High School in Minneapolis.   I had been fired from Edison, but the administration was required to rehire me if I wished to continue teaching in the system.  (As a note, I was determined by a district court judge reviewing the case…as an outstanding teacher.)  

Central high school as it operated in 1972  should have been closed.   The teachers were overwhelmed with chaos and disorder.  Hoodlums ran amok.  Teachers had to approach the school through a caged in parking area into theschool’s  boiler room for their safety.  Half the staff was inexperienced, but fresh out of Marxism 101 during the antiwar movement of the late 1960s.   Drugs were in and glorified.  Discipline was considered white oppression.   A first year principal, a black,  was over his head with responsibility, but he did try to  conduct something civilized.  Teachers were instructed to lock their doors during class time.   Assaults and robberies were common.

Since most of the teachers assigned there were young leftist dreamers, they added approval to the mayhem.  Teachers were forced to meet as a group after school a couple of times  per week to confess the racism deep in the pits of their ‘bodies’…….(not souls, for these young had been ‘saved’ from the outdated, foolish notion  that man had a soul.)   Female teachers wept and confessed to all sorts of things and worries even those that didn’t exist.   The newbie young proudly advertised they were above possessing bourgeois  feelings.  One gal wore a railroad fireman’s uniform as her teaching cloak to prove she was one of the workers, a real proletariat, cap and all.  I think she taught white racism or human sexuality…..there wasn’t much of a distinction between the two in those revolutionary days at Minneapolis Central High School.  

The building was torn down a few years later.   Not even twenty years earlier it had been an outstanding hall for learning.  My former wife was living proof  as one of its graduates.

If the culture is sound, the neighborhood is sound.  If the neighborhood  is sound, the neighborhood schools are sound.

The Star-Tribune claimed:

“Over much of the past decade, Minneapolis has annually dismissed fewer than 3 per cent of its teachers for poor performance.”  I read…..”The other 97 per cent often have graded out at as top notch, or at least efficient, year after year.”

I have the prejudice that the modern day graduate from a university with a social science degree is woefully unknowledgeable, woefully unprepared to teach anything, and has a speaking and reading vocabulary about one-third of a graduate of similar fields fifty years ago.   It is an education devoid of facts and application of facts.    Students are taught what to think and deduct in order to teach a higher cause….forced equality and the liberation of whomever the Left wants to liberate.

No  one teaches citizenship responsibility.  Who teaches moral responsibility such as the duty to provide the learning tools to students so they can appreciate the blessings of democracy, and  be able to discern reality from fiction as best as is humanly possible?    Why not fire all of the people responsible for the  disappearance of these learnings instead of firing teachers?   

I was taught that amassing knowledge would help me become a better citizen and so,  help my country.   The more I might know would make me closer to God, because I would be better equipped to make better decisions for myself, my family and my country.   It was all intertwined.  It was a wonderful time to be an American. 

And that has been shattered…..so what are the criteria upon which one teacher might be judged competent and another not?   Who is to decide?   Who will decide, because something will be decided.

The article continues:  “In a city where one in four high school students doesn’t graduate on time and success is measured by how close the district comes to meeting state standards, not exceeding them, that notion doesn’t sit well with some people in  district headquarters.

“Our results are not what they need to be,” said Pat Pratt-Cook, human resources chief for the Minneapolis schools.  “We have a major problem as it relates to teacher evaluation.”

I am certain that I would strongly recommend that  for class control and learning improvements I would   put Ms. Pat Pratt-Cook on notice that she must try harder in her job OR ELSE……before I would even think  about firing any teachers. 

The major  problems within the american education industry today come from the top AND the bottom.  Those who teach schooling at university and those who run public schools physically and politically are among the most anti-intellectual, anti-learning people in the country.   They enter education for the power, not the service.

And at the bottom exist specimens ever becoming more unruly, neurotic, violent, alone and without adult supervision at home and even without a parent or two who might be considered to be adult.

No, I would not begin culling the teachers.  I wouldn’t for a minute trust their judges to recognize a good teacher.

I am certain that I would strongly recommend that each student would be held responsible for a large listing of behaviors and academic accomplishments….OR ELSE. as well.

George Soros Funding Attacks on Chamber of Commerce?

I found this posting at American Thinker, written by Thomas Lifson:

 

“It looks like George Soros will be the target of investigations on his role as a behind the scenes funder. From the current issue of Business Week magazine’s cover story on Tom Donohue, head of the US Chamber of Commerce (titled, ” Tom Donohue: Obama’s Tormenter”) comes this snippet:

Donohue announced that the Chamber had been digging into the funding sources of anti-globalization groups that might try to thwart their efforts overseas. “We found that 50 or 60 percent of their money comes from the same person,” Donohue said dramatically. He wasn’t ready to name names just yet. Instead, he acted like a man with a hand grenade in his pocket who couldn’t wait to hurl it. “It’s going to be a story,” the chamber leader promised. The people sitting around the table seemed baffled. (Later, when asked if he was referring to George Soros, Donohue laughed and said, “That’s a pretty good guess.”)

I would surmise that the Chamber will be releasing a report soon with their information about George Soros.

 

He is the major funder of a wide range of leftist  527 groups (MoveOn.Org), influential liberal think tanks (Center for American Progress),  left-wing politicians (including Barack Obama) and left–wing media outlets (NPR, Media Matters). But his resume does not stop there (see the long list of groups he funds here). He has had a long running role behind the scenes at the United Nations, and recently upped his game and visibility by “serving” on a United Nations Panel that urged a global Climate Change Tax to fund green energy schemes (he plans to invest one billion dollars-to start- in renewable energy ventures and thus would be a beneficiary of the subsidies and governmental rules that these grossly inefficient ventures need to prosper).

 

Barack Obama and the Democrats practiced the politics of fear (and xenophobia) when they dreamed up the idea of linking the Chamber’s political efforts to foreign funny money (even the New York Times dismissed Obama’s charge) and liberals demonized the Koch brothers for their political activism, George Soros and his role as the sugar daddy of the Democrats still receives hardly a mention. Hopefully ,that will change in the days ahead as the chamber releases its report regarding the “one person” funding much of the anti-globalization protests.

 

The Democratic Party should be ashamed of its close ties to George Soros.

 

Think about it: George Washington was the father of the nation; Abraham Lincoln was basically the father of the Republican Party; and George Soros is the sugar daddy of the Democrats — quite a patrimony.”

“California Rejects the White Man’s Party”…..the Left Announces

And why do we know such a title for an article would be invariably a Lefty  introduction to a writing? 

Being a Party based on emotions, as Dennis Prager correctly claims, today’s Democratic Party  readily practices spreading  racism along with its Marxism……not racial, but racist divisions for political advantage of defining their enemy by alleging falsehoods.   It spreads messages which are designed to divide  America by creating victims. 

The Democratic Party of today relies on racism and other hate theses to keep its core emotionally charged and united against conservative  competitors it regularly smears with falsehoods to  fan the flames of hate.    

The following is an article I found at Calitics through Daily Kos, written by a Robert Creekshank:

“California Rejects the White Man’s Party”.

“The exit polling is clear – California Democrats won a big victory on Tuesday night because Jerry Brown and the rest of the Democratic ticket reached beyond the white base that constitutes the Republican electorate. At right you can see the exit polling results for the gubernatorial race, indicating that while Whitman won white voters overall and voters over 65, she did poorly everywhere else.Democratic victories on Tuesday would have been even more substantial had more of the electorate showed up. 21% of voters were 65 and over, and 45% were between age 45 and 65, with just 12% being age 18-29. 62% were white, but 22% were Latino – and while Brown dominated among Latinos, he essentially split the white vote.Overall, this paints a picture of a state whose electorate – even older white voters – do not respond well to exclusionist appeals. Whitman made much of her anti-immigrant, anti-Latino politics, and it not only cost her big among Latinos, it also helped her lose younger white voters whose vision of California is of a state where everyone is welcome and seen as an equally deserving member of society.This trend is mirrored nationally. Pew Hispanic Center reports that Latinos broke 64-34 for Democrats across the country. In Nevada, Harry Reid put on a clinic in mobilizing a working class coalition led by Latinos to stop Sharron Angle.In terms of ideology, here in California “moderates” broke 60-35 for Brown, with “independents” breaking 47-43 for Whitman. This might be explained partly by the trend the PCCC identified nationally, that many Obama independents stayed home out of frustration and left a more Republican-friendly bloc of independents to tip the balance of several elections around the country. Here in California, the fact that Republican-friendly independents are a much smaller portion of the overall electorate (all independents were 27% of the exit poll sample) may explain their lower impact.Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum takes a look at the national polls and finds that the core of the Democratic coalition held together. A bloc of people who stayed home in 2008 – probably teabaggers – were the biggest movers to Republicans, along with whites, seniors, and rural voters. Urban voters, mothers, Millennials, and African Americans were the least likely to shift to the GOP.So taken together, it seems clear that while older whites may have broken for Republicans, the rest of the population – i.e. the majority – either broke for the Democrats or only barely moved to the right. And since it’s the shrinking parts of the population – whites and old folks – who broke most for Republicans, it’d be right to conclude that 2010 was a temporary setback for Democrats that can be reversed once the Obama Administration gets its head out of its ass and starts helping people get jobs instead of helping Wall Street get richer.That’s not how Kathleen Hennessy and James Oliphant put it in a absurd LA Times article: Democrats searching for good news amid the rubble of Tuesday’s midterm election results can look to Latinos and African Americans, two groups of voters that stayed with the party in large numbers.But that, in a sense, is like taking comfort in that fact that as your house is falling down around you, it isn’t also on fire.The Democratic Party was overwhelmingly rejected by whites, independents and seniors. Perhaps most troubling to Democrats was that increasing numbers of women also turned toward the Republican Party. How is that bad news? Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic group not just in California, but in the country. They clearly swung the California and Nevada elections, and perhaps several others. To put it gently, seniors are not exactly going to be in the electorate for very long, and whites’ numbers are shrinking in the key battleground states.The LA Times article also claims Dems are losing women: The Democratic erosion was perhaps most accentuated by the flight of women, who were among the party’s most enthusiastic supporters in 2006 and 2008. According to exit poll data, women essentially split their votes evenly between Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday. The last time that happened was in 2002.White women in particular defected from Democrats, giving their votes to Republicans by an 18-point margin. Similarly, 57% percent of married women voted for Republicans, while unmarried women – a more liberal group – turned out in smaller numbers than in 2008. I don’t read this as a “flight” from Democrats. Lower turnout levels are a big part of this story. And here in California, women went for Brown 55-39. Clearly, women felt as many other voters did that the DC Democrats hadn’t done enough to help repair the economy (which is true) and some stayed home, some voted Republican.But there’s really no evidence that the 2010 election portends long-term doom for Democrats. Instead it is Republicans who are in trouble. They won by appealing to a shrinking group of people who are determined to hog democracy and prosperity for themselves at the exclusion of the young and the nonwhite. If Republicans follow through, they will merely repeat Meg Whitman’s error and alienate the rest of the electorate – Republicans cannot maintain their majorities for very long at all if they cannot win over people of color and younger voters of all backgrounds.California and Nevada show the future – and it’s a future where today’s Republican Party, predicated on defense of white privilege, is doomed.”

Comment:  There is nothing new about the American Labor movement allying its cause with Marxists who preach a variety of hatreds against the  nation’s popular government.  In Europe since the 19th century millions have been slaughtered as a result of hate preached by the Left.   Add to this the Nazi movement, established as a socialist labor style authoritarian system, is it any wonder Marxists do not want to advertise their past in a democratic society?

The New York Times and “Where Marxists Make Merry”.

Ron Rodosh writes an outstanding article regarding the New York Times and its tolerance for  fascistic style of human servitude and slaughter,Marxism, comparing it with another, far less murderous style of human servitude and slaughter, Fascism…..both socialist ideologies.

“A short ride from being a mainline Democrat to a fringe Marxist”, he notes.

“Where Marxists Make Merry”:

“You have to hand it to the  New York Times. Its editors know their audience. Hence the little would-be humor column about informing its readers “Where Marxists make Merry” detailing where the unrepentant NYC communists of all sects evidently go to get their fill of propaganda combined with evening poker games. Harmless and funny, right?

But not so fast. Just pause a moment and re-write the same column substituting “fascist” for Marxist, as in “Where Fascists make Merry.” Readers would respond in fury. How dare their beloved daily paper trivialize the crimes of the fascists, who supported Hitler’s death camps, the attempt to make war on the world and take over Western and Eastern Europe, the Russian empire, and even Great Britain — upon which it regularly bombarded London with Werner Von Braun’s new rocket bombs.

Let us take and re-write, for example, the following paragraph:

But there is also the monthly Game Night, when regulars put down their copies of Das Kapital and immerse themselves in table tennis, football and a complicated Marxist version of Monopoly called, appropriately, Class Struggle. In a city known for cynicism, the Brecht, which survives on donations, is a surprisingly open and idealistic place.

Below is the new version you might have seen had they extolled the happiness of local fascists:

But there is also the monthly Game Night, when regulars put down their copies of Mein Kampf and immerse themselves in table tennis, football and a  Fascist version of Parchesi called, appropriately, Juden Raus. It was a children’s game published in Germany by Günther & Co. in 1936, just one year after the Nuremberg Laws were put into effect. The game was advertised as “entertaining, instructive and solidly constructed. The game’s equipment includes a pair of dice, a game board, and several game piece figurines with large pointed hats meant to represent Jews. Players take turns rolling the dice and moving their “Jews” across the map toward “collection points” outside the city walls for deportation to Palestine. Written on the game board, it says “If you manage to see off 6 Jews, you’ve won a clear victory.”

When British comrades join the merriment, they shift instead to playing Bomber über England (“Bombers over England”) a bagatelle (or pinball) style game that featured a map of England and part of Northern Europe. The map contained holes in the location of key cities such as London, Liverpool, and Newcastle, as well as various points representing targets in the North Sea. Players shot spring-driven balls representing “bombs” at these targets and were awarded various points for hitting the enemy targets. “Players were awarded a maximum 100 points for landing on London, while Liverpool was worth 40. If players bombed locations under the control of Nazi Germany such as Brussels and Amsterdam, players would be deducted points.

We also learn that the director of the Marxist center, a 34-year-old New Yorker, “is a child of mainline Democrats, but Mr. Balagun said he was attracted to Marxism because it offered ‘a way to understand the world, and understand how the world could be different.’” Not so surprising; some would say in these days it’s a rather short ride from being a mainline Democrat to a fringe Marxist.

I suppose people like Mr. Balagun and plenty of his friends name their children after famous Marxists; with first names like Ninel (Lenin backwards), or even Che, or Leon, or Fidel. Yes, the truth is I know plenty of people who have done just that. Recall “Chesa Boudin,” the birth name of the child born to Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert who was raised by Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers while the birth parents were in jail. That kid did fine. He wrote a book about his wonderful time with Hugo Chavez, after getting a coveted Rhodes fellowship.

Compare how he was treated with the poor young kid in New Jersey whose parents named him after Adolf Hitler, and ordered a cake with his name on it for his birthday. The child was promptly removed from his home by social services. The kid who had Che as his name was only given honor after honor and a path to Yale and onwards. Good thing the Weather Underground leaders only served Marx and Lenin instead of Hitler and Mussolini.

But don’t worry. We are assured that “no test of ideological purity is administered at the door.” So when you are in NYC, you too can go to the Brecht Forum whenever you please. Just tell them when you arrive with your Tea Party slogans and banners that the New York Times assures you that “even the rare Republican is welcome.” However, when you ask for free admission, since the article says that admission is based on whatever “visitors say what they can afford,” remember that the gatekeeper will not believe that any conservative is anything but very wealthy. So you will undoubtedly be assessed a high tax, so that your wealth is immediately redistributed to those who run the Marxist center. But then, do you really want to attend forums like “Child Welfare From the Crack Era to the Age of Obama”?

I guess only one conclusion can be reached. Conservatives have no sense of humor, and don’t want to have a really fun evening.We also learn that the director of the Marxist center, a 34-year-old New Yorker, “is a child of mainline Democrats, but Mr. Balagun said he was attracted to Marxism because it offered ‘a way to understand the world, and understand how the world could be different.’” Not so surprising; some would say in these days it’s a rather short ride from being a mainline Democrat to a fringe Marxist.

I suppose people like Mr. Balagun and plenty of his friends name their children after famous Marxists; with first names like Ninel (Lenin backwards), or even Che, or Leon, or Fidel. Yes, the truth is I know plenty of people who have done just that. Recall “Chesa Boudin,” the birth name of the child born to Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert who was raised by Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers while the birth parents were in jail. That kid did fine. He wrote a book about his wonderful time with Hugo Chavez, after getting a coveted Rhodes fellowship.

Compare how he was treated with the poor young kid in New Jersey whose parents named him after Adolf Hitler, and ordered a cake with his name on it for his birthday. The child was promptly removed from his home by social services. The kid who had Che as his name was only given honor after honor and a path to Yale and onwards. Good thing the Weather Underground leaders only served Marx and Lenin instead of Hitler and Mussolini.

But don’t worry. We are assured that “no test of ideological purity is administered at the door.” So when you are in NYC, you too can go to the Brecht Forum whenever you please. Just tell them when you arrive with your Tea Party slogans and banners that the New York Times assures you that “even the rare Republican is welcome.” However, when you ask for free admission, since the article says that admission is based on whatever “visitors say what they can afford,” remember that the gatekeeper will not believe that any conservative is anything but very wealthy. So you will undoubtedly be assessed a high tax, so that your wealth is immediately redistributed to those who run the Marxist center. But then, do you really want to attend forums like “Child Welfare From the Crack Era to the Age of Obama”?

I guess only one conclusion can be reached. Conservatives have no sense of humor, and don’t want to have a really fun evening.”

NY Timesman, Lefty Bob Herbert Writes “Tone Deaf in DC”……

………..and he might be right, for it is said as in the great saying….”It takes one to know one!”  

 ”Tone Deaf. in DC:”

“It would be easy to misread the results of Tuesday’s elections, and it looks as if the leaders of both parties are doing exactly that.”………………so says Bob Herbert of the New York Times op-ed page.   It is important to get the New York Time “minorityman” views on things…….even though only one kind of  man could be hired at the Times….a Lefty.  

Mr. Herbert might note that Republicans over all got more votes then his leftwing associates….in enough of the right places to cause a major shift in numbers….numbers of people in Congress who don’t have a  letter, “D” , attached  to their Party affiliation.  This may or may not mean something.   But let’s find out what, more precisely, if anything, Mr. Herbert has in mind.

“Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering voters the kind of change that they seem so desperately to want. We’re getting mind-numbing chatter about balanced budgets and smaller government and whether Mitch McConnell and his gang can chase President Obama out of the White House in 2012.” …………….”mind-numbing chatter about balanced budgets and smaller government”, is it?……maybe so…..and the House of Representatives is the body which determines expenditures.   It may be the Democrats are offering one kind of change, and the Republicans another.

“What voters want is leadership that will help them through an economic nightmare and fix a country that has been pitched into a state of sharp decline. They long for leaders with a clear and compelling vision of a better America and a road map for getting there. That leadership has long been AWOL. The hope in the tumultuous elections of 2008 was that it would come from Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but that hope, after just two years, is on life support.” ………………….Yes, I would imagine most Americans, especially conservatives are on Mr. Herbert’s band wagon here…….but, Mr. Herbert omits an answer to an important question…..”Why is the hope invested in the Democrats and Mr. Obama on life support.   Republicans, especially the conservative kind are in complete agreement with Times man Herbert on the life support observation.

“Tuesday’s outcome was the result of voters, still hungry for change, who either switched in anger from the Democrats to the Republicans or, out of a deep sense of disappointment, stayed home.

It was hardly a mandate for the G.O.P.’s way of doing things. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. The public does not want the next two years to be a bitter period of endless Congressional investigations of the Obama administration; more tax cuts and other giveaways to the very wealthy; and attacks on programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance that offer at least a measure of economic security for ordinary people.”…………….Mr. Herbert slips into the Lefty hack Times guy here, slipping in the cliches hoping to stir class resentments and hate against the rich and fright to anyone at or near retirement, especially those smart enought to know the social security bank is bankrupt………..the Democrats and some complicit Republicans have spent all of the money which has been taken from workers in this huge Ponzi scheme.

“It would also be a mistake for the Democrats, a terminally timid party, to cave in to their opponents and start embracing a G.O.P. agenda that would only worsen the prospects of ordinary working Americans and the poor.”   Mr. Herbert is short in specifics, here, don’t you think?  Maybe there will be some meat in his future writing here.

“The Democrats are in disarray because it’s a party that lacks a spine. The Republicans, conversely, fight like wild people whether they’re in the majority or not. What neither party is doing is offering a bold, coherent plan to get the nation’s economy in good shape and create jobs, to bring our young men and women home from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to rebuild the education system in a way that will prepare the next generation for the great challenges of the 21st century, and to reinvigorate the can-do spirit of America in a way that makes people believe that they are working together toward grand and constructive goals.” ……………..Mr. Herbert is suddenly struck with noble thoughts and dreams.  He’s a Lefty all right……avoid the mind, go for the heart.   A lot of these Democrats and Lefties whom the Dems adore, such as Bill Ayers aren’t spineless.   They used to throw  bombs, seize buildings and distribute excrement; they  burned offices, robbed banks, and got reprieves from President Clinton for being good, hate-America lefty Americans.   I and most of my conservative friends are too old, tired and civilized to punch anyone.   We learned in Church that punching isn’t  polite.  Besides, our parents might have punched us if they ever heard us use ‘bad language’.   Parents could do that in those days gone by.

“Great challenges demand great leaders. Marian Anderson once said, “Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it.”……………..Mr. Herbert is name-dropping here.  If he is going to choose a name to drop, Marian Anderson is a good one, but, the quote isn’t such a good one…….Adolf Hitler could have said it, and meant it in a context he might prefer.

“Americans right now are riddled with fears and anxieties of many kinds. They are worried about the economic well-being of their families, the cost of securing a decent education for their children, their prospects for a comfortable retirement, the continuing threat of terrorism, and the debilitating effects of endless warfare. They worry that America’s best days may be in the past.”……………Yes, I do worry that America’s best days may be in the past.   Mr. Obama has pursued policies, economic and in foreign affairs that are very frightenting to thinking Americans.    I work for a living.   I still pay taxes.  Our company hires people when those taxes are affordable.   I have paid for my own health insurance by my choice.   I worry most about Obama’s Marxism and Mr. Herbert’s platitudes Marxists usually pronounce to attack their opponents.

“Neither party talked about the wars during the campaign because neither party has anything satisfactory to say about them. And there was hardly any talk about education. We know that a quality education is more important now than ever, but we are firing teachers by the scores of thousands, not because they are incompetent, but because state and local budgets have hemorrhaged.”  ……………..Nor does Mr. Herbert talk about the Obama bleeding of the American dollar and his plot to take a trillion here and a billion there to send off to the third world via Cap and Tax policies he had passed in the House of Representatives. ……or his deceitful dealings selling and enacting the obamacare takeover of the American health industry.  What is another trillion dollars anyway?  “Quality” education always means  Party Line Leftwing Progressivism education led by the doctrines of racist rules of Political Correctness.

“Our leaders in Washington seem entirely out of touch with the needs, the hopes, the fears and the anxieties of the millions of Americans who are out of work, who are struggling with their mortgages or home foreclosures, who are skimping on needed medication in order to keep food on the table, and who lie awake at night worrying about what the morning will bring. No one even dares mention the poor.”…………….These leaders may be out of touch with needs and so on…….but probably not as  out of touch as op-ed folks hired and  paid by the Times who write drivel…….Are you struggling, Mr. Herbert, with anything other that with reality and truth?   Have you had to refinance your house to keep your business alive so the people whom you employ can pay their bills and provide the security therein?      You mention the poor in  typical Lefty sanctimony.  While your mouth and fingers extract the word, millions of small business people like those I work with, are trying to stay in business, perform their knowledge and skills, so they and others depending on us will remain busy and receiving a salary…….and, guess what?…. payroll taxes are deleted from  their pay checks………..Why does the majority of those voting for your Democrats pay no federal taxes?   Might  there not  be a moral issue here somewhere?   There should be.

“What this election tells me is that real leadership will have to come from elsewhere, from outside of Washington, perhaps from elected officials in statehouses or municipal buildings that are closer to the people, from foundations and grass-roots organizations, from the labor movement and houses of worship and community centers.

The civil rights pioneers did not wait for presidential or Congressional leadership, nor did the leaders of the women’s movement. They plunged ahead with their crucial work against the longest odds and in the face of seemingly implacable hostility. Leaders of the labor movement braved guns, bombs, imprisonment and heaven knows what else to bring fair wages and dignity to working people.” ………………… Almost all lefties are disingenuous about being left.   I’ll leave it to your imagination, dear reader, how Mr. Herbert views the Tea Party movement……”plunging ahead with their crucial work against the longest odds……”

“America’s can-do spirit can be revived, and with it a brighter vision of a fairer, more inclusive, and more humane society. But not if we wait on Washington to do it. The loudest message from Tuesday’s election is that the people themselves need to do much more.

My column on Tuesday incorrectly described the situation of the small group of Americans earning $50 million or more annually. Their incomes declined by 7.7 percent between 2008 and 2009; they did not quintuple. The incorrect information came from a report based on flawed Social Security Administration data. An inspector general is investigating after two individuals filed false W-2 forms that led to the skewed data.”

“America’s Love Affair with Obama May Be Over, but Is Obama’s Love Affair with Marxism Over?

Dennis Prager likes Mortimer Zuckerman.   The two have discussed the Obama world during Dennis’ radio show.   Mr. Zuckerman had voted for Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.   He must not have seen in and listened to Obama as Dennis (and I) had, even though Mort Zuckerman  tends to be a more conservative Democrat than the rest.  Perhaps it was our backgrounds in Soviet studies that shot up our red flags…..flags warning Marxism which should have alarmed Americans, one and all. 

It is likely only one in ten Americans, these days, can identify Josef Stalin, or Nikolai Lenin, and utter  in three sentences anything which they were noted for with some degree of accuracy.

The left, throughout history, has covered its paths of horrors and errors……leading to the popular Russian phrase when Marxist paradise ruled the Russian Empire, “The future is known.  It’s the past that keeps changing.”

Leftists, whether American or Soviet, academic or political, never expose their endless errors, and so many of the most horrendous, to public scrutiny……and often academic scrutiny, as well.

The following is an article, “American Love Affair with Obama is Over”, written by Mr. Zuckerman at the U.S. News and World Report Opinion:

“It was the worst of times for the Democrats and the best of times for the Republicans—almost. The GOP did not succeed in capturing the Senate, or dethroning the Democratic leader, but with an energy boost from the Tea Party movement it certainly reflected the anger and dismay of voters who see their country foundering at home and abroad.

The results represent a sharp rebuke to President Obama, who interpreted his 2008 “vote for change” as a mandate for changing everything and all at once. Right from the start, he got his priorities badly wrong, sacrificing the need to help create jobs in favor of his determination to pass Obamacare. It was the state of the economy that demanded genius and concentration, and it just did not get it. The president will now have to respond to public anger, not with anger management and, not, please God, with still more rhetoric. The unusually revealing exit polls spell it all out—how he re-energized the Republican Party, lost the independent center, and failed to overcome the widespread sense that the country is heading in the wrong direction.

The exit polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool show that the economy was the dominant issue, rated at 62 percent, while healthcare was only at 18 percent. Minority voters remained loyal (9 in 10 blacks and 2 in 3 among Hispanics), but everywhere else Obama was deserted. Independents and women fled the Democrats; among white women, no less than 57 percent chose the GOP. There are some surprises for the conventional wisdom. The case for creating more jobs by government spending was rated within a hair’s breadth of reducing the deficit (37 percent to 39 percent) and opinion was evenly divided (33 to 33) on whether the stimulus had hurt or helped the economy. Voters registered their disapproval of Democratic control of Congress and of what the White House promised but failed to deliver. It is apparent that Obama didn’t seem to have understood the problems of the average American.

[See a roundup of editorial cartoons about the 2010 campaigns.]

He came across as a young man in a grown-up’s game—impressive but not presidential. A politician but not a leader, managing American policy at home and American power abroad with disturbing amateurishness. Indeed, there was a growing perception of the inability to run the machinery of government and to find the right people to manage it. A man who was once seen as a talented and even charismatic rhetorician is now seen as lacking real experience or even the ability to stop America’s decline. “Yes we can,” he once said, but now America asks, “Can he?”

The last two years have exposed to the public the risk that came with voting an inexperienced politician into office at a time when there was a crisis in America’s economy, as the nation contended with a financial freeze, a painful recession, and two wars. The Democrats were simply not aggressive enough or focused enough in confronting the profound economic crisis represented by millions of ordinary Americans whose main concern was the lack of jobs.

Jobs have long represented the stairway to upward mobility in America, and the anxiety over joblessness became the dominant concern at a time when financial security based on home equity and pensions was dramatically eroding. No great speech is going to change the fundamental fact that millions of people are either jobless or underemployed at a time when only a quarter of the American population describes the job market as good.

Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do what the Clintons couldn’t? His rush to do it sparked a broad resistance that has only spread since the bill was passed. The public sensed that healthcare was a victory for Obama, and maybe for the Democrats, but not for the country—and contrary to Democratic hopes, public support for the measure has continued to drop to as low as 34 percent in some polls. A significant majority, some 58 percent, now wish to repeal the entire bill, according to likely voters questioned in a late October poll by Rasmussen.

As political analyst Charlie Cook put it: “Every month, every week, every day that Washington seemed focused on healthcare instead of the economy frightened people. It seemed out of touch.” It also seemed tone-deaf to the public’s concern with unemployment, the cost of government , and the sense that America was declining in its ability to compete in the world. It made Obama’s behavior seem as if he headed the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Congress, particularly when he allowed the major policies of his presidency to be written not by his cabinet or the White House staff but by the congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Then he accepted the lopsided bills that emerged and the political corruption that accompanied them—the very processes he condemned during his campaign and that are so much distrusted by a broad section of the American public. Eighty-five percent of Americans were concerned about the cost of healthcare, but the administration focused on extending coverage.

The open purchasing of votes through the provision of special exemptions for five states and for unions, and concessions to many of the special interests in the Democratic Party, especially trial lawyers, symbolized the corruption of our politics. The 2009 omnibus spending bill alone contained 8,570 special earmarks like those that had so enraged the American public in the past. When lawmakers had no time to even read the bills, it gave the impression that what was important was passing anything, no matter how ineffectual. Obama had promised he would change “politics as usual.” He changed it all right, but for the worse. The list of his additional programs only provoked the public’s distaste for big government, big spending, and big deficits.

[See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

Today the polls indicate that the president has reached a point where a majority of Americans have no confidence, or just some, that he will make the right decisions for the country. There isn’t a single critical problem on which the president has a positive rating. It didn’t help when he kept on and on asserting that he had inherited a terrible situation from the Bush administration. Yes, enough, and sir, the country elected you to solve problems, not to complain about them.

It did not help that the administration had completely lost the support of the business community, where virtually no one has a good word to say about the administration and where there is no go-to, high-level businessman in Obama’s inner circle. The result was to make corporate America lose even more confidence in making investment decisions.

[See editorial cartoons about the economy.]

Obama’s job approval rating has fallen well below 50 percent overall, but the numbers are lower among whites and even lower among working-class whites, whose revolt may be the defining characteristic of 2010 (counting even more than the rise of the mostly white and affluent Tea Party movement). These were the famous “Reagan Democrats.” They felt that the economy was collapsing around them and that their president was out of touch. In addition, as those exit polls confirm, Democrats have for some time been losing vast pieces of their core constituencies among women, independents, college graduates, and the elderly.

As for the public’s hope for bipartisanship, Obama’s partisan approach was underlined by putting forth one of the most liberal budget programs in decades. This failure was captured most recently in a New York Times front-page story that reported that for the first 18 months of his presidency, Obama would not meet one-on-one with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. This is not bipartisanship, and inviting a few Republican congressmen to the White House for the Super Bowl is no answer.

The public disillusionment has now hardened. In a Quinnipiac poll this summer, only 28 percent of white voters said they would back Obama for a second term if the election were held then. Still, those results do not mean the public will go Republican next time. It depends on the candidate and the party. A centrist Democrat could win again—someone like retiring Sen. Evan Bayh, who sets a better course for the party in a New York Times op-ed. “A good place to start would be tax reform. Get rates down to make American businesses globally competitive,” he writes. “Simplify the code to reduce compliance costs and broaden the base. . . . Ban earmarks until the budget is balanced [and] support a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases.”

The love affair with Obama is over. The jobless will be the new swing voters. Unemployment, underemployment, and collapsing home equity will be the leading factors in 2012. The administration hopes the economy will have improved significantly by then, but it is running out of time and out of the confidence of the American public. 

• See the Top 5 Winners and Losers in the 2010 Elections.
• See the new faces of the Senate.
• See which industries contribute most to Congress.

Comment:  Mr. Obama’s religion is Marxism.   He is a person who has graduated from Harvard and Columbia, and 22 years of Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright’s house of ‘worship’ in Chicago.  He lawyered for ACORN, and studied Marxist Saul Alinsky.

Why is it learned men, such as Mr. Zuckerman, seem unable to see the president as he was brought up to  be?   The questions asked about this president, should center around those dealing with Obama’s religion….”Is America Ready for Obama’s Marxism?”    Why or Why not, so Americans can have a real opportunity to examine the real debate.

Marco Rubio and the American Dream

The new issue of the Weekly Standard puts Marco Rubio on the cover and features Andrew Ferguson on Rubio’s election night speech as well as Stephen Hayes on Rubio’s campaign.

By contrast with President Obama, Rubio has made a theme of American exceptionalism. Both Ferguson and Hayes quote Rubio on this topic. Today he touches on the theme at the outset of the weekly Republican address:

America is the single greatest nation on earth, a place without equal in the history of all mankind. A place built on free enterprise, where the employee can become the employer. Where small businesses are started every day in a spare bedroom and where someone like me, the son of a bartender and a maid, can become a United States Senator.

I know about the unique exceptionalism of our country. Not because I read about it in a book, I’ve seen it through my own eyes. You see, I was raised in a community of exiles, by people who lost their country, people who once had dreams like we do today, but had to come to a foreign shore to find them.

For some their dreams were answered here in America, but many others found a new dream. To leave their children with the kinds of opportunities they themselves never had. And that is what we must do as a nation. To fulfill our sacred obligation to leave the next generation of Americans a better America than the one we inherited. And that is what this election was about.

This doesn’t quite get to the heart of the matter. America is exceptional because it is the only country in history founded on a proposition. America is founded on the assertion of the self-evident truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This can’t be said often enough; everything important flows from it.

Comment:   Scott W. Johnson wrote the above note at today’s  Powerline.   It should not be forgotten that the Soviet Union, the dream of Nikolai Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and many other leftwing thinkers, professors, activistis including terrorists of their day, were passionately devoted to a nation of exceptinalism….the distatorship of the equal….as well as the other socialist dreamers with a more nationalistice bend, the Nazis building their world for the German elites.

And then there is Iran of today.  There have been many attempts at building a society to be exceptional…..It is just that we were lucky here in America.   Our founders were tolerant Christians who rose above the usual hates and grunts of political and religious narrowness.  

It is through their experiments with meaningful democracy…under God…that such men could live and would live in a free society where they, not govenrment, in the ideal and the attempt,  could explore and build their God’s little acre of happiness for themselves and respect others’ right to acheieve their pursuits to happiness.

It is this dream which Barack Obama and his Marxist leftist wish to remove from the American mind and scene!!!