ThePhalanx.com

Deadly quake in China...

2008-05-12T21:59:00.002-04:00

A deadly earthquake has struck in China, preliminary reports indicate that this quake measured at least 7.9 on the Richter scale. We already know that the cyclone that struck Burma was caused by global warming and soon Al Gore will make the obvious connection to the Chinese earthquake.

Though there is the possibility that George Bush is to blame for quake, but then again perhaps it is the Iraq War, or high gas prices, perhaps it is the "record" profits of the oil companies or the evil rich. One thing is for sure Plate Tectonics had nothing to do with it....

What kind of world is this...

2008-05-09T16:12:00.002-04:00

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.

A pact with the devil...

2008-05-08T11:37:00.002-04:00

Sometimes in life we have to make unthinkable choices, not just individuals but groups and nations are often faced with this same dilemma. During the Second World War, the United States and Britain formed an almost unthinkable alliance with one of history's most vile tyrants, Joseph Stalin. This was a alliance forged in pursuit of one of mankind's most basic desires: survival.

With much trepidation, we must now recognize that the American electorate must now choose a similar path.

It is a foregone conclusion that Sen. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whether the Democrats choose Clinton or Obama as both are marxists in Democratic clothing and with the election of either we will witness a steady erosion of freedom and individual liberty.

With Obama as the nominee, however, those who value freedom must make a pact with the devil in order to save this country. The fact is, many on the left are right about one thing: There are a lot of closet racists in America. From an early age we isolate our selves based on race. And for those who doubt it take a trip to a school lunch room and see how the white, black, hispanic and asian children all sit together in segregated tables. Pay a visit to a college fraternity, house party or church and see how diverse and inviting these arenas of life actually are. Its a sad reality but a reality nonetheless.

Yes there are quite a few closet racists and/or bigots in this country, many of whom won't admit to pollsters that they won't vote for Obama but when they get in the voting booth they do just that. Its called the "Bradley Affect." This phenomenon explains why in the past Obama has been ahead in many public opinion polls only to be defeated by the equally frightening Hillary Clinton..

One can never imagine a scenario whereby they would be happy that such mindless Neanderthal bigots exist, but for the sake of the country, hurrah for all those two faced bigots who would never let their children date outside of their race or otherwise associate with people of another ethnicity. For the sake of our country we need these bigots to save us from the threat posed by an Obama victory. May god have mercy on our souls for uttering the unthinkable.

Obamanomics….

2008-05-06T22:28:00.004-04:00

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.

Global warming on temporary hold…

2008-05-03T11:06:00.000-04:00

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

Obama a moron...or just another politican?

2008-04-30T09:22:00.002-04:00

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 unloads in treatise of truth....

2008-04-11T15:10:00.002-04:00

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

Lawmakers grandstand before oil company executives

2008-04-01T14:54:00.000-04:00

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/

Right to bear arms faces the high court

2008-03-18T09:25:00.001-04:00

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/

Dean: Republicans "talk like the 1850s"...we wish

2008-02-28T19:51:00.010-05:00

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?

"Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men...."

None of which can the Democratic party claim, freedom of any kind is a foreign concept to the Democratic party, in lieu of freedom we are asked to check our liberty at the door and freely accept the yoke of state centered control of every aspect of our daily lives. To be true the modern Republican party has strayed far from its freedom centered roots, but the Democrats are certainly in no position to criticize anyone, Howard Dean most of all.

Dean went on to regale his audience with the myth of Democratic support for civil rights...invariably one must face up to reality that the Democrats were and continue to be the greatest threat to civil rights anywhere in America, beginning with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would not have been possible without the support of the GOP, certainly this is true when you recognize that most opposition to the bill came from Democrats.

Furthermore, since that Civil Rights era, the American left has gone to great lengths to create a subservient class of citizens functions as little more than wards of the state with no hope of making any decisions on their own behalf, indeed is this teh same Dem,ocratic party that demands American children remain shackled to failing schools while their counterparts in the industrialize (and developing world) lead far ahead of us. Is this the same Democratic Party that opposes Social Security Reform, leaving future generations trapped and tied to a bankrupt system? Is this teh same Democratic party that consistently seeks to raise taxes and deprive more and more American of the fruits of their own labor?

Exactly how does this highlight a commitment to Civil Rights? It doesn't it highlights a commitment to the state, more akin to Mussolini's Fascist state than anything a freedom loving American would be familiar with.
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-02-28/news/howard-dean-talks-politics-in-icc

The real experience

2008-02-26T10:56:00.003-05:00

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.

Too pretty for Southwest...right

2008-02-26T10:11:00.003-05:00

Now we have heard it all to be sure...two 18 yr olds claim they were discriminated against on a recent Southwest Airlines flight because of their appearance. Sarah Williams and Nisreen Swedberg claim that the flight crew of the Southwest flight spoke harshly to them and refused to serve them during the beverage portion of the flight.

Swedberg and Williams claim this "discrimination" began the moment the stepped on board the plane in Tampa. The girls claim they did nothing to warrant such treatment. Also during the flight these poor victims were involved in a verbal altercation with another passager regarding a lavatory and of course they did nothing.

"I think they were just discriminating against us because we were young, decent-looking girls. I mean, no one else on the plane looked like us, except us..." - Sarah Williams

Isn't it a shame when people are the victims of "discrimination," perhaps they can write they congress in support of a new Civil Rights Act, to prevent discrimination against such ravishing beauties, or perhaps we can buy these two some glasses, along with a reality check.
http://www.kctv5.com/links/15411478/detail.html#

Well, well, well...the evidence keeps mounting

2008-02-26T09:46:00.006-05:00

As if we needed any additional evidence that American children lag far far behind their counterparts in the rest of the world (industrial or otherwise).

We already no students in the US have a subpar understanding of math and science, now it seems that educational deficiency extends to history and literature as well (big surprise) and thus the failure of the American educational system is now complete.

The American Enterprise Institute conducted a survey of some 1200 students and the results were quite telling (and disappointing). According to the survey, less than half of the students surveyed knew when the Civil War took place. Other subjects students were unfamiliar with include the Communist Scares of the 1950s and prominent works of literature.

Once again we see the results of a deficient system that provides no depth young children, yet we are surprised as our country continues to fall behind.
Link to USA Today article

Does it matter?

2008-02-21T17:17:00.002-05:00

The New York Times published an article insinuating that Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist and as a result of that inappropriate relationship, McCain may have dolled out favors on the behalf of that lobbyist' clients.

McCain to his credit, or perhaps to the credit of his political advisors, wasted no time in responding.

Obviously damage control and political expediency were fresh in the mind of the McCain camp. McCain has insisted that he has not been involved with this woman and has had no improper relationship...but this begs the question: Does it matter...

The press certainly has no shortage of stories related to unscrupulous politicians who have been caught with their pants down, but does it matter, does it have any affect on the voters, do voters even care and should they care.

Naturally, the answer is complicated. Is it of concern to John Q? Probably not, after all do the private indiscretions of a public figure require public scrutiny. Certainly people who have made such decisions shouldn't be held to a separate standard than any other...but a legitimate case can be made for the argument that such people can't be trusted, that such actions reflect squarely on their character and their ability to lead. Perhaps what happens in the bedroom, even of a president or other prominent political doesn't have an impact on their ability to govern or does it?

Think of marriage as a contract, in a way a marriage is a contractual obligation between two parties. Perhaps the most important contract a person can be party to. If one of those two parties engages in an affair or some other type of adulterous relationship, it could be argued that said person has violated that contract. They have also demonstrated they are untrustworthy and furthermore, if a person violates such an intimate trust with perhaps the most important person in their life, can anyone truly believe that they can be trusted with the reigns of government? If you will betray your closest family members who's to say where your loyalties lie in times of crisis.

Surely, the answer to that question will vary for every voter, but it must weigh on the minds of many. The fact of the matter is character DOES matter. No one would feel comfortable entrusting our government with someone who can be bought and paid for at the drop of a hat or with an unscrupulous liar can an adulterer, the ultimate betrayer be much different?

Big Surprise...American Students Can't Compete...

2008-02-20T15:42:00.003-05:00

According to a recent documentary produced by venture capitalist Bob Compton, students in American schools continue to fall well behind their counterparts in other nations. As the documentary reports and as the Phalanx has been arguing for years. Its not just that students are far behind in the class room but a major factor is how society at large views academic achievement.

Here in the United States, the attention of parents and the community is not on academic success, as in should be, but on various extracurricular activities, particularly sports. The documentary, which focused on students in three countries (US, China and India) noted that outside of the US the "the community recognizes and awards intellectual and academic achievements."

Naturally, this documentary has been criticized by some, the Public School Apologists in particular who have consistently fought every effort from Vouchers to Teacher Accountability, or anything else which might improve opportunities for America's children. The fact remains, however, that in countless barometers, American students simply don't measure up and not only when compared with China or India but practically the entire industrialized world
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4313028&page=1

Previous Post:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/why-is-johnny-so-stupid-public.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2007/12/us-students-lag-behindbig-surprise.html
http://thephalanx.com/2006/02/state-of-educationrevisited.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/08/first-day-of-school.html

Our tax system at work...

2008-01-28T19:44:00.001-05:00

Not sure who can take credit for his gem of tax analogies, but much of it rings true, yet the statists and their uneducated masses who sustain them, champion such plans:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before.
And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

http://moneyshaker.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-tax-system-really-works.html

A Warning From History

2008-01-25T09:13:00.000-05:00

If presumptive Democratic Nominee, Hillary Clinton has her way, a new era of government control is at hand. Hillary Clinton, has increasingly called for a much more activist role for the federal government, particularly in regard to the US economy. One hall mark of Clinton’s plans are to address the mortgage crisis, to address this Clinton class for a return to 1970s era price control. In a clear sign that the Senator from New York has no understanding or knowledge of history she remarked: “If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market.”

And in a sign of incredibly shoddy reporting the New York Times essential endorses the statist plans of Mrs. Clinton.

Many analysts say that plan played a role in the Democrats’ loss of Congress the next year, but it is also widely credited with helping lay the groundwork for the 1990s boom.

Are there truly analyst who believe the economic boom of the mid to late 90s can be attributed to Clintonian economic policy, or in spite of it. If true, it would be perhaps the only instance in recorded history where increased taxes and government regulation led to increased economic prosperity. Indeed the economic boom of the 90s is likely more attributed to Democratic loss of Congress than any policy of Hillary Clinton.

Nonetheless, this is the reality we may all soon awake to next January, if the paternalistic, patronizing race batting Clinton brigade retakes Washington.

Link to NYT article

Clinton rhetoric has racial overtones?

2008-01-11T19:49:00.000-05:00

Well of course Clinton’s rhetoric has racial overtones as the Gang of Two seek to eclipse the upstart candidacy of Sen. Obama. Clinton would strike whatever tone necessary in order to win, be it anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-Christian or whatever gets the job done, such is the characteristic of a quintessential politician like Clinton. Some in the black community have expressed shock at the nation’s “first black president” making such presumably insensitive statements, but perhaps finally those on the left will awaken to the reality of the farce of Democratic party and its support for civil rights.

The Democratic Party is a paternalistic party that sees blacks, minorities, or anyone for that matter, as little more than wards of the state, pawns in the game of power politics, to be manipulated by smooth talking demagogues who care nothing about civil rights and everything about power.

And if there could be any doubt of this inescapable reality, one need only look at the Clinton record, far from being a champion of empowerment or civil rights, Clinton was no different than any other paternalistic Democrat, indeed Clinton failed to appoint any blacks to high level government positions in the executive or judicial branch, unlike his much maligned successor, George W. Bush, yet Clinton is perceived as the great hero of black America. Indeed, under Clinton, the Democratic party went to great links to keep blacks as little more than serfs of the Democratic Plantation.

Dos anyone remember the late Maynard Jackson the former mayor of Atlanta was the first black person elected to that position. In the late 1990s he sought to become Democratic Party Chairman and as expected the Clinton machine maneuvered quickly to supplant Jackson candidacy and appoint Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.

Whether Clinton is a racist (she probably isn’t) is of no consequence, the fact is she is just another hack politicians willing to do anything to gain the precious power she seeks. This is only the latest move.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

Related Posts:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/democrats-show-their-true-colors-or.html

Hillary or Obama

2008-01-10T17:17:00.000-05:00

Well New Hampshire and Iowa are now behind us and what can we say about the election shaping up before our eyes? Not much, after Iowa it appeared Hillary Clinton was in for trouble but then Senator Clinton cranked up the water works and all of a sudden she's a contender.

But apparently it worked. She cried and according to polling data...women flocked to her campaign. Some respondents indicated they voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Are these the people who should be allowed to participate in the electoral process.

Not that there is much difference between Clinton and Obama but one thing is for certain if the people of New Hampshire were looking to elect the most unprincipled of politicians they couldn't have made a better choice than the unscrupulous phony, waffling Hillary Clinton...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/new_hampshire_primary_winners.html

China: America should pay (not us)

2007-12-07T17:46:00.000-05:00

China perhaps one of the most congested polluted nations in modern memory has stated, through its chief climate experts says "developing nations" like China should not be required to pay or reduce greenhouse emissions, that task falls to the US and other "wealthy" nations.

Not only has China surpassed the United States as the worlds largest polluter and greatest emitter of CO2 gases, but it is also the world's second largest economy, having surpassed Japan and Germany, yet China calls itself a poor little developing nation, and surely as we all live and brief the 10,000 other conferees in attendance at the Bali Climate Conference are quick to support China's assessment of the environmental situation.

How convenient for China that once again (just like the infamous Kyoto Protocol) the Middle Kingdom's industries will be given a free pass to pollute at will while the US is expected to shoulder all the burdens and suffer all the hard ships, and yet these individuals are surprised when Americans thumb there nose at the UN.

Given the not so secret hidden agenda of such conferences its truly surprising the US even chooses to participate in the first place. There hasn't been such a one sided approach to handling global issues since the 1884 Berlin Conference in which the so-called great powers of Europe met to divide up the African continent amongst themselves.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TCPUE80&show_article=1

US 2nd worst climate “sinner”

2007-12-07T09:40:00.000-05:00

The global warming gala meeting in Bali, Indonesia is salivating at the thought of all the wealth these environmentalists plan to extract from nations like the US for the sins of climate changing pollution. We have already heard of numerous plans designed to punish the US for its CO2 emissions, and now apparently we have received a report on where the US ranks. Apparently the US is the 2^nd worse climate sinner in the world, after Saudi Arabia.

From this report can we conclude that Saudi Arabia is the world’s number one emitter of CO2 emissions, since the US is number two? Actually no, China is the world’s number one polluter, yet China ranks 14. That’s right 14…how legitimate is any such study when the world’s chief polluter isn’t even ranked among the top ten?

Should the US reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and dependence on foreign oil? Absolutely, if for no other reason than to defend our homeland from oil rich tyrants determined to do us arm. But when reports such as these are released based more on conjecture and emotion rather than scientific fact, it comes as no surprise that so many Americans are hostile to these environmental groups.

www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-12-07-bali-climate-conference_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

US students lag behind…Big Surprise

2007-12-06T08:44:00.001-05:00

In a study that should surprise almost no one, a new survey reveals that students in the US continue to lag far behind in terms of math and science. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gave the same test to 15 year old students in 30 industrialized countries , including the United States, as well as 27 other non-OECD countries. Finland, Hong Kong, Canada, Taiwan and South Korea were among the top performers on the test, but where was the United States you ask? Well below average, where else. And yet opponents of school choice claim offering alternatives for American school children would be harmful. The question is: harmful to whom?

Certainly not harmful to the student, they already rank amongst the bottom of the barrel, no school choice would be harmful to the schools and the administrators, school boards and teachers unions, who thrive under the status quo. With school choice, the state’s education monoploy would be vanquished and schools would have to perform or their customers (ie, the students would turn elsewhere). Indeed, while American students languish in the doldrums other nation’s even left leaning ones have long since embraced school choice to one extent or another. In Hong Kong, France, Canada, Belgium, Chile, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc…school choice is the norm, and in those countries students excell, while in America mediocrity is the order of the day. Even in neo-Fascist regimes like Putin's Russia where the state plays an ever increasing role in so many aspects of people's lives there is school choice.

Schools, alone are not to blame for America’s shamefully poor performance on such academic barometers. The attitude of many American parents toward education is sorely lacking and helps to explain why parents in Utah recently shot down a ballot initiative to bring about school choice there. Sadly, for many Americans education takes a back seat to American Idol, Football, Music, Movies and every other aspect of popular culture and as long as it does, look for Americans to continue their downward spiral toward insignificance.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8h-DxHp61exabOSw_W4O6KZf9CwD8TAHK7G0

Senate Committee votes on Global Warming Bill

2007-12-06T08:15:00.001-05:00

In a move heralded by environmentalist, anti-American Socialists, leftist and all of those in between the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has voted in favor of a bill that would bring about a reduction in “Greenhouse Gas emissions.”

If passed by the full Senate, as well as the House. The bill will take huge step in reducing CO2 and other Greenhouse gases. Once passed the bill ban reproduction, as human beings have a nasty habit of breeding to further strains on the environment and producing excessive amounts of carbon dioxide. Beef and other meets will be banned for the same reasons that the government will put the kibosh on reproduction.

But perhaps the greatest move will be those provisions in the bill governing the planet itself. All Volcanos are to be banned. As the earth contributes well over 95% of all CO2 emissions in a given year it is imperative that planet earth be put on notice. “Planet Earth’s days of recklessly polluting itself are at an end…” A Senator could have said.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-06-voa5.cfm

Dutch filmmaker planning his own death...

2007-11-28T13:36:00.000-05:00

A Dutch filmmaker is planning to commit suicide or so it would seem as Geert Wilders has announced plans to film a documentary that will be critical of the Koran. Given the fate of Theo van Gogh and the hullabaloo that was raised over cartoons appearing in European newspapers it is all but a forgone conclusion that Mr. Wilders will be dead in short order.

Perhaps now would be the time to lobby the dutch government to authorized concealed weapons permits in the Netherlands, unless he plans to go underground like Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie.
www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/28/europe/EU-GEN-Netherlands-Anti-Quran-Film.php

Court declares sex offender restrictions void…

2007-11-21T12:19:00.000-05:00

Across America states, under increasing pressure to confront the issue of child sex abuse, have passed laws severely restricting the behavior of convicted sex offenders. One of these restrictions includes requiring felons to register with local law enforcement so they can keep tabs with them. As stories of brutal attacks on children have become more frequent states have gone even further.

The State of Georgia passed a highly restrictive law dictated where sex offenders could work or reside. Essentially they could not live or work anywhere near a school, daycare center, etc or anywhere children are likely to be…This law also applied even if the convicted felon lived in a location where there were no children in close proximity but at some point in the future such a child oriented facility became located.

This stipulation was challenged and in a decision handed down today, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled this restriction was unconstitutional, essentially sex offenders would always be at risk and required to move anytime a new school, church, etc opens. The decision by Georgia’s high court was the right one and has implications for other states wrestling with this very same issue, but it begs the question.

If as many have deduced that sex offenders are forever dangerous with a propensity for recidivism then why are we releasing these individuals from prison in the first place. If society is at such risk by the presence of these felons then why not leave them in prison for life and if they are no threat to society them leave them alone, abolish sex offender registries and any other restrictions on their actions, lifestyles or behavior.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/11/21/offenders_1122.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab