Since the dawn of human kind we have been engaged in a never ending struggle for freedom against freedom's oldest enemy: the passion of the few to rule the many.

Nowhere is this tyrannical urge more apparent than Burma, where a brutal military regime has denied the most basic freedom's to its citizens for decades. What kind of world do we live in when tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people are denied humanitarian aide for no reason whatsover?

Now there is word that the military regime there is impounding what little humanitarian aide that has been allowed in the country. No doubt this has been done so the Junta can later sell these items on the black market. What a disgrace.

There are several ways to deal with a nation’s economy. With the Democratic primary race coming to an end, perhaps it is time to pay closer attention to how are nation's economy will be managed under President Obama [sic].

With Obamanomics you raise taxes.

With Obamanomics you increase deficits with massive increases in government spending and introduce more failed government social problems that serve only to increase poverty and dependency.

With Obamanomics you create disincentives for entrepreneurship and discourage businesses from creating jobs by raising corporate and capital gains taxes.

With Obamanomics you increase energy dependence by limiting exploration and restricting development of energy alternatives, while leaving the nation vulnerable to tyrannical foreign regimes.

With Obamanomics you even admit that with low capital gains taxes come increased revenues, but you raise them anyway because it’s the “fair” thing to do.

With Obamanomics the government works not as an engine for growth and opportunity but as an obstacle for complacency and stagnation…on January 20, 2009 say hello to the 1970s.

After years of global warming which we have been taught that man and man alone was responsible for a 1 degree rise in temperatures over the past century. For years environmental extremist have discounted or ignored all scientific evidence that points to the inescapable fact that global temperature changes occur in cycles and the obvious fact that solar activity as significantly increased in the past two centuries.

Now as global temperatures have remained steady (and even declined in some places) during the last decade, global warming alarmists are on a mad dash to explain away this phenomenon or risk loosing all credibility. Their solution: global warming is just on hold for the next decade or so because of changes in ocean currents and temperatures.

Does this mean that we should disregard the environment and continue to rely on fossil fuels with reckless abandon? Certainly not, even if there were no environmental concerns whatsoever, from a national security standpoint it makes sense to pursue alternative energy sources.

But why are these alarmists so committed to condemning man and man alone for global climate change while continuing to ignore the chief culprit in temperature changes throughout the solar system? Perhaps by ignoring the fact that in the past decade planets like Mars have also experienced rising temperatures they can convince us this farce is a reality.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html

Can there be any doubt that Sen Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president of the United States?

Yesterday, Obama, the quintessential politician with a shrewdness that rivals Bill Clinton on his best day, bent over backwards in an effort to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his comments at the National Press Club.

Obama described himself as outraged at his former pastor’s most recent remarks. This is wreaks of political posturing to anyone with a third grade education. Why? Primarily because Wright’s most recent comments didn’t seem particularly beyond the Pale for him. The only difference between these and previous Wright comments is that they were aired in midst of a national media spotlight and not in the confines of his Chicago sanctuary, but now all of a sudden Obama is “outraged” and shocked and so on and so forth...what nonsense.

It takes a particularly mediocre person to make Hillary Clinton seem like a viable candidate. Indeed one could have more respect for Obama if he were honest, after all he has supported Wright for over 20 years, but now when it is politically expedient he becomes shocked a and disillusioned. Are there no politicians in this country who do not have such contempt for the American populace that they are foolish enough to believe that they can get away with such foolishness.

One thing is for certain, the Democrats have fielded the poorest quality candidates in their 180 year history. In no previous election have Democrats been forced to choose between the two least qualified individuals to serve as president. Why not nominate the Mayor of Paducah?
http://www.thestar.com/USElection/article/419829

New York Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, unloaded during a reception in his honor, shocking his fellow teachers and administrators in a diatribe sure to ruffle feathers and perhaps give cause for New York school officials to carefully screen future honorees. Gatto's remarks could not have been more accurate, judge for yourself:

I Quit, I Think

In the first year of the last decade of the twentieth century during my thirtieth year as a school teacher in Community School District 3, Manhattan, after teaching in all five secondary schools in the district, crossing swords with one professional administration after another as they strove to rid themselves of me, after having my license suspended twice for insubordination and terminated covertly once while I was on medical leave of absence, after the City University of New York borrowed me for a five-year stint as a lecturer in the Education Department (and the faculty rating handbook published by the Student Council gave me the highest ratings in the department my last three years), after planning and bringing about the most successful permanent school fund-raiser in New York City history, after placing a single eighth-grade class into 30,000 hours of volunteer community service, after organizing and financing a student-run food cooperative, after securing over a thousand apprenticeships, directing the collection of tens of thousands of books for the construction of private student libraries, after producing four talking job dictionaries for the blind, writing two original student musicals, and launching an armada of other initiatives to reintegrate students within a larger human reality, I quit.

I was New York State Teacher of the Year when it happened. An accumulation of disgust and frustration which grew too heavy to be borne finally did me in. To test my resolve I sent a short essay to The Wall Street Journal titled "I Quit, I Think." In it I explained my reasons for deciding to wrap it up, even though I had no savings and not the slightest idea what else I might do in my mid-fifties to pay the rent. In its entirety it read like this:

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.

That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.

That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.

How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work.

Can there be any doubt that John Taylor Gatto is perhaps the most deserving recipient of the Teacher of the Year designation, perhaps his statememnt should become mandatory reading for teacher, administrators and students alike. Somehow we doubt that will be the case.

Links:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm

When it comes to the issue of oil prices, never are politicians more on top of their game and of course the game is one of distraction. Capitalizing upon the fact that the average American is completely ignorant of even the most basic principles of economics it comes as no surprise that these politicians, particularly those on the left, attempt to levy a preponderance of the blame for high oil prices on the Exxons, Chevrons and BPs of the world. And because the oil companies apparently devote not a single dime toward public relations the average American is inclined to believe the drivel that comes out of the mouths of these socialist politicians.

So much is made about these so-called “windfall profits” and “tax breaks” that the oil industry receives. To the leftist, profit is a four letter word. But why is it we never hear about the concept of profit margin? In other words why is it we only hear about net profit rather than the share of profit per dollars invested or profit vis-à-vis revenue? Why? Because it we did we would quickly discover that these so called oil companies profit margins are eclipsed by other companies that aren’t so easy to vilify.

Why is it we never hear about windfall taxes, the amount of taxes levied upon every gallon of gas far exceeds the profits of any oil company. The federal government earns far more per gallon of gas than ExxonMobil could ever dream of earning, but here again our esteemed leaders in Washington take advantage of the fact that most of their constituents have no knowledge of this.

We here nothing of Wall Street and the role trading of oil futures has in influencing the price of oil. We hear nothing of the concerted effort by Washington to prevent increased production or refining capacity, thereby inflating profits further. Exactly why is it that these same politicians have worked to prevent exploration or the construction of new refineries here at home which would significantly boost supply? And why is it that we never here about the economic concept of supply and demand, specifically the role emerging economies like China and India (and their increased demand for petroleum) play in limiting supply and therefore driving up prices.

We don’t hear about these things because A.) These facts don’t suit the interest of these demagogue politicians and B.) Reporting such facts would reveal the complete incompetence of most politicians in addressing this energy crisis. Indeed all we hear from such do-nothing, know-nothing, achieve-nothing politicians is talk of tax increases, which further highlights their naiveté (or shall we say, stupidity) how else do you rationalize calls for tax increases which will serve only to drive up prices.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/news/companies/oil_hearing/

Well it only took about 220 years, but today the Supreme Court will finally weigh on the matter of our right to bear arms in the United States. The case centers around a 30 year ban on handguns in the nation’s capital. A ban that has done so much to make the District of Columbia the crime free Eden it has become.

This cases promises to be one of the most significant cases the high court has addressed since the Kelo decision, and we all know how that went. Much of the controversy centers on the actual meaning and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-2nd Amendment

To Gun rights opponents, the argument is clear, the 2nd Amendment only applies to a militia. This, of course, is an erroneous argument. In the first place, the militia as it existed 200 plus years ago does not exist, today’s National Guard is more akin to a standing army than the militias of yesteryear. A militia was an all-volunteer force, generally composed of all available able-bodied men in a particular area. These militiamen supplied their own weapons and munitions and were not generally compensated for their service. If will think about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, no one in their right mind could legitimately argue that the framers were opposed to individual gun ownership, the suggestion is laughable. Indeed the majority of Americans were likely gun owners at that time.

DC isn’t the first or only government that has sought to ban or severely restrict gun ownership, other American cities, like Chicago and New York have taken a similar path. Indeed other countries in recent years have adopted such measures including the UK, Australia and Canada and yet in each of these three countries violent crime continues to rise. The fact is such restrictions of gun ownership are in effect, restrictions on law abiding citizens as criminals, by definition do not recognize or follow the law in the first place. Indeed here in the US of all violent crimes involving handguns, less than 1% are committed by those who were legally authorized to have such weapons in the first place.

If the court sanctions a ban on such weapons, and that is a very real possibility, the court is essentially declaring that we as individuals have no inherent right to defend ourselves, our family or property when threatened. Indeed even when our lives are at risk, better to die than to use a firearm to save your life.

The fact is, leftist who support such bans recognize that gun ownership is an extension of the individual responsibility, which statist abhor. We are to be subservient to the state, even when it comes to protecting ourselves. Leftist care nothing about our constitution, which is why it is so frequently ignored when it doesn’t suit their purposes. Regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says or what the intent behind it may have been the advocates of state centered government will continue to oppose it. We can only hope that the esteemed members of the Supreme Court will consider the consequences of their actions when rendering this all to important decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/

Recently, the laughable Howard Dean speaking to a crowd for Black History Month said the Republicans "talk like the 1850s." In realty we could only be so lucky.

So what did the GOP stand for in the 1850s?

With the presidential race (at least on the Democratic side) showing no signs of coming to an obvious conclusion as of yet we have heard a great deal about experience. Pundits have summed it up this way: Obama is the change candidate and Clinton is the candidate with the experience. Both champion themselves as change candidates, lets just hope we have change in our pockets when this election is over, but what of the issue of experience, and what type of experience truly matters?

Hillary Clinton, with clockwork like regularity claims she has the experience to lead from day one, but does she in realty she is no more "experienced" in the conventional sense of the term as her chief rival, Barack Obama. In truth Clinton's experience has been limited to 7 years in the United States Senate. While she may claim experience based on her marraiage to Bill Clinton, marriage is hardly a basis for actual experince. Who, afterall, would trust the spouse of their surgeon to perform a critical operation or teh spouse of an airline piolt to land a 747? The premise would be laughable if it did not have such negative implications for our nation.

The inescapable truth is, either of the two leading Democratic candidates for president would be among the least qualified inidividuals ever to obtain their party's nomination.

But what of expereince, what kind of experience truly matters when it comes to a presidential candidate? A quick perusal of history tells us that "experience" in the traditional sense has not been an accurate barometer is evaluating potential success. Perhaps the most obvious example is Jimmy Carter, a businessman, an engineer, a decorated Navy veteran and a succesful former governor, yet Carter's presidency was an unqualified disaster. And Carter isn't alone, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, and James Buchanan. All were touted as highly qualified candidates and all were colossal failures as president. And when we look at some of our more inexperienced candidates we witness a strange dicotomy. Kennedy clearly was teh lesser qualified candidate in 1960 and in 1860, Lincoln, perhaps the most inexpereinced person ever to hold the office, is widely recognized as one of the best presidents.

Perhaps political, business or military experience is a secondary factor compared to other factors. Intellectual fortitude, analyitical and problem solving ability, strength of character, these ceratinly are qualities that have proven far more critical for our nation's leaders than how many years they served in this or that office. In this race only time will tell what factors will prove decisive.