Biden as Savant

Boy, it's a good thing we got Joltin' Joe Biden as our vice president and not some good-looking, wholesome yahoo from the hinterlands of Alaska. Otherwise we may have been bereft of the brilliance of the Democratic economic philosophy:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Now, why didn't I think of that?

Several years ago in a previous life, I faced the possibility of actually having to declare bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this was during a period where the rules were changing to make it harder for people like me to seek protection from creditors. So bankruptcy wasn't really an option. What happened, ultimately, was that I lost my house.

I see now that I was a fool.

Under the Democratic standard, I should have hung in there, spent money I didn't (and would never) have, declared to my creditors that my "spending Leprechaun gold" plan was working, and sit back to enjoy the ride. This is the administration's plan at the moment, so far as I have been able to discern. It certainly seems so according to Mr. Fountain-of-Wisdom Biden.

So there you have it, little people. Just keep spending money, especially if you don't have any. I'm sure Fearless Leader would approve. Oh, and you won't ever have to worry about making that first million anymore. Congress will see to it that it never reaches your personal pocket.

Redistributing Obama

Those who support Obama are having severe palpitations at the moment with regards to this YouTube video that's been making the rounds on the blogs:

A transcription of the meatier quotes is provided by Stop the ACLU:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

[Emphasis by Stop the ACLU]

I provide the video for one primary reason. It's one thing to read the words, and another altogether to hear them. In the transcript we read statements that could easily be written off as "offhand" remarks or something that was "taken out of context." But listening to the inflections in a speaker's voice can communicate volumes about what that person is saying. Similar to the way body language is vital in communication, vocal inflection indicates the degree to which a person has studied or thought about the topic at hand.

In this audio, which contains far fewer of Obama's omnipresent "ums," we hear a man who has studied, accepted, and now evangelizes the basis for socialist policy in a democratic society. One analysis of this event that I read tried to make the case that Obama actually was channeling more of Martin Luther King's thoughts than anything else, and was in fact supporting the conservative cause rather than the liberal. This is hogwash. "Redistribution of wealth" is one of the basic tenets of socialism, and was defined by Karl Marx himself as one of the steps towards his ultimate "classless society" of communism.

Joe Biden was well and truly embarrassed to find himself facing questions related to Obama's latent Marxism in a recent interview. For all his hemming and hawing, he never adequately answered the question of Obama's statement of "spreading the wealth around." Obama himself has not been able to quell the accusations of socialism that we on the right find his comments to represent. Nuggets like this 2001 interview audio only serve to solidify Obama's credentials as a nearly card-carrying socialist.

(I did read the link from Drudge where Obama was quoted as saying he was "bored" by the suburbs. Big hairy deal. This came on the heels of his selection as President of the Harvard Law Review and only showed his disdain for all things middle-America. Like this is news.)

Still, two key statements from this audio which should give any American pause for thought:

1. The idea that the Constitution is a flawed document. He uses the concept of "negative liberties," meaning that it places limitations on the powers of both the federal government and the states. It doesn't, he says, tell them what they must do (my emphasis) to help those in this country who may have become "dispossessed." Well, Mr. Former President of the Harvard Law Review, you may have missed those classes that discussed the idea that these "negative liberties" were not only deliberate, but necessary. These are part of the checks and balances that continue to give people like Barack Obama a voice in how this country is run. We may frequently disagree with those who hold the power at any given time, but there is no better model for government anywhere on the planet today. As broken as we feel things may be, there's always someplace far worse off than we are. Canada would be Exhibit A.

2. The idea that the Supreme Court (under Warren) did not go far enough in the redistribution of wealth. Hey, if Obama wants to redistribute his own wealth, that's his business. It may surprise Obama to know that many conservatives, myself included, frequently redistribute our wealth in numerous ways. What we don't want, and will not accept, is having the federal government dictate to us just how that wealth is to be redistributed. I already give far more money to the government than they either need or deserve. That they have never figured out how to spend it intelligently is a direct reflection of the greed, prejudices, and woodshed politicking of our Congress and President. (I leave the Supreme Court out of this indictment because, except when they're legislating from the bench, their primary budget outlays deal with keeping a sufficient supply of black robes on hand. Thank goodness they don't use white powdered wigs.)

I have my reasons for voting for John McCain in this election. Many of them are in this post.

The Real Magic of 'Joe the Plumber'

Joe Wurzelbacher kinda wishes the media would go away. Or, at least, those members of the media who keep trying to trip him up as the purported savior of the McCain campaign. When asked on Huckabee's Fox News show about all the attention he's gotten, he said:

"It actually upsets me[...] I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues coming up shortly. The media's worried about whether I paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America. They really don't. I asked a question. When you can't ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me."

There it is, in a nutshell. "Joe the Plumber" becomes an overnight sensation — a man whose name is had for good and evil across the nation — simply because he asked a question.

He has more guts than I've ever had. But then, he was literally in the right place at the right time. I am not a small business owner myself, but I've often thought about becoming one. Every time I do, though, I end up in the same place. The government would likely tax and regulate the heart and soul out of whatever enterprise I'd like to try, so why bother?

Joe, as a plumber, has harbored dreams of starting his own business, having a few guys work for him, and trying to eke a better living for his family. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Has he made a few errors in his life? Certainly. Has a few tax liens to deal with. I've had one or two in my life, too. Wreak havoc with one's credit, they do. But that never meant that I couldn't take care of those liens, keep my nose clean for a few years, and ultimately have good if not admirable credit once again. No reason that I can think of why Joe shouldn't have that same opportunity.

I seriously doubt whether we'd even be having this conversation had he asked this question of McCain rather than Obama. For one thing, McCain's tax proposals would likely be more friendly to Joe's American Dream than would Obama's. Also, McCain would never have responded as Obama did:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Which is precisely why the political left is so hacked off right now. Obama fell into a trap of his own making. He took a question from Mr. Average American, gave his gut-level response to that question, and immediately showed his socialist stripes. That has to be embarrassing to Democrats who wish to paint the party as being only slightly left of center. Spreading the wealth around is about as far left as you can go without actually being branded a communist (small or capital 'C').

Make no mistake: Obama's response, NOT Joe Wurzelbacher's question, was a game-changer. The left can excoriate 'Joe the Plumber' all they want. They can dig as deep as they like and get as nasty as they ever have about Joe's personal life and his alleged "connections" with McCain or his campaign. At the end of the day, however, they still have Obama's stated desire to "spread the wealth around" hanging over The Anointed One's head. It just doesn't sound or look good. And all the nastiness they dish out on Wurzelbacher will only come back to them, returned with interest.

If Obama loses in November, it will not be 'Joe the Plumber' that we hoist onto a pedestal and lavish with praise. It will be Obama's "spread the wealth around" petard that gets that singular honor. If he wins, it will be because Americans were too blind to see that petard for what it was: the acceptance of socialism as an American political standard.

Not Good

It passed.

The cowards in Congress, rather than punishing banks for predatory lending practices, and rather than encouraging Americans to take personal responsibility for irresponsible borrowing, have instead indicated that personal and corporate responsibility are no longer morally required in the United States of America.

Entitlement apologists are, I am certain, rejoicing with the passage of this damaging bailout. CEO's of irresponsible lenders around the nation are breathing easier tonight thanks to loopholes large enough to drive freight trains through.

Led by psychopathic Representatives Pelosi and Maxine Waters, the Congress crows about a bipartisan "solution" which amounts to nothing more than a toxic barrel of earmarks and free money that will be forceably removed from honest taxpayers' wallets.

Barack Obama no longer has to wait to take office to see socialism triumph in America. This bill just assured it.

Time to Fight the Fascists

It's an image straight out of the romanticized visions of the French Resistance: a family gathers around the wireless, listening to news of the downfall of everything they hold dear, and wondering when they themselves may be arrested and incarcerated. Or worse.

Such is the image projected today by numerous homeschooling families in the state of California following a disastrous ruling by an appellate court a few days ago. H. Walter Croskey, writing for the majority, dictated to a Los Angeles family that they not only had to put two of their children in public school, but further stated that "parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."

So now the battle is engaged. On the one side are parents who wish to have control over their childrens' educations. On the other, those who do not trust parents to be able to make those decisions on behalf of their own children. If you are a parent there is no middle road. You cannot sit on the fence in this fight. You either support your own parental rights, or you abdicate them. If you abdicate, then you reap what you sow. If you somehow believe that the state of California is better equipped to judge what is best for your child's welfare, then you expect that child to be indoctrinated in the same vein as a Nancy Pelosi, a Barbara Boxer, or a Sheila Kuehl. In other words, you want the government teaching your child about every possible sexual practice and orientation that our twisted society has ever conceived, and you are willing to accept whatever consequences come from this teaching.

This travesty, tied indirectly to the topic at hand, is the result of another assault on our families in the guise of SB 777, recently signed into law by Governator Schwarzennbody. Make no mistake, this teaching will occur. California's professional educators are mostly (with a few exceptions) beside themselves with glee over being allowed to unleash this indoctrination on our impressionable children. No less a personage than A. J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles was reported to support the court's decision. According to the LA Times, Duffy said, "What's best for a child is to be taught by a credentialed teacher." Of course he believes that. I'm just wondering how he's going to incorporate transgender and homosexual discussions in his special ed classes.

There is irony in the intersection of these two issues. The Governor "worked with legislators" to create and sign SB 777, yet decries the issue of parents not having control over their childrens' education. So why create a law that will provoke the ire of countless parents who still have their moral compasses installed, then get huffy over an appellate court decision that effectively criminalizes a not insignificant portion of your population simply because they don't agree with the law you just created? It makes no sense, but this is what we've come to expect from our RINO governor.

In the meantime, homeschool families are hunkering down. I haven't quite gotten to the point where I'm ready to dig a bomb shelter in my backyard (I don't think our HOA would approve), but sandbagging is not out of the question. We're keeping a close eye on the legal ramifications of this decision. We will join ourselves to the cause because we must if we wish to stay in California and continue to educate our children properly. We will voice our opinions until the right people understand that laws must be changed, they must be clear, and they must support a parent's right to homeschool. If not, we will find that support and work to get them elected. Ballot initiatives may be required. This is a legal, political, social, and religious issue. It crosses all races and genders. It affects rich and poor alike. It matters not whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. You could potentially fall under this ruling.

It is a fight. Parents are either for it, or against it. Those without children may not care, but it I wouldn't expect them to. Parents of school-age children have no excuses, however. Watch this issue; make informed choices; make your opinions known. Vote.

It's important.

Socialism in the Classroom

One has to be careful when discussing socialism in this country. My junior high and high school years encompassed the 70's (the Nixon years... I bailed in time to vote against Jimmy Carter). A more permissive — some called it "progressive" (a term I've come to hate over time) — attitude was seen in local education. Hippies, or hippie-wannabes, were becoming teachers and trying hard to push the socialist agenda into the classroom. I was therefore duly indoctrinated by history teachers, debate coaches, drama and music teachers, and even one health teacher who had this terrific lesson about influenza involving a long rubber worm and his nose (grossed the girls out, but the guys loved it).

This "indoctrination" typically involved demonstrating that social justice meant a complete ideological levelling of the playing field. They much preferred the term "socialism" to "communism" because it sounded softer; somehow more palatable. "Communists" were the avowed bad guys in those days. When the mysoginistic McCarthy days had finally blown over, most folks at least agreed that the Soviet brand of communism was indeed the evil that our leaders had always claimed it was. Only hard-core leftist-Marxists found anything good to say about the communist system, and we were still able, even in 1974, to dismiss them as lunatics.

Socialism, on the other hand, was being preached to our impressionable minds as the "soft" alternative to communism. No need to hand totalitarian control over to a communist dictator, they said, so long as we make sure the needs of the "people" come first. A country as rich as the United States surely must be able to give (emphasis on "give") everyone everything they need (read: "want") so that no one is lacking.

As a youngster, I have to admit that sounded pretty good. I mean, if someone in my neighborhood is out of work, we should give them some money to help them. Maybe even give them some food. You know, just until they get back on their feet.

Then Dad explained to me what a "welfare state" was all about.

Dad used to like to take me on walks around the block. I generally enjoyed these opportunities, because Dad was not an overtly affectionate chap. He taught me some great lessons about life on those walks because Dad, it turned out, was a teacher at heart.

Just down the street lived a Latino family. Dad had to phrase his statements to me carefully so as not to prejudice me against Latinos, but rather to make me aware that there were always people willing to "game the system." This family was what Dad referred to as a "professional welfare family." The father had not worked a day in years. The mother and one or two of the older siblings apparently had jobs, but not full-time jobs. At least, not based on how frequently they seemed to be home during the work week. What they had, though, were vehicles. At least seven at one count. Three of them were trucks, including one huge International of the type that eventually became known as SUVs. They were either new or close to new. One of the teenage boys sported a rather classic Chevy Vega that was heavily modified and on which he was constantly working. This family was forever going camping.

Since the father was constantly working on one or more of his seven vehicles, it was hard to determine just what, exactly, his disability was that prevented him from working. Eventually, of course, they sold their house and retired. Based on how long they were there, and knowing how property values increased during that time, I'm guessing he made enough on balance to pay cash for a new home in almost any location other than Southern California.

Lest we somehow overreact to this story, let me quickly point out that they were not the only welfare cheats with which I was familiar. Sometime later I became acquainted with a family in our church that moved into the area and immediately required assistance. This is not altogether that unusual. Our neighborhood was one of the older ones in Simi Valley, and less affluent families came and went. Dad was Elders Quorum president at the time, and he was involved initially in helping them get assistance from the church. Latter-day Saints have probably the most exemplary welfare program in the nation as it provides assistance, yet encourages the recipient to become self-sufficient as soon as possible. This family, though, was unique. This family kept receiving assistance for as long as they could convince the Bishop they needed it. Finally, when the Bishop began asking harder questions about why this gentleman was not actively seeking work, the family moved once again. Professional LDS welfare families. Never knew they existed. I doubt whether they stayed in any ward longer than six months.

The Latter-day Saint theology includes something called the United Order. On its surface it actually sounds socialist, but with one very important distinction. Socialism is simply that: a social order. It attempts to tear down class distinctions (albeit in completely the wrong way) and is more politically motivated. The United Order makes all things in common, but requires the absolute faith of the participants in order to be successful. The early Saints tried and failed; petty jealousies and greed caused the Lord to retract the United Order until such time as the Saints demonstrate their willingness to live it properly. The distinction between the United Order and socialism, then, is spiritual. As with all aspects of the Gospel, everything has its counterfeit. In this case, socialism is a worldly counterfeit for the United Order. Socialism fails because it lacks a spiritual foundation. It attempts to make things common without appreciating the commonality. It forces the commonality, if you will. The United Order, on the other hand, is voluntary. It requires faith in the Gospel. It focuses our minds and hearts on acheiving the same spiritual goals.

Socialism, as defined by its promoters, is also counterfeit to the Constitution of the United States, a document which has not yet outlived its usefulness. In the Constitution the framers remind us that we are entitled by right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. It also specifies how liberty is maintained. Freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights are frequently misinterpreted as meaning that we are free to act without consequence, or that we can somehow force one ideology over another simply because it uses words like "social justice."

Those who tout socialism as a great leveller choose not to mention the fact that one of our most basic freedoms — freedom to worship as we may choose — would be quashed by the constant indoctrination of people against the very tenets of that worship. In other words, religion becomes anaethemic to the practice of socialism, because religion tends to temper the anger and sense of complete injustice required to make socialism necessary to begin with. Human suffering should be dealt with by caring neighbors who give willingly and encourage the sufferer to return to a productive way of life. Religion in its purest form would enable this. Socialism would enforce this. Socialism can only succeed when it is legislated and becomes the law of the land. Every law passed that supports a socialist agenda only serves to weaken the Constitution that made such things possible in the first place.

This very long-winded sermon was made necessary (in my mind, at least) by knowledge of a movement afoot in public education today. A group calling themselves Radical Math tout something they call "Social Justice in the Math Classroom." They have just recently wrapped up a conference, attended by roughly 500 educators in New York City, who learned the many different ways to teach "social justice" at the same time they're supposed to be teaching times tables and algebraic reasoning. The "Welcome Message" in the conference program reads:

There is no such thing as a neutral education process.
Education either functions as an instrument which is
used to . . . bring about conformity, or it becomes the
practice of freedom, the means by which men and women
deal critically and creatively with reality and discover
how to participate in the transformation of our world.”
- Paulo Freire (emphasis theirs)

Socialism is the agenda here. Entitlement is the religion. Civil rights leaders become the gods. The altars are built upon intolerance of those who disagree with their perspectives.

If there is a true separation of church and state, this sort of thing should never be allowed in a public classroom. It is instead encouraged by the leaders of those schools.

Reason #247 why we homeschool.