The Right State

The Supreme Court is finally set of look at whether certain portions of the landmark case of Brown vs. The Board of Education-Topeka, Kansas should be overturned or at least its meaning modified.  The 1954 Brown decision came at a pivotal time in US race relations.  Everywhere across the US in the first half of the twentieth century, evidence of the previous 1896 landmark case of Plessy vs. Ferguson could be seen: separate water fountains, separate eateries, separate restrooms, and separate schools.  Signs clearly marked the areas as colored only.  Plessy laid out the idea that blacks and whites could have separate facilities as long as they were equal.  This test of equality was never applied since having separate services turned out to be only separate and not equal.

Fifty-eight years later black students in various states challenged the inequality found in the Plessy case.  These students wanted to attend their neighborhood white schools, but could not due to laws which made such attendance illegal.  The Supreme Court rightfully overturned the wrongly decided Plessy with the Brown decision.  In fact Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority of the court had to say about the separate but equal provision in the case.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. (snip)

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As I stated earlier, the Brown case was correct since separate but equal facilities were inherently unequal.  What followed after Brown v. Board of Education was an attempt to re-do the injustices of the past.  The justices held that segregation was wrong, but what followed was the whole sale busing of students from black schools to white schools and white students to white schools as states and cities across the nation attempted to correct past injustices.  Parents who once moved into neighborhoods based on the quality of the schools no longer had the luxury of sending their children to the school down the street.  States and lower courts turned the Brown ruling into an abomination as school kids were sometimes bused several miles from their homes to attend schools in the name of diversity.

From this one case other atrocities came into existence, all stemmed from Brown and all were inaugurated with the intended purpose of righting past wrongs.  Among the most notable of this redresses was the practice of institutional racism, otherwise known as Affirmative Action.

Finally the high court can once again right wrongs by undoing the worst part of Brown—busing.  If this case is overturned or at least redefined, the justices will show that the wrong implementation of a good decision can make the entire decision wrong as well.

Interestingly enough, it is the Los Angeles Times who boils this controversial issue down to once single question.

State-enforced segregation laws are long gone, but for school officials today, a key question remains: Did the historic decision commit them to a policy of seeking integrated schools, or did it tell them not to assign students to a school based on their race?

Even a cursory reading of the majority opinion should answer that question.  The justices did not like separate schools based on race.  In their arguments, lawyers on both sides of the issue will be using the landmark Brown case in trying to score points with the Supreme Court Justices.  Unlike the earlier court decision, this time it is Brown in reverse.  White parents of school children are asking the court to rule that their children are being discriminated against based solely on the color of their skin.  Chief Justice Earl Warren in his decision reasoned that very same point in Brown—“To separate them [school children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Justice Warren was right in every way.  To give an advantage or disadvantage to one race based on the color of one’s skin is wrong, whether the subject is busing or affirmative action. With the additions of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the High Court, the Brown decision may very well be redefined allowing parents of whatever color to send their children to the neighborhood schools.  And rightfully so.  Racism is wrong, even institutional racism.

Martin Luther King’s dream has been achieved in many respects.  Kids of every color attend school together, eat together, and play together.  People of every color work together and play together.  But King’s dream of a color blind society has been replaced with one focused on race more than ever before. Racial preferences are used to give an unfair advantage to one group over another all in the name of diversity.  This is just another term for racism.  Racial preferences make the color of one’s skin the dominate issue.  Instead of binding us together, preferences are making all of us more sensitive to race and are a source of animosity and tension instead of healing.  The Supreme Court with this one ruling could send a message once and for all saying: racism is wrong, even if it is done for the right reasons.

Tags: History, Culture, Supreme Court by Chuck
No Comments »

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!  May God continue to bless you, may God continue to bless our troops who are in harms way and protect us, and may God continue to bless this great nation.  I also ask for God’s blessings on those who do not believe in Him, because He believes in you.

Being a avid student of history, I would be negligent not to quote from one of our founding fathers who believed all blessings and liberties flow through our Lord.  And so I quote from the first Thanksgiving Proclamation signed by George Washington in 1789.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tags: History, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

Everything that is remotely Christian is now under attack.  First Christmas came under attack—the nativity scene ‘Christ’mas, Seasons’ Greetings, and what not.  Now Thanksgiving itself is under the ever watchful eye of the revisionists.  It is just not pc to like America anymore.

Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he “discovered” them.

The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.

Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.

He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.

More realistic?!  By taking the children’s play things and saying he was acting like the Pilgrims is shortchanging history.  Indeed, the teacher is making a mockery of history.  The idea that the Europeans came over to the new world and just took the land from the Indians is just plain wrong.  Never happened.  What did happen was as inevitable as the Civil War.

The conflict between Indians and the Europeans was a matter of a conflict of cultures.  The disagreement arose over the issue of land ownership.  To the Europeans land ownership was signified by improvements—a house, fence, garden, and maybe even some cows.  Using improvements, the owner made sure others knew this one simple fact: this land is mine.  Land ownership was viewed as a source of pride.

The Indians view of land was totally different.  To them, no one owned the land.  The Indians would live with the land communally.  The tribe would not stay in one area very long, moving with the seasons and the herds.  jAccording to them, no one single person could ever own the land.

It was only a matter of time before these two competing ideas clashed.  When the Indians moved off the territory for greener pastures, the Europeans considered the land unoccupied, which they exploited.  So the pilgrims did not take the Indians land, per se, but believed they were merely taking claim of unoccupied land.  A bitter conflict was bound to arise due to the difference in the two cultures.

For a teacher like Bill Morgan to boil down the conflict to—the Europeans took the Indians land—is wrong.  Morgan either does not know the history of the conflict or he is intentionally misleading his students.    Either way he is teaching his students to hate their country.  Teachers like Bill Morgan gives my former profession a bad name.

Tags: History, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

There has not been any posting in the last few days due to a typo on one of my posts.  It totally messed things up and took days to find.  Things should be back to normal now.

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

Sixty Minutes had an expose’ which lambasted District Attorney Mike Nifong’s conduct during the Duke rape investigation. According to an internal Duke investigation, the DA “…pandered to the [black] community in an election season.”  In spite of DNA evidence which cleared the players the DA’s investigation continued.  In spite of contradictory testimony from eye witnesses, the investigation continued.  For those of us who have been following the investigation from the very beginning, this is not new.  What Nifong has been doing borders on criminal.  He has used this investigation to mobilize the black community in order to win their vote.  Never mind that the entire charge was bogus from the start.

Evidence collected by 60 Minutes during the last six months shows that it was impossible for two of the Lacrosse players to have even been in the house when the alleged rape took place.  The testimony of the ‘rape victim’s’ co-dancer during the party was particularly damning.  She directly contradicted much of the ‘victim’s’ statement given to police.

The 60 Minutes investigation also faulted police conduct.  And they faulted the DA for his conduct in the investigation.  Also noteworthy was that the internal University investigation also placed some of the blame on the faculty and community of Durham, North Carolina.  They by-passed the presumption of innocence stage and handed down a verdict of guilty!

There is one thing that stood out in the 60 Minutes story, three young men have had their lives ruined, forty Lacrosse players have had their championship season cancelled, and Duke University has had their reputation tarnished because of false charge.

Justin Henderson at The Tibbetts Report says: The team certainly doesn’t come off saintly, but it would be tough for a prosecutor to move forward in good faith on this charge, without extremely compelling physical evidence.

Which Nifong does not seem to have, I might add.  No one comes off as saintly in this investigation: not the dancers, not the players, not the police, and certainly not the DA.  The players were acting like a bunch of drunk morons to be sure.  The ‘raped’ dancer was drunk or on drugs at the Lacrosse house, but she is most certainly lying about the rape.  The police were conducting an investigation with only one thing in mind–I know a rape took place at this house and they disregarded a lot of evidence which showed a rape did not take place.  The DA is the one who comes off looking like a villain.  This rogue DA ruined the lives of a lot of people just so he could win an election.  What a waste of human flesh!

Tags: Corruption, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

General Aviation (GA) has been under attack for the last few years, but especially since New York Yankee’s pitcher Cory Lidle and his Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) Tyler Stranger died when his plane crashed into a New York skyscraper.  Calls have gone out demanding flights be restricted because of the danger to non-flying Americans.  This fear is born out of ignorance.

We don’t consider restricting cars from the highways just because of a deadly accident.  We don’t consider restricting motorcycles or bicycles because of accidents where someone is hurt.  What is restricted are things most Americans either do not know much about or they see as the preview of the rich such as airplanes, 4-wheelers, guns, and so on.  I have been flying for years and yet I am not rich.  In fact I only know one person who has his pilot’s license who could be considered rich.  But further restrictions on flying will relegate GA only to the rich.

The crash of Cory Lible is indeed tragic.  He leaves behind a wife and a six year old son.  The media has already shown they are against GA.  In this tragedy, Time announces that it is another case of too much airplane for this inexperienced pilot.

The investigation into the crash of the small airplane owned by New York Yankees’ pitcher Cory Lidle is just beginning, but already aviation experts and pilots are quietly speculating that it may be yet another case of “too much plane.” Much like the crash that claimed the life of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and a friend in 1999, there are signs that this may be a case of a relatively inexperienced pilot who ran into trouble in a high-performance plane that he had not yet mastered fully. (snip)

One report said the visibility at the time of the crash was not good, since the heavy cloud layer sat at about 2,000 feet. That meant Lidle’s plane had to stay within a relatively narrow range of movement — within the width of the East River, not too high and certainly not too low. All while Lidle and his instructor were apparently trying to peer through the clouds to see the sights of New York before they headed on their cross-country trip to California. If not exactly a recipe for trouble, there wasn’t much of a safety cushion.

Lidle’s plane was under “visual flight rules,” meaning the pilots — not air traffic controllers — are responsible for keeping an eye out for other aircraft or obstacles.

This is another case of someone on the ground talking about something they do not understand.  As a CFI Tyler Stranger would have known a great deal about flying in low visibility.  All pilots are instructed on how to fly by their instruments and must demonstrate that capability to earn their private pilot’s license.

USA Today lambasted GA in their editorial.

For all the differences, however, the incident raises security concerns about the 220,000 small planes in the USA and the 5,500 airports that serve them. While 9/11 prompted a crackdown on commercial flying, many of the vulnerabilities of small planes have never been addressed.

In most areas, flight plans are not required from pilots flying small aircraft in clear weather, so air traffic controllers have a limited ability to monitor them or determine in a timely way whether they’re headed somewhere potentially dangerous.

And though Congress mandated that pilots’ licenses have photo identification, regulations haven’t caught up with the law. Terrorists could easily use a stolen license.

Using this argument, I would say that we need to force all trucks to file driving plans and have a GPS onboard so they may be tracked.  Who knows if a terrorist may have gotten a hold of a fake drivers license to drive to some building and blow it up.  The author is against general aviation pure and simple.

Philip Boyer, the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association (AOPA) has this eloquent response to USA Today’s biased editorial.

Wednesday’s accident was tragic and highly regrettable. And it certainly stung the nerves of post-9/11 New Yorkers. But the fact is: It was an accident. For USA TODAY to pose a series of unsubstantiated “what-if” questions and concerns regarding small aircraft, their safety and security is uninformed and ill-conceived. It’s also highly irresponsible because it needlessly stokes already-heightened public concerns.

Since I don’t know what exactly happened, anything I say about the matter will be pure speculation mixed with pilot experience.  What I do know is that Cory lost ‘situational awareness’ which means that he lost sight of where he was and what he was doing.  In an airplane this usually occurs when the pilot is under duress.  If Lidle ran out of fuel, he forgot the most important rule in flying when confronted by an emergency—fly the plane first and then fix the problem.

There is also some thought that Lidle tried to make a u-turn to avoid entering the class-B airspace.  If so, he was most likely trying to make a turn away from the 14 knot crosswind.  This would have slowed the plane down considerably.  Turning away from the crosswind would have made the plane turn slower.  In response the pilot would have pulled back even harder on the yoke.  With the slow airspeed and sharp turn, this could have led to a stall on the inboard wing.  The fix to this problem is simple—point the nose of the airplane down.  Unfortunately this would have given Cory not enough time to turn away from the building.  The CFI on board in this type of emergency should have shouted, “my airplane’ and taken over the controls to fly out of trouble.  Whether this was done is something we may never know.

Sometimes even the best pilots lose their situational awareness.  While in the USAF, I had a pilot come in who had thousands of hours of flying experience and complained of a problem with his attitude indicator on the F-15 Eagle.  He had just come in from a joint exercise going up against a group of F-111 at night.  During the dog-fight, the pilot became disoriented decided to climb towards a ‘star’ and then fly back into the foray.  Soon he realized the star he was climbing towards was in actuality a fishing boat in the Gulf of Mexico with a bright light on to attract fish.  The attitude indicator checked out okay.  In the dog-fight, the pilot lost his situational awareness and did not know he was flying upside down.  This can happen to anyone if they do not maintain their situational awareness.

The MSM do not like GA for one simple reason.  Flying an airplane is done by an individual.  The pilot has a lot of independence and loves the freedom flying offers.  These are things the msm do not understand or support.  As CFI Tyler Stranger said, ‘the most dangerous part of flying is driving to the airport.’

Tags: Bias, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

According to Ross Kaminsky of Real Clear Politics, the ruckus caused the Columbia University students when Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist came to speak is nothing new.  Turns out a good portion of the student body have been against free speech for…generations.

Around 1960, Ayn Rand was invited to speak at Columbia. My father went to hear her. She was shouted down and, unable to address the crowd, left the podium after properly scolding the students for their bad manners. The protesters spent much of their time railing against the evils of capitalism and liberty.

In about 1985, there were protests and scuffles as students barricaded Hamilton Hall to demand the University divest itself of investments in companies which did business in South Africa. The protesters spent much of their time railing against the evils of capitalism and liberty, with somewhat more physical violence than had been seen 25 years earlier.

And now, 20 years after those protests, I see Columbia students act aggressively, irresponsibly, and disgustingly, trying to silence another invited speaker.

Will you look at that?  Liberal students are against free speech, which is interesting because free speech is what they say they are entitled to when they spout their nonsense.  At least the right will listen and then disagree.  The left says that people are entitled to free speech as long as they agree with you.  What a bunch of crap!

Kaminsky then quotes a letter written to the editor which really takes the cake.

… “Shame on the College Republicans for inviting this fascist thug and provoking such outrage on our campus.” …

Now where have I heard this before?…I know…in the bible.   In Genesis, Adam ate of the fruit given to him by Eve.  When God questioned Adam about why he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, he responded: Genesis 3:12 “The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.””  So it was God’s fault Adam ate the fruit because He is the one who gave him Eve.  This line of protest did not work in Adam’s time and it will not work now.  By the very definition of freedom, we are all responsible for our own actions.  Blaming someone else for what I do is a copout.

Kaminsky nails the issue down between liberals and conservatives in one paragraph.

It is a remarkable thing about liberals (or, at Columbia, outright leftists) in free societies: They are far more intolerant than conservatives. The protesters hate people who oppose illegal immigration. They accept the use of intimidation and violence to keep such people from speaking, then blame the victim for having been controversial. Conservatives generally don’t hate people for their views even if those views are as wrong-headed as those of many (or, in my experience, most) Columbia students.

By-in-large, liberals have forgotten what America is all about.  People came to this country to practice their freedom of speech, their freedom of religion, to avoid political intolerance.  And yet this is exactly where liberals want to take us: back to where there is freedom of speech—as long as it conforms to their standards.  Where the only religion is the worship of self.  Where there is freedom of political expression—as long as it is liberal enough.  This is not the kind of freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution.

Kaminsky wraps up his article with this observation.

Throughout all the years that my family and friends have attended Columbia, it has repeatedly represented itself as a truly illiberal institution, in a way that only the most “liberal” institutions can. The students live in a world which would make Orwell shudder: speech can justify violence, economic conservatives are called “fascists”, and any talk the students disagree with is labeled “hate speech”.

In this way and others, Columbia represents everything that is wrong with the far left in America today, and I am proud to say that while I do give money to a college, it is not to Columbia.

I don’t blame you Ross, I wouldn’t either.  Columbia University students have given themselves a black eye with their conduct during Jim Gilchrist’s speech.  They have also let the world know of the true nature of liberalism and its not a very pretty picture.

Jim Gilchrist in a post he calls The Death of Free Speech, discusses the importance of free speech.

There is a national treasure so dear to the American people that it sometimes requires our life, liberty and sacred honor to protect it. The center piece of our National Treasury of Rights is the freedom of speech, the very cornerstone of self governance that countless heroes have fought and died for to preserve.

Could not have said it better.  Too bad everyone does not understand this one simple fact.  The right to free speech is one of the things that makes America great…as long as you are not at Columbia University.

Tags: Moonbats, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

This has got to be one of the greatest commencement speeches ever.  Unfortunately, it was never given.  Too bad.

The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech

No, this speech has never been delivered at a college or a university. It was written to protest the fact that such an invitation has never been offered! It has only been delivered on my radio show, printed in my book “The Terrible Truth About Liberals” and produced on a limited edition CD. The irony is that this commencement speech has been more widely distributed, and has been the subject of more comment than any commencement speech that actually has been delivered at any college or university in the past 50 years. ©Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003 by Neal Boortz.
http://www.boortz.com

I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It’s about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you’ll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I’m not here to impress the faculty and administration.

You may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You’ve heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can’t - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn’t mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot’s license many years ago, he said, ‘Here, this is your ticket to learn.’ The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups –The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, butyourname. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You’re going to actually get a full time job! You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, just your earnings.

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor aging hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist … but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills; for every person who ignored all offered educational opportunities, dreaming of nothing more than a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent’s for their personal enrichment and benefit.

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive Imperial Federal Government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, will have or should have. This agent has the legal power to use force – deadly force – to accomplish its goals.

You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla with a gun. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can’t decrease it’s share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Oh yes, I know it’s a necessary evil, but it is dangerous nonetheless … somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now – let’s address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

First – that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia: Diversity!

You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual’s abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group. Yes – it’s that liberal group identity thing again.

Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual’s integrity, character or other qualifications.

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work.

From this day on every single time you hear the word “diversity” you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to whatever wealth you are able to produce with your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may think, for instance, that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn’t she? But you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that’s his choice. You have no “right” to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person’s life or to any portion thereof.

You may also think you have some “right” to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? I can’t wait for you to point that one out for me in our Constitution. I sure would like to be a fly on the wall when some urban outdoorsmen (that would be “homeless person” for those of you who don’t want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase “less fortunate” a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you’ll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility.

If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren’t we?

This “success equals luck” idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as “people who have won life’s lottery.” He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky; all they did was buy the right lottery ticket. What an insult this is to the man or woman who works that 60 hour week to provide for a family.

It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He’s there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, “Look! He did this to me!” than it is to look into a mirror and say, “You S.O.B.! You did this to me!”

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

Quite a few people have followed that tragic path.

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.’

The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”

You have heard, no doubt, that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor … there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in America. So, you need to know that under our government’s definition of “poor” you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1 million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as “living in poverty.” Now there’s something you haven’t seen on the evening news.

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is “living in poverty,” the government measures one thing — just one thing. Income. It doesn’t matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are ‘living in poverty.”

This isn’t exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it?

Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

And please remember this: The average person in this country described as “poor” has a higher standard of living than the average European. Not the average “poor” European, the average European.

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion,that the number of “poor” is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

Well, it looks like I’m about to be given the hook. The faculty looks a little angry. I’ll bet they’ve already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get.That’s OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It’s a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you’ll be unable to deal with life, or the truth. So, get over it.

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

• You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again. To the welfare class I say that we’re taking care of you we would appreciate if if you would just stay out of our way so we can get the job done.
• When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
• Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the United States. If someone can’t deal honestly with you, send them packing.
• Don’t bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it — to take their money by force for your own needs — then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.
• Don’t look in other people’s pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What your earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.
• Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.
• Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
• Finally (and aren’t you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

2. Use wisely your power of choice.

3. Go the extra mile … drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

Now, if you have any idea at all what’s good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.

Class dismissed.

Hat tip: Lone Star Times

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

So far Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have brought their anti-US bias before the United Nations.  Everyone knows these men hate the US, both keep their power by trampling on the rights of their own citizens and both keep their jobs by portraying this country as their enemy.

“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. “And it smells of sulfur still today.”

Chavez accused Bush of having spoken “as if he owned the world” and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement.

“As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: ‘The Devil’s Recipe.’ “

It is interesting that Chavez would call President Bush a dictator considering he had his cronies re-write the country’s constitution, giving him almost dictatorial powers.  At the UN the Venezuelan President then calls the UN Security Council an undemocratic institution because of the veto powers of the permanent five: the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China.

Chavez called the veto power shared by the five permanent members of the Security Council “anti-democratic,” and cited the U.S. veto of a resolution that would have demanded the Israelis halt their bombing of Lebanon this summer.

That is like the pot calling the kettle, black.  I would not be surprised if Chavez never leaves office after his term is over.  So much for the rise of democracy in Latin America.

Everyone knows Hugo Chavez hates America and President Bush in particular.  What is disturbing is the reaction of the rest of the UN body which gave the Venezuelan President a sustained applause.  The UN has shown its face to the world and none of us should be shocked by what we have seen.  A good portion of the UN is made up of anti-democratic and human rights violators who occupy leadership positions.  This antiquated world body has served its purpose and should be relegated to the annals of history like the failed League of Nations.

Polimom has an interesting and hilarious take on the Chavez rant.

Personally, I think an entire staff of psychiatrists could be kept occupied by remarks from the latest U.N. General Assembly… but Chavez has been hopping up and down like a hyperactive chicken for so long, it’s hardly worth the excitement he generates.

I should have talked about Hugo Chavez’s speech yesterday, but I wanted to see what the left had to say about his ‘The Devil’ speech.  After all, Hugo Chavez was holding a book written by one of the left’s heroes, Noam Chomsky.  All they can talk about is how the President is the devil and how much they agree with this moron.  How the President stole the election in 2000 and how they do smell sulfur.  I would not be surprised to see Howard Dean along side Hugo Chavez in a television commercial denigrating President Bush and the Republican Party in general.  Everything the Venezuelan President said was out of the Democratic playbook.  In fact with the exception of President Bush being the devil, these same rantings could be heard from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any of the other left wing liberals.

Hugo Chavez is a joke.  Like a spoiled brat, he craves attention.  Now that I think of it, he acts much like Cindy Sheehan.

I have one message for Hugo Chavez, “Go home!”

Tags: Corruption, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

I just found out people using Internet Explorer were having problems viewing my site.  I have been using FireFox and never noticed the problem.  Hope this new theme helps.  At least until I finish my new one.

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »