One of my friends posted a message about the ongoing Chicago teachers' strike. Just HOW underpaid are our teachers, or are they?
I did a simple search for the median salary in the United States of America, and compared it to the median salary for public school teachers in the United States of America. The median salary for a public school teacher is $50,663. The median salary in the United States of America is $26,364. Hmmmm.... let's do some quick math, here. A teacher works 9 months out of the year. Many can, and do, work jobs besides their teaching, increasing their income. If they don't do other work, they get a three month vacation every single year. During their working time, I'll assume that the quantity of days off, half-days, sick time, etcetera, is equal to their non-teaching counterparts (I personally resent the fact that teachers are given personal planning or training days. When I was in the business world, training for career advancement was done on my own time, not my employers' time. That's why I went to school at night and weekends to get my degree and certifications.) Let's also assume that their benefit package is equivalent to their non-teaching counterparts. These two assumptions are strictly for the sake of mathematics.
So... teachers get $50,663 for nine months worth of work. If we assume that they can only get a minimum wage job for the other three months of work, that amounts to close to $55,000 per year... plus benefits! I can't get worked up about a "poor, underpaid" teacher who can't be fired due to ridiculous rules such as tenure. Why do we canonize teachers? I truly believe that there are excellent teachers, but I don't believe that they are any better or worse than any other profession.
I can comprehend how when we had a completely unskilled labor force, unscrupulous people took advantage of immigrants and placed them in horrible situations. However, today's world is MUCH different than the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. It's time to repeal the National Labor Relations Act and the Taft-Hartley Act. There should be NO required membership in a Union. Unions are a wonderful way for employees to pool their resources for a beneficial health insurance plan or a pension plan. However, unions should be paid for by their members, not by employers. Work rules should be established by employers, not unions. If an employee is incompetent, it should be an employer's right to fire that employee. If it turns out that the firing was "wrongful termination," then that's for a court to decide, not a labor union, (which through strikes and other, shall we say, less eloquent methods, can and do intimidate employers).
An employer will get whatever value he is willing to pay, and an employee will get whatever compensation he is willing to accept. If a business owner wants to pay $10 per hour, he will get an employee worth $10 per hour. If he wants to pay $100 per hour, he will get an employee worth $100 per hour. Unfortunately, when unions can victimize a community, as the people and students of the City of Chicago are being victimized now, unions show themselves to be the very greedy, selfish, hoarders for which they attack others. Yet, their hypocrisy isn't called. It's called a "work action." Actually, it's a "non-work" action, and the City of Chicago should be able to fire those people who don't report to work, and permanently replace them with people who will report to work. Notice I didn't word that as "do the job," because public schools in this nation are NOT doing their jobs. However, I don't completely lay the blame for that upon the teachers. The failure in performance is due to the entire psyche of public schools. That's why I am so in favor of school vouchers to enable competition between schools be they public, private, or parochial.
For myself, I'm voting YES on amendment 8 in Florida, for that exact reason. Maybe, by giving parents a realistic choice, we will be taking the first step to free ourselves from the horrible bonds of unionism in public education.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Educational Reality vs. Statist Denial Thereof
Last night, I was involved in an interesting conversation.
At the card game that I enjoy with my father and his friends, the discussion during the coffee break turned to the state of public education. I find it incredible that some people never let facts or logic interfere with their opinions. Opinions based upon a complete lack of logic do fit the old joke about opinions being like [anal openings.] To the dismay of most people with whom I'm involved in intellectual debate, I propose a different standard: Opinions are based on data and logical reasoning, and therefore, everybody's opinions are not equal in terms of validity. Such was the case in the debate.
Mr. H proposed the idea that in every generation, schoolchildren are more advanced than the preceding generation, and therefore, any discussion that our schools today are failing is ridiculous. With all due respect (which is nearly none,) to Mr. H, our schools today are failures, only improving their ratings by declaring lower standards as being acceptable, and blaming their abject failure in competition with the rest of the world on things such as "advancement in the scope of education," "lack of proper financial support," "lack of parental support," or my personal favorite, "bias in testing and evaluation." Folks, our schools fail because of a social theory that says that self-esteem and social indoctrination in schools is more important than, oh, I don't know, educating our children!
When children today can't perform basic mathematics or put together a coherent sentence, Mr. H. proposes that it's perfectly acceptable for our students to not be able to add, subtract, multiply, divide, read or write, because there are such things as calculators and spell check. Sure, our kids don't know that 6x8=48, but that's okay, because they can misspell text messages to one another at the speed of light! (Speaking of which, it would be interesting to find out if the average middle school student knows the speed at which light travels.)
Teachers' unions say that they cannot teach effectively because of increased class size, or because they have to subject their students to testing rather than teach, or any of a myriad of other excuses. While I don't disagree that there are MANY good teachers, there are also some horrific ones that because of socialist ideals, are kept on by the educational disease known as "tenure." Contrary to sensationalist reporting, public school teachers are well compensated for their work. They are among the highest paid in comparison with most other trades, and their solution to their failing performance is, "Give us more money, and we'll do better." Folks, we spend a LOT of money on education, and our students are failing. Although we can and should provide our students with the best education possible, throwing more money at failing systems is NOT the answer. Private school teachers and home educators do far better with far less resources than are provided by the government.
Heaven forbid the discussion of school vouchers comes up. "What?" the Statists say, "You want us to stop giving more and more money to systems that fail? Instead, you want to allow people the choice as to how best serve themselves educationally? You barbarian, you child abuser, you.... you Capitalist, you!" Sorry, folks. When a school fails, the parents should be allowed to use the moneys they are providing in school taxes to send their child to whatever educational institution they as parents see fit, even if that institution is the living room!
I won't even get into the discussion of the disservice that is done educationally by Affirmative Action. When our educational institutions become blind to race, gender and anything else but educational achievement, that is when nobody will be able to cast a doubtful glance at a "disadvantaged" person in our post-secondary system, and rightfully wonder, "are you the equal of your 'non-disadvantaged' classmate over there, or did you get inordinate breaks and relaxed scoring because of the color of your skin or your hormonal count?"
President Obama made a statement that successful folks didn't succeed because they were smarter, or worked harder than others. Under the Statists, of which he is the current leader, following in the footsteps of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, he's right. Undeserving people succeed, rather than deserving ones, because the current mindset of liberalism eliminates achievement and ability as any virtue. Rather, those people who are undeserving of a given opportunity through their own deficiencies are considered the downtrodden. Success is frowned upon, if not outright vilified. Failure is considered an unacceptable failure of society, rather than the normal mechanics of human striving. There is success and victory in the wonderful arena of human struggle; there is also failure and loss.
It is our self-serving educational system that interprets, "No Child Left Behind," as "No admission of failure and instead, give false promotion." I remember every year having to take the NYS Regents exams. The NYS Department of Education mandated that in each year, a given course would require a given curriculum. Each student was tested at the end of the year, and given a score commensurate with what they were able to show they learned in the subject. How appalling! Students being required to show they had actually learned what was taught, and if they couldn't, they were given a failing grade? How dare somebody hurt a student's self-esteem that way! Instead of falsely claiming to be sorry for hurting a kid's feelings, I'm honestly saying I'm not sorry if a kid's feelings get hurt. If you succeed, you feel good about your success. If you fail, you feel bad about your failure. That bad feeling is (or should be) an impetus to change. If we never let our children fail, they will most certainly never succeed.
At the card game that I enjoy with my father and his friends, the discussion during the coffee break turned to the state of public education. I find it incredible that some people never let facts or logic interfere with their opinions. Opinions based upon a complete lack of logic do fit the old joke about opinions being like [anal openings.] To the dismay of most people with whom I'm involved in intellectual debate, I propose a different standard: Opinions are based on data and logical reasoning, and therefore, everybody's opinions are not equal in terms of validity. Such was the case in the debate.
Mr. H proposed the idea that in every generation, schoolchildren are more advanced than the preceding generation, and therefore, any discussion that our schools today are failing is ridiculous. With all due respect (which is nearly none,) to Mr. H, our schools today are failures, only improving their ratings by declaring lower standards as being acceptable, and blaming their abject failure in competition with the rest of the world on things such as "advancement in the scope of education," "lack of proper financial support," "lack of parental support," or my personal favorite, "bias in testing and evaluation." Folks, our schools fail because of a social theory that says that self-esteem and social indoctrination in schools is more important than, oh, I don't know, educating our children!
When children today can't perform basic mathematics or put together a coherent sentence, Mr. H. proposes that it's perfectly acceptable for our students to not be able to add, subtract, multiply, divide, read or write, because there are such things as calculators and spell check. Sure, our kids don't know that 6x8=48, but that's okay, because they can misspell text messages to one another at the speed of light! (Speaking of which, it would be interesting to find out if the average middle school student knows the speed at which light travels.)
Teachers' unions say that they cannot teach effectively because of increased class size, or because they have to subject their students to testing rather than teach, or any of a myriad of other excuses. While I don't disagree that there are MANY good teachers, there are also some horrific ones that because of socialist ideals, are kept on by the educational disease known as "tenure." Contrary to sensationalist reporting, public school teachers are well compensated for their work. They are among the highest paid in comparison with most other trades, and their solution to their failing performance is, "Give us more money, and we'll do better." Folks, we spend a LOT of money on education, and our students are failing. Although we can and should provide our students with the best education possible, throwing more money at failing systems is NOT the answer. Private school teachers and home educators do far better with far less resources than are provided by the government.
Heaven forbid the discussion of school vouchers comes up. "What?" the Statists say, "You want us to stop giving more and more money to systems that fail? Instead, you want to allow people the choice as to how best serve themselves educationally? You barbarian, you child abuser, you.... you Capitalist, you!" Sorry, folks. When a school fails, the parents should be allowed to use the moneys they are providing in school taxes to send their child to whatever educational institution they as parents see fit, even if that institution is the living room!
I won't even get into the discussion of the disservice that is done educationally by Affirmative Action. When our educational institutions become blind to race, gender and anything else but educational achievement, that is when nobody will be able to cast a doubtful glance at a "disadvantaged" person in our post-secondary system, and rightfully wonder, "are you the equal of your 'non-disadvantaged' classmate over there, or did you get inordinate breaks and relaxed scoring because of the color of your skin or your hormonal count?"
President Obama made a statement that successful folks didn't succeed because they were smarter, or worked harder than others. Under the Statists, of which he is the current leader, following in the footsteps of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, he's right. Undeserving people succeed, rather than deserving ones, because the current mindset of liberalism eliminates achievement and ability as any virtue. Rather, those people who are undeserving of a given opportunity through their own deficiencies are considered the downtrodden. Success is frowned upon, if not outright vilified. Failure is considered an unacceptable failure of society, rather than the normal mechanics of human striving. There is success and victory in the wonderful arena of human struggle; there is also failure and loss.
It is our self-serving educational system that interprets, "No Child Left Behind," as "No admission of failure and instead, give false promotion." I remember every year having to take the NYS Regents exams. The NYS Department of Education mandated that in each year, a given course would require a given curriculum. Each student was tested at the end of the year, and given a score commensurate with what they were able to show they learned in the subject. How appalling! Students being required to show they had actually learned what was taught, and if they couldn't, they were given a failing grade? How dare somebody hurt a student's self-esteem that way! Instead of falsely claiming to be sorry for hurting a kid's feelings, I'm honestly saying I'm not sorry if a kid's feelings get hurt. If you succeed, you feel good about your success. If you fail, you feel bad about your failure. That bad feeling is (or should be) an impetus to change. If we never let our children fail, they will most certainly never succeed.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Boston, Chicago, Chick-Fil-A, "Civil Rights," and God
This story seems to be making the rounds today, and it's got me a bit tweaked.
Chick-Fil-A is well known as a company that is run on Christian values, and those Christian values are those of its founder, Dan Cathy. Some of the Christian practices of the company are being closed on Sundays in respect to the Lord's Day, prayer before every workshift, and now, a defense of the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Dan Cathy issued a statement against same-sex marriage and prayed for “God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” The Jim Henson company does not have those same values; Jim Henson's daughter and CEO of the company, Lisa Henson, actively supports same-sex marriage and is a supporter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation. Whether Chick-Fil-A or the Henson Corporation acted first in severing their corporate ties with one another, I don't know. Some say that Chick-Fil-A pulled the muppet toys from its stores, and the Henson Corporation said it was severing its ties with Chick-Fil-A.
Chick-Fil-A was planning on expansion into the city of Boston, and further expanding in Chicago. Now, the mayors of both cities have come out against Chick-Fil-A, effectively killing expansion into those two cities. Boston's mayor, in a letter dated July 20, said, "It would be an insult to [same-sex couples] and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick-Fil-A [on Boston's Freedom Trail.]" Chicago's Mayor said in a statement to the press, "Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents."
There has been a firestorm on Facebook regarding the incident. Here's my viewpoint.
Dan Cathy has every right to say what he wants regarding same-sex marriage. Lisa Henson has every right to say what she wants regarding same-sex marriage. They are two people who have the right to run their businesses the way they desire and decide with whom they will and won't do business.
The governments of Chicago and Boston DO NOT have that same right. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically defends the right to freedoms of speech and religion. Therefore, for the governmental authorities to refuse a company's presence in their cities because of religious beliefs, religious practices, or statements based upon religion is a direct defiance of the first amendment.
It seems that social "progressives" have no problem with freedom, unless it's somebody who thinks differently than they. It seems that they feel free to distort facts and attack people for beliefs contrary to their own social agenda, but the wrath of society should rain down on anybody who says anything against liberal actions or practices.
Christians are instructed by God to recognize their own failings and sinful nature. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
We are instructed to love one another, whether friend or enemy. Mark 12:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." The entire parable of the Good Samaritan is a story of how we should care for those around us and help them in their difficulties, no matter their background. (Luke 10:25-37) Only when those with whom we come into contact completely deny the truth of our words and God are we to walk away from them, and yet, we are to continue to pray for them. Luke 9:5 "If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 1 John 5:16 "If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life."
There are prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus, as some critics of Christians are wont to point out, along with many other ritualistic laws and behaviors. However, Jesus abolished the Levitical code. God's Word does, however, restate the prohibition against homosexual behavior in the New Covenant. Even though we are now free to plant different crops next to one another, we still must abstain from homosexual behavior. Romans 1:27 "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
So, although Homosexual acts are prohibited by God, we are required to pray for the souls of those who commit that sin, and for all of our souls as well, since we all sin. We are not, however, required to endorse the behavior, nor are we required to deny the sinfulness of that behavior. We are to tell the truth in love. Ephesians 4:15 "Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ." So, I'm sorry that it offends the GLAAD gang, but homosexual acts are a sin, and shouldn't be endorsed as moral behavior. God established marriage as a union between man and woman, and any other combination is immoral and sinful. Our nation claims to represent the people; our people speak consistently and overwhelmingly at the ballot box to reaffirm the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Only the judges of the federal and state courts have seen fit to override the "will of the people" by redefining laws to suit their own distortions of the law. "Civil Rights" are defined in the constitution. Those civil rights are the rights of people to be equally protected by law based upon race, religion and gender. No other rights are written there, and to include sexual preference as a "class" to be protected is a perversion of the Constitution.
Shame on you, mayors of Boston and Chicago, for failing to see that (a) you are betraying our country by imposing your social agenda by trampling the rights of a company to lawfully do business and its owner to lawfully speak his beliefs, and (b) to deny the truth that is spoken, and thereby redefine perversion as morality. Bravo to you, Dan Cathy, for defending God in our rebellious world. And although I heartily disagree with you, Lisa Henson, I support your decisions to do whatever you want with your business and your pen.
As for me, besides this blog, I'm making sure to get a meal at Chick-Fil-A on August 1, which has been proposed by Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee as a day to have a meal at Chick-Fil-A to show support for Dan Cathy and his company. Plus, it will give that cow on the billboards one more day of freedom from the butcher.
Chick-Fil-A is well known as a company that is run on Christian values, and those Christian values are those of its founder, Dan Cathy. Some of the Christian practices of the company are being closed on Sundays in respect to the Lord's Day, prayer before every workshift, and now, a defense of the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Dan Cathy issued a statement against same-sex marriage and prayed for “God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” The Jim Henson company does not have those same values; Jim Henson's daughter and CEO of the company, Lisa Henson, actively supports same-sex marriage and is a supporter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation. Whether Chick-Fil-A or the Henson Corporation acted first in severing their corporate ties with one another, I don't know. Some say that Chick-Fil-A pulled the muppet toys from its stores, and the Henson Corporation said it was severing its ties with Chick-Fil-A.
Chick-Fil-A was planning on expansion into the city of Boston, and further expanding in Chicago. Now, the mayors of both cities have come out against Chick-Fil-A, effectively killing expansion into those two cities. Boston's mayor, in a letter dated July 20, said, "It would be an insult to [same-sex couples] and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick-Fil-A [on Boston's Freedom Trail.]" Chicago's Mayor said in a statement to the press, "Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents."
There has been a firestorm on Facebook regarding the incident. Here's my viewpoint.
Dan Cathy has every right to say what he wants regarding same-sex marriage. Lisa Henson has every right to say what she wants regarding same-sex marriage. They are two people who have the right to run their businesses the way they desire and decide with whom they will and won't do business.
The governments of Chicago and Boston DO NOT have that same right. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically defends the right to freedoms of speech and religion. Therefore, for the governmental authorities to refuse a company's presence in their cities because of religious beliefs, religious practices, or statements based upon religion is a direct defiance of the first amendment.
It seems that social "progressives" have no problem with freedom, unless it's somebody who thinks differently than they. It seems that they feel free to distort facts and attack people for beliefs contrary to their own social agenda, but the wrath of society should rain down on anybody who says anything against liberal actions or practices.
Christians are instructed by God to recognize their own failings and sinful nature. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
We are instructed to love one another, whether friend or enemy. Mark 12:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." The entire parable of the Good Samaritan is a story of how we should care for those around us and help them in their difficulties, no matter their background. (Luke 10:25-37) Only when those with whom we come into contact completely deny the truth of our words and God are we to walk away from them, and yet, we are to continue to pray for them. Luke 9:5 "If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 1 John 5:16 "If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life."
There are prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus, as some critics of Christians are wont to point out, along with many other ritualistic laws and behaviors. However, Jesus abolished the Levitical code. God's Word does, however, restate the prohibition against homosexual behavior in the New Covenant. Even though we are now free to plant different crops next to one another, we still must abstain from homosexual behavior. Romans 1:27 "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
So, although Homosexual acts are prohibited by God, we are required to pray for the souls of those who commit that sin, and for all of our souls as well, since we all sin. We are not, however, required to endorse the behavior, nor are we required to deny the sinfulness of that behavior. We are to tell the truth in love. Ephesians 4:15 "Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ." So, I'm sorry that it offends the GLAAD gang, but homosexual acts are a sin, and shouldn't be endorsed as moral behavior. God established marriage as a union between man and woman, and any other combination is immoral and sinful. Our nation claims to represent the people; our people speak consistently and overwhelmingly at the ballot box to reaffirm the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Only the judges of the federal and state courts have seen fit to override the "will of the people" by redefining laws to suit their own distortions of the law. "Civil Rights" are defined in the constitution. Those civil rights are the rights of people to be equally protected by law based upon race, religion and gender. No other rights are written there, and to include sexual preference as a "class" to be protected is a perversion of the Constitution.
Shame on you, mayors of Boston and Chicago, for failing to see that (a) you are betraying our country by imposing your social agenda by trampling the rights of a company to lawfully do business and its owner to lawfully speak his beliefs, and (b) to deny the truth that is spoken, and thereby redefine perversion as morality. Bravo to you, Dan Cathy, for defending God in our rebellious world. And although I heartily disagree with you, Lisa Henson, I support your decisions to do whatever you want with your business and your pen.
As for me, besides this blog, I'm making sure to get a meal at Chick-Fil-A on August 1, which has been proposed by Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee as a day to have a meal at Chick-Fil-A to show support for Dan Cathy and his company. Plus, it will give that cow on the billboards one more day of freedom from the butcher.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am Anti-Anti-American!
I am SO tired of the leftist slant that pervades this country... Let me explain this to anybody who cares to listen:
1. I am for English being the national language. A single language is the most culturally unifying feature of any group of people. We used to live in a melting pot. A huge part of that was the fact that immigrants had to learn to speak the language of our land. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-HISPANIC, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ANTI-CHINESE, OR ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
2. I am against the federal government taxing our people for and then spending their money on anything besides providing the national defense, taking care of the safety of our roadways, rails and air spaces, or doing anything else that is not specifically spelled out as the duty of the federal government in the Constitution of the United States of America. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-POOR PEOPLE, ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS, OR ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
3. I am against the federal government invoking things that are not in the Constitution of the United States of America, such as a right to privacy, separation of church and state, the abuse of the commerce clause, freedom of expression, or any other thing, to infringe upon the rights of people, businesses, or state/local governments or entities thereof. The first amendment says that (paraphrasing here) Congress (note: Federal Government ONLY, not each of the individual states or any smaller form of government, ONLY CONGRESS) shall not make any law restricting religion, or speech, or the press. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-JEWISH, ANTI-CATHOLIC, ANTI-GAY, ANTI-HEALTH, TOTALITARIAN, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
4. I am against the federal government deciding that people are unequal based upon their race, favoring blacks, women, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, or any other kinds of people besides white males through quotas, set-asides, preferences, or anything that makes the federal government use race or gender as a measurement for ANYTHING! I believe in our federal government being totally blind to race and gender. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-BLACK, ANTI-HISPANIC, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
5. I am against the courts of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America, and the myriad of federal agencies deciding that they can write laws (that according to the Constitution of the United States may ONLY be written by the legislature) through judicial activism, executive orders, federal regulation, and/or failure to enforce the Constitution of the United States AS WRITTEN, not as "interpreted." If somebody wants to change what is in the constitution, amend it, if you can; otherwise, the constitution is as it is written, not as you want it to be. This does not make me anti-progress, anti-societal evolution, anti-culture, societally ignorant, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
In short, those who have demonized the Tea Party, or the Conservatives, or the Republican Party (which means Liberals, Democrats, Marxists, Statists, and all others who believe in that sort of government and economic structure)... I am ANTI-your stated beliefs, because your beliefs of redistribution of wealth, social engineering through judicial activism, imposition of federal regulations upon people and businesses, manufacture and enforcement of an imaginary "right to privacy" or "separation of church and state", imagining civil rights for anything other than race or gender, using "civil rights" to go beyond the protection of the law and into personal decisions, making victims out of anybody who feels like saying they're a victim, decrying with maliciousness the institutions and members of our national defense or law enforcement, and support of socialist economics, all destroy our country, and can only be implemented by directly opposing the greatness that is the Constitution of the United States, and I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
1. I am for English being the national language. A single language is the most culturally unifying feature of any group of people. We used to live in a melting pot. A huge part of that was the fact that immigrants had to learn to speak the language of our land. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-HISPANIC, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ANTI-CHINESE, OR ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
2. I am against the federal government taxing our people for and then spending their money on anything besides providing the national defense, taking care of the safety of our roadways, rails and air spaces, or doing anything else that is not specifically spelled out as the duty of the federal government in the Constitution of the United States of America. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-POOR PEOPLE, ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS, OR ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
3. I am against the federal government invoking things that are not in the Constitution of the United States of America, such as a right to privacy, separation of church and state, the abuse of the commerce clause, freedom of expression, or any other thing, to infringe upon the rights of people, businesses, or state/local governments or entities thereof. The first amendment says that (paraphrasing here) Congress (note: Federal Government ONLY, not each of the individual states or any smaller form of government, ONLY CONGRESS) shall not make any law restricting religion, or speech, or the press. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-JEWISH, ANTI-CATHOLIC, ANTI-GAY, ANTI-HEALTH, TOTALITARIAN, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
4. I am against the federal government deciding that people are unequal based upon their race, favoring blacks, women, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, or any other kinds of people besides white males through quotas, set-asides, preferences, or anything that makes the federal government use race or gender as a measurement for ANYTHING! I believe in our federal government being totally blind to race and gender. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANTI-BLACK, ANTI-HISPANIC, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
5. I am against the courts of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America, and the myriad of federal agencies deciding that they can write laws (that according to the Constitution of the United States may ONLY be written by the legislature) through judicial activism, executive orders, federal regulation, and/or failure to enforce the Constitution of the United States AS WRITTEN, not as "interpreted." If somebody wants to change what is in the constitution, amend it, if you can; otherwise, the constitution is as it is written, not as you want it to be. This does not make me anti-progress, anti-societal evolution, anti-culture, societally ignorant, or ANTI-ANYTHING, except for the fact that I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
In short, those who have demonized the Tea Party, or the Conservatives, or the Republican Party (which means Liberals, Democrats, Marxists, Statists, and all others who believe in that sort of government and economic structure)... I am ANTI-your stated beliefs, because your beliefs of redistribution of wealth, social engineering through judicial activism, imposition of federal regulations upon people and businesses, manufacture and enforcement of an imaginary "right to privacy" or "separation of church and state", imagining civil rights for anything other than race or gender, using "civil rights" to go beyond the protection of the law and into personal decisions, making victims out of anybody who feels like saying they're a victim, decrying with maliciousness the institutions and members of our national defense or law enforcement, and support of socialist economics, all destroy our country, and can only be implemented by directly opposing the greatness that is the Constitution of the United States, and I am completely and totally anti-anti-AMERICAN!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)