Hypocrisy is the proof of retrenched principles.

When those in leadership act according to policy, not politics, and according to a greater good, not the common good, we will make some progress. The kind of progress that lead to a 5,000-year leap, as author Cleon Skousen explained. Unfortunately we have too many leaders who are regressing on principles for votes and money. What we are left with, when the back-tracking and "let me clarify-ings" are spoken, are out-of-touch politicians who are ripe with poor judgement and weak characters making the decisions for the rest of us.

Just this week in the news we find several examples:

Jon Corzine, CEO of MF Global, a commodities brokerage firm and a primary dealer of U.S Treasury securities, filed for the eighth largest U.S. bankruptcy on October 30, 2011. This week Corzine, the former Democratic U.S. Senator and Governor of New Jersey, has been called to provide testimony in front of a House Committee regarding the $1.2 billion in MF Global client money that has gone missing. Corzine claims he doesn’t know what happened to the money, and also defended his decision to bet billions of dollars of MF Global money on risky debt of European countries.

As the Washington Post reports, "[t]he firm was required to keep clients’ money separated from its own. But more than $1.2 billion might be missing, the trustee overseeing the firm’s liquidation said last month."

Corzine claims he never intended to break any rules, he was not in position to know what happened regarding the movement of specific funds, and that he never intended to authorize the transfer of client funds-- but if he did, it was a "misunderstanding."

Prior to his stint as CEO of MF Global, Corzine was CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, interestingly enough, was the second-largest donor for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign (approximately $1 million).Corzine also "has been a major fundraiser for President Barack Obama, having donated the maximum of $5,000 that an individual can give for a presidential campaign, according to campaign finance records. He also held a lavish $35,800-a-head fundraising dinner for Obama at his home in April and raised or 'bundled' donations of at least $500,000 so far for Obama's 2012 re-election effort."

Let's not wait for the media to report the connection between those "fat cats" on Wall Street and their liberal elite. Obama's Wall Street & Co team, including big hitters JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Sidley Austin LLP (one of the largest law firms in the U.S., based in Chicago), UBS AG, General Electric, Google, Microsoft and Morgan Stanley, maintain cozy solidarity with the Obama Administration as long as the financial benefits remain appealing.

Attorney General Eric Holder has also spent some quality time with a House Congressional Committee this week. He returned to account for his role in the failed Operation Fast and Furious, in which federal agents delivered nearly 2,000 weapons to Mexican Drug cartels without tracking their use. The weapons have been showing up at U.S. crime scenes, including the murder of a border patrol agent.

Emails from the Obama Administration have been released to the committee, explaining one desired outcome of the operation was to press states for stricter gun control laws.

A turning point in the hearing was Holder's Clintonesque pontifications about truth. Wisconsin Senator Jim Sensenbrenner asked Holder, “Tell me what the difference is between lying and misleading Congress in this context?” Holder responded, "If you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind, and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie."

Good to know, Holder, since you are the highest-ranking official of our Justice Department, that lying is simply a state of mind.

And then we have the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who have proven the meatiest fodder for conservative-minded pundits since Clinton's definition of "is."

OWS protesters in Zuccotti Park carried a lengthy list of grievances, including the rich who....well, are rich. The rich must pay their fair share, they cried out, while beating their drums and signing the lyrics of "Have You Been To Jail For Justice?"

In an effort to manage the proposals of the unruly group, a small cartel of OWS "leaders" met daily in the lobby of-- wait for it-- Deutsche Bank. Samantha Bee from the Daily Show interviewed the "council" to see how the process works.

Samantha asks once male leader, "So big decision for Occupy Wall Street are being made in the atrium of the Deutsche Bank building?" He replies with a simple yes, to which Samantha then asks, "Is my nose bleeding? Because I feel like an aneurysm just exploded in my head."

Generations of Americans are being taught that morals are relative-- what is right for you may not be right for your neighbor. Everything you want should be free, including education, health care and homes. Work ethic is replaced by childish whining and complaining about fairness and economic justice. Hypocrisy reigns, because after all, you only need to believe what is personally expedient for the moment.

But this ideology will never win out. There will always be some educators who push this on their students and liberals who are elected by the very same minority that will be hurt from their policies... while the rest of us are busy.

We work hard at our jobs, we save for our future and live within our means. We raise our kids to know right from wrong, and we help our neighbors when they need it the most. We live by a set of principles and we love our country. We don't have the loudest voice right now, but while we are refining our characters, the other side loses ground on theirs. We'll know what to do when it needs to be done.

I'm not crying wolf. That expression from Aesop's Fables means to raise a false alarm. There is no false alarm, there is only the gut punch of reality. Our country is on the brink of an economic collapse (Happy Thanksgiving!), and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) explains why in his statements following the "Supercommittee's" failure to reach a deficit reduction agreement last week:

Last week, our nation's debt surpassed the $15 trillion mark, and it continues to grow by approximately $100 billion a month. Add in the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions, and our nation's total liabilities equal $99 trillion ($321,000 per person). When you consider the fact that our $99 trillion liability exceeds the entire net asset base of the United States ($78 trillion), it is easy to see how bad things are.

Unfortunately, Washington has failed to deal with this by resorting to another round of secret meetings and a ‘special committee.’ I was skeptical of the process from the start, but to encourage success, I submitted to the committee a list of savings totaling $1.4 trillion. Reducing the rate of growth in government spending should not be this hard.

We need economic growth and real leadership - something that has been absent from Washington for far too long. America is facing a financial emergency. It is way past time for us to start acting like it.

Rather than gloss over those numbers, because our congress is very effective at tossing out numbers so large we tune out, let me point out a few things.

The nation's debt is increasing by $100 Billion each month. From what? Why are we spending 100 Billion more every month from the previous month? What would happen if you added to your personal debt every month, without increasing your income?

Unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and federal pensions is simple to understand. It's what we know we will have to pay for some day, but we haven't started paying for yet, nor do we have a plan in place for how we will cover those costs. Read: the massive numbers of Baby Boomers who have begun to retire and the massive number of government workers (the only real job increases since Obama took office) who will receive benefits for the rest of their lives.

Our total liabilities today equals $99 trillion, which means your portion of that debt is $321,000 (congratulations). But more striking than this debt-you-never-knew-you-had is that this $99 trillion liability exceeds the entire net asset base of the United States ($78 trillion). Here is what net asset base means: if we were to gather together everything of value in America today-- businesses, land, homes, things, and say, sold them to China who came a-knocking, everything would be worth $78 trillion. Huh. That's less than our total liabilities. A lot less. $21 trillion less. What we have to pay for is LESS than what assets currently exist in America. (But taxing the rich will fix everything? I digress...)

Our congressmen are not stupid. Our President is not, either. They have seen the numbers. And yet they continue to add to our debt with as much consideration as a creep who steals Bill Gate's debit card. Want to build a $65 million streetcar that travels in a 2-mile loop through downtown Milwaukee? Sure. Should the Internal Revenue Service deliver $112 million in undeserved tax refunds to prisoners who filed fraudulent returns? Absolutely. Want to require taxpayers to cover 100% of the cost of public school teachers' pensions-- because, after all, they cannot set aside any of their own paycheck to do so? Perfect.

Why is our government spending money we don't have? It is not by accident, ignorance or passivity. It is a calculated attempt to redefine our way of life and fundamentally transform America (Campaigner Obama circa 2008).

In a way, the Occupy Wall Street protesters who are camping out and sharing diseases in the name of bringing "awareness" to the unfair and shackling amount of college debt they carry are right on. Yes, debt sucks. Debt is dangerous. Debt can ruin your opportunities and ruin your future. Now take this bar of soap, march on down to D.C., and have at it.

No need to cry wolf here. The numbers speak for themselves.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, hosted an award winning PBS television series in the 1980s called Free to Choose. In the series, Milton discusses the principles of personal, political and economic freedom.

Milton and his wife Rose published a book by the same name, which was the bestselling non-fiction book of 1980. Rose Friedman wrote in her memoir, Two Lucky People, why the idea of freedom motivated them to create the series:

Milton and I have spent much of our life trying to persuade our fellow men and women of the dangers of an intrusive government and the key role that a free competitive economy plays in making a free society possible. Bringing these ideas to the large audience that a television documentary could attract excited us.

You can watch many episodes online (reproduced in 1990), and after watching the first episode titled “The Power of the Market,” you see the importance of operating a life—a country—on principles (and you see Arnold Schwarzenegger, pre-governor, espouse the glories of a limited government).

During the closing 10 minutes of the episode, David Brooks, Wall Street Journal columnist, and James Galbraith, Professor at the University of Texas, discuss what role a government should play in the free market. What is the perfect mix for a prosperous nation?

In one exchange, James Galbraith claims the best form of government is one that steps in to help the “have not’s” who lose in the game of capitalism. It is the responsibility of a rich nation to help those who are no as lucky, or as skilled, as those who have. Sound familiar?

Milton’s response eerily exemplifies the thorn in the side of the Obama Administration: the role of U.S. government should be limited to protecting its citizens and providing a strict set of laws that allow dishonesty and dangerous acts to receive justice, which in turn, further protects those citizens. The only difference between a communist government and the 20th century American government, Milton says, is that “China’s government has gone 100% and we are only at 50%.”

Creeping compassion, the kind OWS and Professor Galbraith celebrate, will in the end create the opposite of compassion—which is no secret to those who take the time to know history. I encourage you to learn from Friedman. Watch the episodes.

Not only can you watch the television series, but you can check out Free to Choose Media, an organization with a mission to “translate serious scholarship into widely understood rhetoric and icons.” The challenge Free to Choose Media has undertaken is “to become much more effective story tellers, thus making economic and political concepts accessible to all citizens.” Some of their productions include “Free or Equal,” “The Lesson of 1623” and “Volunteer Military.”

9/11 BOATLIFT

If big brother performs its necessary functions, but steps out of the way for everything else, Americans will rise to the occasion. No doubt about it. And that is hope - of the type that is real.

May we one day be led by a real man or woman, and not a series of differing, yet consistently empty, suits.

Never forget.

This Sunday will be the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack to take place on American soil, and New York has planned a memorial event to remember those 2,977 victims. That's two thousand, nine hundred and seventy seven lives.

And one of our esteemed political leaders stooped to a new low. Hard to believe, I know. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided not to invite any first responders to the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero on Sunday. The reason?

There is not enough room to accommodate because too many victims' family members are attending. There aren't enough seats for firefighters.

The firefighters should not allow Bloomberg to attend. He didn't run towards the towers right before they crumbled to the ground. Three hundred and forty-three firefighters, 37 Port Authority police officers, 23 NYPD officers and 3 court officers died at the World Trade Center.

I will not watch the memorial service. I don't want to see how many politicians will be sitting in the front row, somber expressions and shiny shoes; you know, those seats that the firefighters and police officers could not have. I would like to, however, propose a few options for a memorial.

Let the military loose to kill every SOB that is part of a terrorist organization, and then bring our guys home. Require that every public school student recite the Pledge of Allegiance (in its entirety) and listen to our national anthem at the start of each school day. Require every politician, including the President, place his hand on his heart when the national anthem is played. Profile passengers who are more likely than my grandmother to commit a terrorist attack on a plane (this shouldn't be hard, they've all looked the same). Don't be afraid to say they've all looked the same.

Hang the American flag outside of every government building and private business. Pay first responders and military service men and women more than congress, bureaucrats and union representatives. And give them the Ferrari health care plan. Condemn politicians who use the term "terrorist" to describe American citizens. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Demand that the proposal to build a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero not get any traction.

Don't vote for any candidate who associates himself with a radical who only wishes more lives were lost on 9/11. Don't vote for any candidate who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Run for office yourself. Put a freakin' fence on the border.

That is a memorial I support. That is how you remember the 2,977 who died on September 11, 2001.

Michael Burke wrote his opinion about Bloomberg's decision in today's Wall Street Journal. Michael's brother, an FDNY firefighter, died when the North Tower collapsed. Read his response here.

Shelby Steele wrote an op ed for the Wall Street Journal that is one of the best I've ever read. I encourage you to take a few minutes and read about American Exceptionalism.

Allan West was interviewed by National Journal in which he reflected on the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. When asked the question "Is King's message relevant to any contemporary civil rights or equality issues?" Here is his response:

Dr. King’s message is and always shall be relevant. It is about individual responsibility and accountability to seek the highest good in your life … as a nation seeks its highest good. America can only be as great as the sum of its parts, all parts.

I think that, if Dr. King were to come back and see what has become of the black community, he would be appalled: The exorbitantly high unemployment rate, the second- and third-generation welfare families, the rampant decimation of the inner-city black communities, the incarceration rate of young black men, and the breakdown of the black family would all bring a tear to his eye.

The black community is now existing on a new plantation, a 21st-century plantation [that] enslaves their will and conscience … actually worse than physical slavery. We have gone backwards from Dr. King’s dream; regardless of certain individual success stories, collectively, we are failing. We have not overcome!

You can read the full article here.

Niall Ferguson at His Best

This is excellent....glad I pulled it out of the forgotten vault. It is even better when you consider that Niall Ferguson is a professor in the liberal bastion of Harvard.

American heroes are everywhere. They have jobs, they have families, spouses, children and grandchildren. They take out the trash, throw the Frisbee for the dog, complain about the unusually cold spring and change the oil in their daughter's car. An entire generation of WWII veterans have grown accustomed to a conventional lifestyle, while harboring memories of harrowing experiences-- the conventional soldier's lifestyle-- and every so often, the rest of us get to peek through the window and see America's greatness.

In the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition, historical author James D. Hornfischer shared memories of his intimate encounters with WWII veterans while researching for his books.

"Bob Hagen knew the worst of the battle while serving on destroyers in the Pacific during World War II. He saw action at Guadalcanal. He was the gunnery officer on the USS Johnston when it was hit hard in the Battle Of Samar near the Philippines on October 25, 1944. For two hours he directed the ship's main guns, firing gamely at an overwhelming enemy. A Japanese shell turned two two officers standing on the flying bridge, 10 feet below his station, into a pink mist. When the order to abandon ship came across, Hagen found himself floating in shark-infested waters watching the Johnston sink. His best friend, the ship's doctor, Robert Browne, was still aboard, refusing to seek safety until all the wounded had been evacuated. Hagen saw Browne re-entering the wardroom when a large shell from a Japanese warship followed him inside. At that moment, the war crystallized as a hard-to-discuss horror.

Hagen was a hard man, and proud. Even 60 years out, he was still a bit curmudgeonly talking about the dramatic naval history he had been part of. But recounting Browne's death to me in 2001, a man who had fought heroically in a suicidal defense of a small U.S. carrier task unit supporting the invasion of Levte could only swallow back his sadness. That look in his eye and break in his voice took me past the veneer of his ever-ready chagrin and bravado. They took me to the things that have never left him.

Bob Hagen died in 2009, and the rest of his generation is soon going where we all must go. About 1.8 million World War II veterans remain alive today."

Hornfischer explains the power of these in-person encounters:

"For those of us who have never served in uniform, it's easy to see World War II as a grand, sweeping drama, featuring actors large and small driven by a sense of overriding mission, all sins and failings vindicated by victory. Yet for the veterans I meet, the war is often about something else entirely. Any talk bring them back to a single, pervasive memory sequence: a moment of impossible decision or helplessness when, through their action or inaction, they believe, a comrade paid the eternal price. They can't talk about the war without reliving their powerlessness to influence its predations, without revealing how it changed them."

Their stories change us as well:

"Otto Schwartz served on the USS Houston in the early days of World War II. The heavy cruiser was sunk off Java on February 28, 1942, and Schwarz spent more than three years in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. When he returned to New Jersey in 1945 he was a different man than the one who had enlisted in January 1941 to escape an abusive home life. I met him in 2004; his eyes were blind, but he could still clearly see Penn Station on the day he came back. 'It was the loneliest moment of my life. I absolutely didn't know what to do. Even though I was going home to my family, I had just left my family that had kept each other alive for so long.'

A taxicab left Schwarz outside his house in Newark, and he stood on the nighttime street, watching the silhouette of his mother in a lighted window. He hesitated to knock on the door. The life that lay behind it was unrecognizable to him. It was a foreign country. Schwarz is gone now-- he died in 2006-- but I won't soon forget his sightless eyes projecting this vivid personal landscape."

Hornfischer describes the most powerful interview he ever did:

"[It] lasted about three hours with a man who began by saying that he was not willing to talk to me. James F. "Bud" Comet had harbored bitter grudges for six decades.

He was a 19-year old enlisted sailor on the USS Samuel B. Roberts when it was sunk in battle in 1944-- in the same engagement that claimed Bob Hagen's USS Johnston. Death came for the Roberts in the form of a 1,500-pound shell from a Japanese battleship. It opened a hole in her side large enough to fit a tractor-trailer, and the surviving crew piled into life rafts. Mr. Comet's raft was a few hundred yards from the ship when he turned and saw a surviving crewman stuck in the jagged wreckage of the ship's cavernous open wound.

The young officer who had seniority in the raft refused to return and save the man. But Mr. Comet aggressively pressed his case and prevailed on the group. They paddled back to the sinking ship, and Mr. Comet entered the hold to make the rescue. Heroic though his actions were, they seemed to upset his captain. Mr. Comet, after all, had breached the chain of command. The skipper offered him a medal but declined to acknowledge the dramatic particulars that underlay it. 'We weren't a perfect crew,' he told me, 'but we were a good crew.' Mr. Comet refused the medal. He wanted something more valuable still: simple recognition by his skipper of what had happened. He never got that, and it kept him from attending reunions for years...When Mr. Comet told me he still wondered whether his deceased father, somewhere in the beyond, was pleased with the way he'd conducted himself that day in 1944, I knew he deserved to have the last words in my first book."

The testimonies of these war veterans, as Hornfischer explains, is "like trying to squeeze water from a stone, [but] if you stay with it you can tap something deeply revealing." Bud Comet told him during the interview, "The thing that comes out of it is, if you survive, there's a purpose...You see why you survived. I feel like maybe God had other purposes for me." Hornfischer then concluded, "There was nothing trite in the manner of his expression. This was the considered conclusion of years, the product of the horror of survival at sea."

Another story comes from Hornfischer's interview of Robert Graff, a young officer on the light cruiser USS Atlanta, that sunk in action off Guadalcanal on November 13, 1942. After 65 years of silence, Mr. Graff opened up, and Hornfischer recalled Graff's memories of fellow shipmates:

"The USS Atlanta was a part of a 13-ship task force led by a revered naval hero, Rear Adm. Daniel J. Callaghan. His flagship, the USS San Francisco, was heavily hit in that battle. One of the last veterans still alive who witnessed Callaghan's words and actions is Eugene Tarrant, a black cook who worked virtually invisibly in the San Francisco's wardroom. As Mr. Tarrant told me in a 2007 interview, he heard, through a dumbwaiter door to the galley, Callaghan speaking in low, grave tones about the battle plan he would use that night off Guadalcanal. The task force's prospect against the powerful enemy squadron sounded grim, and Mr. Tarrant ventured to ask Callaghan whether the coming fight really was, as the admiral had said, suicide. 'Yes, it may be that,' replied Callaghan, who would die in action, 'but we are going in.'"

Sharing their memories must be convalescing for some. Across the country, Memorial Day tributes and veteran reunions bring together the men who remember each other as 18-year old sailors and soldiers. And after years of attending such events, Hornfischer reminds us of a sober reality:

"Some time in the far 2030s, when the World War II generation is gone altogether, the veterans will be available to us only at a certain distance-- via the finite record they left in life. Whatever materials the museums and libraries hold will offer a pale semblance of the energy that attended their living presence. At that point, we will all be in the shoes Otto Schwarz, the USS Houston survivor, standing on the curb outside his house at night, looking in. So close, but unable to go home."

Not until I read 1776 by David McCullough did I learn that America's first leaders had the ability to look at the world providentially, ignoring thoughts of self preservation and creeping ascendancy that ruined every other civilization.

How far we've come.

Then news broke that Usama Bin Laden was killed. Instantaneous celebrations broke out around the world. News reports continually confirmed details about the elite special forces, Department of Defense, CIA, and the Obama White House that worked together to end 10 years of dead man walking. This military operation, a shining example of leadership readily celebrated by all Americans, came at a good time.

The Heritage Foundation released a gruesome look at our fiscal situation. Our public education system has been systematically destroyed by socialist ideologues. Our domestic energy policy has gone to rabid dogs determined to undermine principles of energy independence. American culture continues to slide towards moral relativism and away from our intended characteristics of virtue, morality, and good character. We need leadership. Desperately.

But we need a leader in the truest form. We need a leader who can quell a military insurrection with gray hairs and near blindness. In 1775, George Washington accepted the command of America's armed forces (refusing the salary), but led the weary, underpaid and untrained military through a series of divine victories for eight years. As the war began to wind down, congressional neglect of the army increased:

"Washington's troops urged him to seize power from the politicians, but he repudiated every such suggestion. On March 15, 1783, Washington met his unhappy and rebellious officers at Newburgh, New York, to discourage them from marching on Congress over back pay, but the speech he had prepared proved unpersuasive. Washington decided to read a letter that he had received from a congressman. As he reached into his coat for his glasses, he said to his troops, 'Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country.' In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying a word, realizing their sentiments. His officers then cast a unanimous vote, essentially agreeing to the rule of Congress. Thus, the civilian government was preserved and the experiment of America continued."

No consideration for his own well being, Washington preserved the American experiment which has developed into a 235-year, unmatched, undefeated, uncompromising civilization. And last week, our assiduous military demonstrated once again that we are not a country that succumbs to forces pulling at the strings of self-indulgence. As Usama's body dissolves in the salty sea, we can celebrate this victory, thankful for true leadership, determined to bring that same courage and virtue back to the White House next year.

Eldridge Cleaver, leading member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) during the 1960s, came to fame because of his ability to organize black Americans and garner national attention for his radical views promoting a black socialist government. He was convicted on rape and drug possession charges as a teenager in 1957 and spent time in jail where he read the works of Karl Marx, Thomas Paine, Lenin and William Du Bois. Only one year after his release from jail, he once again found himself on the wrong side of the law and spent his second incarceration studying civil rights and the writings of Malcolm X. His personal pursuit of "the truth" set the stage for a radical national movement.

During his second incarceration he wrote a memoir, later published in 1968, called Soul on Ice. In his book he admits to raping black women, which were only "practice," before he moved on to raping white women, which was "an insurrectionary act." This book established him as one of the most significant political figures amongst the radical African American community, and the New York Times claimed his book "had a tremendous impact on an intellectual community radicalized by the civil rights movement, urban riots, the war in Vietnam and campus rebellions," and further hailed this work "as an authentic voice of black rage in a white-ruled world."

Maxwell Geismar, a radical writer who wrote the foreword to Soul On Ice explains Cleaver as a man who dissected "the deepest and most cherished notions of our personal and social behavior" with a level of courage few had, and that this "soul of a black folk" became the best mirror for which to view white Americans.

After his release from prison, he established the Black House in San Francisco, a "cultural center" for local black radicals including Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, co-founders of the Black Panther Party. Cleaver soon became the Minister of Information for the BPP, an organization that espoused communist and Black Nationalist ideology, participated in brutality against law enforcement and confrontational and militant practices. With the help of Cleaver, the BPP established the "Ten Point Program," a list of rules that all BPP members had to abide by. Such ideas included the notion that the black community will never enjoy freedom until they fully control all the institutions in their local communities, and that the federal government is responsible to provide every black American full employment and income, housing, free education, free health care and required the release of all black Americans from the entire penal system.

In 1967, Huey Newton killed Oakland police officer John Frey, and during the height of the BPP, reports claim 15 police officers and BPP members were killed during their conflicts. In 1968, Cleaver taught an experimental course at the University of California at Berkeley and married Kathleen Neal, who later became an American teacher as well.

After a police ambush in 1968 that killed 17-year old BPP member Bobby Hutton, Elderidge surrendered to the Oakland police and returned to prison on attempted murder charges. While on bail, he fled to Cuba and Algeria, countries that espoused the communist ideology and third world liberation ideology he spent years studying and preaching. During his triumphant tour, he broke ties with the BPP and established the Revolutionary's People Communication Network in part because he wanted the BPP to continue down a path of escalated armed resistance, whereas Newton desired more pragmatic socialistic changes that would welcome in the non-violent black community.

But after a growing conflict between the Algerian government and Cleaver's entourage, Cleaver later wrote, "I had heard so much rhetoric about their glorious leaders and their incredible revolutionary spirit that even to this very angry and disgruntled American, it was absurd and unreal." He left Algeria and moved his family to France where he claims he converted to Christianity. In 1977, he returned to America and surrendered to the FBI, pleading guilty to assault charges from the shootout with police that killed Hutton.

After his return to America, Cleaver led a colorful life: a "born again" Christian, a professed Mormon and LDS church member, a business owner (inventing the "Cleaver sleeve" for men's dress pants), further run-ins with the law for cocaine possession, Bible school teacher, a Republican Party member, self-avowed conservative and an unsuccessful candidate for a California senate seat. Once a hero to radicals, he became a joke and an afterthought to the advancing socialist organizations of the 1980s.

Late in his life during a Berkeley City Council meeting, he demanded that the group recite the Pledge of Allegiance, a practice abandoned years prior by the council.

"Shut up, Eldridge," Mayor Gus Newport snapped, "or we'll have you removed."

Eldridge Cleaver died in 1988, reportedly due to a losing battle with diabetes and prostate cancer.

The left wants to portray his political conversion something akin to a hallucinogenic breakdown. The right wants to portray his transformation as the prodigal son returning to American principles. I believe he fell somewhere in between, but whether his transformation was genuine or not eclipses the larger point. He tested his years of political intellectualism in the real world, and he chose to return to America. Somewhere overseas he decided he would rather be a prisoner in America than continue a prisoner of communist rule.

Cleaver once stated, "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution." He represented both. And the brilliance of American citizenship is the right to be both. Years of communist promulgation underneath the protections of the constitution eventually led Eldridge Cleaver to return to the basic principles often taken for granted and overshadowed by "enlightened" thinking. He realized, as I hope the rest of us will, that we got it right the first time.

Yuval Levin wrote one of the best articles I've read in a long, long time in The Weekly Standard. This article dissects Paul Ryan's Republican budget proposal for 2012, and what it offers, as a comparison to the Democrat's agnostic approach to addressing our country's fiscal crisis. Levin writes, "The plan is surely a departure from the status quo, but that status quo is itself a radical departure from the American experience." That line sums up perfectly what we've been saying on this blog. Read the article here.

By Scott Gold, Richard Winton and Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times
April 5, 2011

Reporting from Los Angeles and San Francisco— For a long time, for all the heroes and the heroics, the Koufaxes and Garveys and hobbled home run trots, the experience of going to a Los Angeles Dodgers game was largely about beating traffic.

Fans arrived late, left early and — at least in the eyes of rivals — didn't seem terribly concerned with what happened in the intervening hours.

But over time, being a Dodgers fan became an almost tribal identity to some. That helped to rebuild a fervent base of support for the team — but brought in, too, an unsettling pattern of fan abuse and boorish behavior that hit another low last week when a Giants fan was severely beaten on opening day.

The violence left even the truest blue Dodgers fans saying something has to change. "It's not right," said Tommy Lasorda, the Hall of Fame former Dodgers manager and, for many years, the face of the organization. "It's just a baseball game."

Brian Stow, 42, a Santa Cruz paramedic, a father of two and a Giants fan, was walking through the Dodger Stadium parking lot with two friends after the Dodgers' 2-1 victory over San Francisco. Stow was wearing Giants apparel, police said, and two young men began taunting him. One of the assailants then cursed the Giants and blindsided Stow with blows to the back and head, police said.

The two assailants repeatedly kicked and punched Stow while he was on the ground. Stow's friends attempted to help, and were also punched and kicked before the attackers fled in a car driven by a woman. Police said it appears there was also a 10-year-old boy in the car.

Stow has a brain injury and is in a medically induced coma at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. He remained in critical condition on Monday.

Part of Stow's skull has been removed to reduce the pressure on his brain, said Rebecca Mackowiak, his colleague at a paramedic service. Even if he recovers physically, she said, "he won't be the same person again."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are the Rick Mondays?

Let's take a break from politics today. Turn off the TV. Put down the remote. If you've been looking for the greatest play so far this year in the newly started baseball season you are in luck.

You've seen the top contenders - the most athletic leap, the most golden glove move, most clutch hit, whatever.....but I've found the greatest overall play of all time for you. It will give you and your friends something to talk about. The day was April 25th, 1976. Dodger stadium.

Coincidentally, Dodger stadium is also where an off-duty paramedic was recently put into a coma as described in the above news story. Watch the video.



After watching the video, I don't know about what comes to mind for you, but for me the initial reaction was to wonder, 'where are the Rick Mondays'? After reflecting some, I've come to the conclusion that there is no time to ponder where they are. The only thing to do is to decide if you are one. And, to prepare your mind and heart for that moment when you may be the difference in recognizing a developing situation by immediate involvement; by taking action. However obvious, simply recognizing that his example speaks volumes is excellent, but only gets you half way there. If you can realize that he didn't have time to ponder anything that day, you've arrived at the destination.

Let's get our head on straight. We know what is right. And what is wrong. Talk with someone today about indifference and what it allows. Talk about Rick Monday. Your Monday moment may be just around the corner.

On April 1st, supporters of Stalin spoke at New York University's "Academic Freedom in the 1960s" conference. Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University Professor and author delivered the keynote address. She wrote The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents in which she explains that anti-communism in the United States was created by "[z]ealous partisans who often made the eradication of the so-called Communist menace a full-time career," and goes on to say that "in some respects they were the mirror image of the Communists they fought." She also explains that conservatives have a tradition of harboring "characteristic paranoia" that aims to subdue minority groups in an effort to infiltrate their economic and social ideology throughout America. What a gem. (Interestingly enough, this "esteemed" professor has taught numerous courses on American Colonial History, Civil War History, The United States and American Politics.)

Schrecker shared the stage with Rutgers University Newark Professor and author H. Bruce Franklin, who holds to the belief that “[Stalin is] one of the greatest heroes of modern history.” In his introductory essay for his book The Essential Stalin, Franklin writes: “I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and a butcher … but, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.”

I'm not a history buff by any means, so I did a quick online fact check about Joesph Stalin. Under his regime, the death toll is estimated at around 20 million (although some claim the number is closer to 40 million) due to organized poverty, starvation, labor camps, executions, torture, and other sadistic acts. Stalin killed many talented and gifted Soviets during the Purges of the 1930s because he felt anyone with unique abilities posed a threat to his regime.

Additionally, Stalin's forced labor camps, or gulags, incarcerated political dissidents and innocent Soviets for such heinous crimes as showing up late for work (a three-year sentence), telling a joke about a government official (up to 25 years) or committing petty theft and other minor crimes (up to 10 years). No, he certainly wasn't a tyrant and a butcher. Just a misunderstood man with a rough childhood, much like my neighbor. Count me out as one of his billion Facebook fans.

Reverend David Smith, Catholic priest and full-time professor with Emeritus status at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, spoke recently at a rally outside the state capitol in protest of the United State's support of the nation of Israel. He has been very busy recently at St. Thomas researching, writing, and working to strengthen "peace studies." During this time, he traveled with the Michigan Peace Team to the West Bank and Gaza, living in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem. "He helped Palestinian farmers pick their olives, slept in tents and caves with farmers threatened by Jewish settlers, and joined Palestinian nonviolent demonstrators protesting Israeli-only roads and the separation barrier."

In his long professorship, he has created many courses for St. Thomas in which he linked the Scriptures with justice issues (red flag, anyone?). Eric Foner, professor of American History at Columbia University, was interviewed by bigthink.com in 2009 and spoke about his favorite figures in American history, which include critics, radicals and fridge socialist figures who have "stood outside the accepted political boundaries." He goes on to say that "without the socialists, you would not have had an era where the government took responsibility for the economy," and that "the driving force for the change of good" in our country has been those "people at the margins."

All across the country, professors are teaching young adults about World and American history. What are they teaching them? Valid question. When those of us choose to ask this question and speak up about the ideology of our "academic elite," we often hear one common rebuttal: free speech. Those professors have free speech, the students have free speech, and what takes place in the classroom is a healthy dialog of alternate viewpoints. This rebuttal is a red herring. The issue is not whether professors have a right to free speech, thus students have a right to hear the drivelings of free speech. The issue is why do these professors hold these beliefs. Why do we have American professors who are "big fans" of Stalin, Chavez and Mao Tse Tung? Why do we have American professors who turn taciturn about honest history, including the faith of our Founding Fathers, Israel's right to defend itself, and how socialism is not a "failed experiment" that deserves another opportunity?

Do not let the liberals continue to use rhetorical tactics to avoid the items of significance. We are not debating the merits of free speech. The argument cannot be whether or not professors have a right to speak about such radical, liberal beliefs. The argument must be why they hold those beliefs. Call them out. Call them all out.
Just like an iceberg, we cannot debate what is seen above water, because the issues we are facing begin far below the surface.

Yahoo News: Rep. Allen West slams military diversity report

Caroline May - The Daily Caller Caroline May - The Daily Caller – Fri Mar 11, 12:19 am ET

The Military Leadership Diversity Commission’s (MLDC) conclusion this week that there are too many white men in senior positions in the military “is a slap in the face” to those minorities who have achieved seniority, according to retired Lt. Colonel and Florida Republican Rep. Allen West.

According to the MLDC’s report, released Monday, 77 percent of active duty senior officers are white, 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women. The report suggested the lack of minorities in military leadership is something that needs to change. To that end, the commission’s report includes 20 recommendations on how to increase the proportion of minority officers in the military in order to create a fighting force that better represents the make up of the population it defends.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, West, who is black, was not pleased with the report, saying that the military is not a social experiment for outside groups to impose their theories. Rather, he said, it is a merit based organization where anybody can succeed.

“Everyone that comes into the military has an equal opportunity to get promoted to the next level. It is not about outside entities trying to engineer and design results and outcomes or create a sense of equal achievement and when some military diversity group writes a report saying there are too many white men on top,” West said. “It is kind of a slap in the face to those who have risen through the ranks such as four star General [Lloyd] Austin, [General] Kip Ward, many others. We don’t need these outside entities trying to design or shape a military.”

West continued by noting that many confuse privileges with rights. To West, it is a privilege to serve in the military. He also said it is not an institution with which outsiders should tinker, especially while engaged in conflicts abroad.

“I think that when you look at these groups and other liberal special interest groups that keep trying to chip away at the military,” he said. “We are engaged with a very vicious enemy in two combat areas and who knows what is going to happen in North Africa and the Middle East and now is not the time for us to stop and start sensitivity training.”

West suspects that the military as an institution is targeted by liberals because of the things it represents.

“The military stands for things that liberals don’t care for: standards, discipline, honor, character. And those are things they don’t like because they believe everyone should be equal…that is not what the military is all about.”

Allen West's Call to Action

Sconnie-Leaks Response

The below article sent to Wisconsin teachers by the Wisconsin Education Association Council states: "In the real world.....where costs increase and children need opportunities to succeed, the coming years look pretty bleak."

Very simply, I do not accept that costs NEED to increase in order for kids to have opportunities. If you're talking only about inflation, fine, that is the one alibi.

Overall, I think the article has a pretty one-sided viewpoint and too eagerly offers to smear. The comparison of Walker to Communist Berlin is either amusing or enraging, take your pick. The authors state that unions aspire for narrow political ends, but I do not agree with that premise. If it were up to them, there would be no checks and balances; unions would allow themselves the ability to rule absolutely.

Lastly, the article cites the ruling of the United Nations and claims to have the support of religious leaders in order to offer credibility to a political or governmental problem. As a result, I think it should be taken with alarm. For starters, the UN is not 100% made up of free nations, not even close. If this is a news flash to you I would strongly suggest not using morphine while participating in life. Until March 1st, 2011, Libya was on the UN human rights council. Fucking amazing, huh?

Education does not have to be expensive to be excellent. Look at the Marines - they get less than 8% of the DOD budget, yet they get tasked with a massive piece of the pie when it comes to operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the constant short-notice strike force capabilities our Nation calls for throughout the world. They are extremely successful. The reason is their discipline and adaptability. There is also no victim mentality in the Marines. All Marines were properly parented in their days as a recruit and young Marine, and except for the few shit-bags that always seem to squeak though, virtually all had an excellent foundation before they became Sergeants and Colonels.

Four traits - discipline, adaptability, lack of victim mentality thereby forcing you to earn everything for yourself, and proper parenting. None of these things cost money. In the case of all the social programs that progressives support, the cost of teaching people NOT to properly parent outdoes any state's school budget ten-fold.

Those four traits also allowed people, some of whom were probably educated early on in a one room school house, to discover atomic energy. Those same traits allowed members of Apollo 13 to stay alive, and what allowed the ground crew of Apollo 13 to make a square air filter round and have it work and then re-calculate every capsule re-entry schematic known to man in a matter of hours. School teacher, one room school house - that is where many of them got their foundation. Imagine that, way before LBJ's war on poverty eventually led to Carter creating a US Department of Education, rocket scientists were, well, learning the baseline for how to become rocket scientists.

Ironically, I remember watching Obama give a speech last year at NASA where he talked about the need to increase NASA's funding and how that would save jobs at NASA. I couldn't believe it. He actually thought it was important to merely employ big numbers at NASA for the sake of the unemployment rate. This should be absolutely shocking to every red-blooded American. If I ran the show, as Commander in Chief I would demand to employ the magic number of people at NASA that led to maximizing achievement. I would look at NASA as being beholden to nothing but excellence, and most certainly NOT anything remotely related to the unemployment rate. 'Not the best in your field, we'll gladly replace you' would be the theme. I would set a mentality that they needed to produce, and that competition was the best way in the world to advance humankind.

When you go out into the forest to learn how to navigate for survival, no true professional will throw you a GPS and say you'll be okay. You have to spend a lot of time, and I mean a lot of time, mastering the use of a 1950's model compass and a basic map and all the techniques in order to make both items work wonders for you. Then, you can receive the GPS that will allow you to shortcut success. But still, pack your compass and map.

In much the same way, nobody needs an iPad or laptop computer to take home with them in order to learn. You also don't need lots of mediocre teachers, you need to have less absolutely excellent ones. Look up Bill Gates on this subject, he is leading the debate for identifying traits in teachers that actually yield results in learning. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/education-strategy.aspx

Students need proper leadership that will force needed repetition and the discipline to actually sit there and be patient and not get up until they master the basics. That leadership comes from teachers and parents. I believe it relevant at this time to point out the fact that China and India and most certainly Japan are kicking our asses in math and science. I bet many of their students don't have a new computer in the classroom every year. As you see now in Japan in the wake of the Tsunami, discipline and order is now all that is holding up their society on a day to day basis.

Nobody needs to be handed opportunities to succeed. Give people the basic and proper timeless foundations and they will do more succeeding for themselves than you can shake a stick at. If they fail, let them fail. With a good foundation they will amend their ways and try again, better for the lesson they learned in the process.

My educational bottom line? Change the dynamic of the educator's mind-set - give them incentive to stand on their own two feet and set the bar on their own. Let teachers enforce real and honest discipline, for if they are stripped of their ability to control a classroom, we all fail big time. Find a way to take tenure out of the equation and focus on real results (see Bill Gates link). Far and away, absolutely demand that education begin a new (and old) clear course; one that takes students back to an environment where instilling a brilliance in the basics is everything.

My political bottom line? Let workers organize, but let them not organize as well. Walker has been severely hindered for not making his central argument the fact that when you get hired to teach in Wisconsin you HAVE HAD NO CHOICE but to join the union. I do not understand why Republicans didn't shape the argument by declaring that this was one issue that they were actually pro-choice.

Government is nothing but force, as George Washington stated, and we should never forget that government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Unions’ allying with the Democratic Party in order to harness the force of government has led to public sector workers being legally forced by statute to MANDATORILY PARTICIPATE in unions. This is nothing more than a mafia tactic, no exaggeration.

To me, that is what this whole thing is about.

The Following was Emailed to Teachers by the Wisconsin Education Association Council

Walker's Credibility

Yesterday, Governor Walker held a press conference at which he held that his budget, which cuts almost one billion dollars from school funding, will not mean any cuts to school staff or services. If you are gasping in disbelief, you are not alone and it's probably not the first time. Below is an article with links that explain the simple math of the matter and an article on the school district that supports Governor Walker's wild (and perhaps delusional) assertions about the impact of his cuts.

New Berlin or Old Berlin

In his interview with a blogger thought to be David Koch, Governor Scott Walker said Ronald Regan's defining moment was the firing of 10,000 striking air traffic controllers. Walker expressed his belief that this was "the first crack in the Berlin Wall" leading to the fall of communism. It was therefore ironic, but not surprising, that New Berlin Superintendent Paul Kreutzer stated yesterday that he was attracted to the agenda of Governor Scott Walker. What's wrong with this picture?

Why does Superintendent Kreutzer embrace Walker's new law that strips unions of their rights to bargain? Could it be because his administration is embroiled in litigation accused of taking $7.1 million from an employee health fund - money the union believes would have lowered health care costs had it not been removed in violation of the employees' contract? Could it be that he dislikes criticism for implementing large lecture-style classes with as many as 56 children in a class? Maybe it's because the union held the district accountable when it used layoffs (like Walker) in an effort to ratchet up pressure on members to settle their contract. When this failed, they called all of the teachers back at significant expense to the district. Or is it simply a shared value with Walker that employers should be able to exercise power as they please, and reward who they want, without checks and balances that unions ensure?

After the defeat of fascism, free nations came together in 1948 and through the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among its conventions is Article 23 that identifies the right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining as an essential right of workers. Not just for private sector employees or unions that support the political party in power, but all workers. America stood by these values when it came to supporting an independent voice for workers in Poland and throughout the Soviet Bloc. It's wrong for extremist politicians to bust unions that do not support their narrow political ends. This is precisely what Walker and the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly have done in Wisconsin and why their actions are such an egregious abuse of power.

In an open letter to Walker, the president of the Polish Union Solidarnosc expressed support and solidarity with Wisconsin workers' struggle against his assault on union rights. This is the president of the 700,000 member union that helped take down Polish Soviet rule. He noted that we are witnessing yet another attempt to use an economic crisis brought on by Wall Street as an excuse to take more money away from working people and their families.

Religious leaders have also condemned the governor's actions. Catholic Archbishop Listecki wrote in an open letter that hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. The archbishop's sentiments were echoed by the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee, together with bishops of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church and the South-Central Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. They have been joined by 350 additional pastors and religious leaders in an open letter condemning the new law that takes away worker rights.

Yet, despite this broad support for fundamental worker rights, the positions of Walker and Kreutzer more closely align with those of the old Berlinrather than those embraced by the free and unified new Berlin of today. In the end, they too will be on the wrong side of history.

The Real Championship

Spot-on article by Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Obama is on his way to Rio with the fam (most likely bringing his NCAA bracket and iodide pills).



Oh, and my pick for the final four? Gadhafi, nuclear plume, stopgap #3 and union thuggery. I know, I know...all #1 seeds.



I'm picking nuclear plume going head-to-head with Gadhafi, with all of us losing.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204761671518054.html

DTOM

As a Wisconsinite, I’ve had the good fortune to witness up close the intense debate over Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill. The public sector unions have pitted themselves against the conservative Governor and his Republican Senate and Assemblymen for the last three weeks, with no end in sight as the courts and the ballot box are dragged into the fight.

In early February, protesters began swarming the state capitol building in Madison shortly after Governor Walker unveiled his budget repair bill which would strip the state’s public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights (along with other provisions). What took place was unheard of: teachers walked off their jobs, illegally, to protest alongside their students. Those same teachers received fake sick notices from doctors in an effort to avoid any punishment from school administrators. Fourteen state democrats fled to Illinois, where they would remain for three weeks, in a sign of solidarity with the “hard-working middle class” who were being “bullied” by a mean governor. Professional protesters from national labor organizations such as SEIU and Organizing for America traveled to Wisconsin to join and organize daily protests.

Wisconsin became headline news for every major media outlet day after day. Everyone, including President Obama, had an opinion. Eighteen of the Senate Republicans and all of the Assembly Republicans received death threats after the vote took place. Governor Walker became the poster boy for other conservative governors also desiring to loosen the yoke around their states' neck held by unions. My Facebook page lit up like a Christmas tree with people passionate about each side of the debate.


And the truth came out. The more media coverage, the more the bill was dissected, the more people learned about the influence of public sector unions and the inner workings of collective bargaining rights, and the more the issue became polarizing. Wisconsin quickly became the national battleground for the fight between state budgets and union control.


During this time something kept irritating me. Sure, the democrats hiding in Illinois, switching hotels every night, enjoying continental breakfasts while considering themselves real-life "spies" is enough to irritate a cactus. Greasy college students making a human peace sign in the center of the capitol's rotunda and strapping duck tape across their mouths is enough to irritate a monk in a cenobitic community. But something else was really bothering me.


Then I figured it out. Is THIS what it takes to ignite interest, passion and motivation amongst Americans? Is THIS what people care about? Let's be honest what THIS whole debate is about: whether public sector union members should be allowed to collectively bargain for unprecedented levels of benefits, perks and salaries, paid for by the state's taxpayers, and to what extent unions should have authority over the financial decisions within their local communities.


THIS has kindled the flame long dormant. Cries of "democracy!" and "justice!" and "human rights!" have flowed from the lips of tens of thousands of people-- not just in Wisconsin. Elementary school teachers, spouses of teachers, children of union employees, college students, law enforcement officers and many other groups of people came alive. Over benefits. Over salaries. Over paid-time off. Over union dues. Over--their--money.


This entire situation reminded me of a Bible verse: "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be made known or brought out into the open." (Luke 8:17) We all see it now. The influence of money upon many Americans. The stranglehold our government has understood for decades: money makes elections go around. We see it in the crushing weight of entitlement programs and catastrophic debt that is hell-bent on destroying our country.


Where are the protesters crying foul because of the historical (and expedited) spending binge of government? We cannot continue to spend like trust fund teenagers with a credit card while cutting spending with dull scissors. We are on an unsustainable path, and our children and grandchildren will bear the burden.

Where are the teachers walking off campuses and school yards in a sign of solidarity for the students? The U.S. Department of Education is predicted to spend $77.8 BILLION on education in 2011 alone, but in most major cities across the country, less than half of all children graduate high school.

Where are the protesters storming their state capitol buildings, demanding that the government stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood, who has been caught numerous times advising self-addressed sex traffickers and accepting donations targeted towards aborting African American babies?

Where are the national lobbying groups protesting in our nation's capitol because our president cannot seem to find the word "terrorist" in his vocabulary, all the while he and his administration ignore the growing threat of multiculturalism and radical Islam? We wouldn't want to offend Muslims. We can't speak about homegrown terrorism because we don't want to play into al Qaeda's hands (No really, Sheila Jackson Lee says so).

Instead, tens of thousands of hard-working Americans choose to record American Idol and forgo the bag of potato chips for three weeks so they can speak their peace about their right to bargain with sympathetic school boards and administrators for plush retirement packages.

It's going to take more than these words from our generation if we want to right the wrongs. We are at a tipping point, and it's time for us to be the next "Greatest Generation." It will require much more than caring about issues that directly affect our weekly paychecks. We need collective sacrifice more than collective bargaining rights. And I'm not referring to Obama's connotation of sacrifice; we will need to sacrifice our time, or energy and (gasp) our money if we want to steer this ship on the right course once again. We will only have this Republic as long as we (read: you and me) keep it. What will you do?

Comforting Associations

Video is of an interview with Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, an ultra-left organization founded by Bill Ayers in 1969. Grathwohl has testified to the fact that Ayers routinely expressed his want to overthrow the United States government. In an interview in January 2009, Grathwohl stated that:

"The thing the most bone chilling thing Bill Ayers said to me was that after the revolution succeeded and the government was overthrown, they believed they would have to eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order."

Grathwohl’s testimony was never admitted because of “prosecutorial misconduct”.

For the time being, like former Obama White House Czar Van Jones, Ayers and the leftist radicals have appeared to drop the radical high-profile prose, at least for the time being, in exchange for the radical ends (although if you catch them speaking to sympathetic groups you will find them praising Mao Tse Tung and Hugo Chavez extensively).

Very simply, they chose, some time ago, to create an environment where nothing is what it seems.

Instead of such blatant, extreme public rhetoric they have instead committed themselves to laying the foundation for their vision thru massive public law and policy changes. Essentially, they have mastered the same idea behind wearing sunglasses and baseball hats during a poker game; they have mastered the Sun Tzu art of patience and deception.

Such was not always the case.

In 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket affair confrontation between labor supporters and the Chicago Police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway (The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by other Weathermen on October 6, 1970).

Ayers is the former roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant who was killed in 1970 in a Greenwich Village townhouse explosion while constructing anti-personnel bombs intended for a non-commissioned officer dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Also killed in the same explosion was Diana Oughton, who was the girlfriend of none other Bill Ayers.

From the NY Times Website: “[Ayers] writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it”.

See the whole article at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (who is now his wife and also an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law), disappeared in 1970 after the Greenwich Village townhouse bombing. In 1973, while they were on the run using various alias identities, new information came to light about the FBI running operations against Weather Underground and the New Left. Made public were a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL. Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers.

However, state charges against Dohrn remained. Dohrn was still reluctant to turn herself in to authorities. "He was sweet and patient, as he always is, to let me come to my senses on my own", she later said of Ayers.

She eventually turned herself into authorities in 1980. She was fined $1,500 and given three years probation.

They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings, even though the Weather Underground had claimed responsibility; as stated all charges were dropped because of improper "FBI surveillance".

Unbelievably, Ayers told this to the New York Times in 2001: “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.”

I know, shocking. Want more? Perhaps this is the most interesting part of all:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Obama may have been born in Hawaii. I do not challenge that. But the above is not fiction. Its fact.

More information: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

A Waste of Time We Don't Have

Well no shit huh...it is a waste of time trying to see things through the Republican or Democratic lens. While we may be divided as a Nation, it is now popular to believe that we are not polarized into merely two groups. The Independents are on the rise, they say.

What if it was way more complicated than that? Are we really to believe that everything is now explained because we've been categorized into three political groups, not just two? What if people actually understood that to truly hold a belief in matters such as these requires a maturity of verbal capacity to articulate the meaning of the word Liberty? Or better yet, to define Liberal? Or to define both of these things at length as they relate to society, personal choice, and individuality?

What if by the time they were 18 years old society actually expected men and women do just that and also to live a prosperous, self-sufficient and self-regulated life with no assistance from anyone? Was there ever a time when The People knew who the true leaders of their community were, a time when they had a keener nose for the stench of a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I've listed a few characteristics of some groups below. Are the groups that I've identified political in nature? If so, why? The percentages I've listed belonging to each group are intended to mock the so-called accurate poll numbers you see daily on TV telling you to go along with whatever everyone else is thinking. Personally I think some people fit into one group only, others two or three. Some vary in what group(s) they belong to depending on the day or what TV program they recently watched or book they read.

I think there was a time in America when people were not so easily swayed on a day to day basis.

30.1% of America (94,815,000 people) honestly believe the best way to foster a charitable aspect in society is to encourage low taxes, high morality and personal responsibility. They honestly care for people and want the needy to be helped. They are more apt to give to smaller LOCAL charities and organizations, by personal CHOICE. THEY DECIDE HOW, WHAT, AND WHEN TO GIVE.

30.1% of America (94,815,000 people) honestly believe the best way to foster a charitable aspect in society is to mandate it. They honestly care for people and want the needy to be helped. They are REQUIRED BY LAW to give to the Federal government. THEIR CHOICE IS NOT TO DECIDE HOW, WHAT, AND WHEN TO GIVE, but to elect officials who will decide those things for them.

19.875% of America (62,606,250 people) are totally apathetic. They are uninteresting, predictable people who use the words amazing and crazy to describe 99% of their day’s events. They usually care most about how often their facebook is posted by friends, which team will get the Wildcard, or what the fall colors are. These people do however have the right to vote and are easily marketed towards. They vote for the candidate with the most attractive packaging or "brand".

19.875% of America (62,606,250 people) could give a shit about charity so long as they are on the receiving end of it. Large and/or national run charities (including social government programs) are their favorite so they can deceive the system or collect as much as possible from several different programs (many of which are redundant). They will take every payout they can get. Many different groups of people fall into this category, including a limited crossover proportion from the above mentioned "apathetic" group.

.05% of America (157,500 people) are doing everything they can to consolidate power away from the local charities and institutions, and seek to make people dependent on them. They want a big following – BIG numbers. They intend to get big numbers by legislating mandatory participation by the populace, that way lack of participating is a crime punishable by fines or jail. Very truly they want to make a lot of money in the process; when you produce a product that the public has to by, the risk is taken out of it. They want to make all your choices for you, and they are desperately trying to remove all of your ways and means to do or say anything to the contrary.

I ask you, what is the role of elected officials? Is it to manage the daily necessities of public business, or to manage charity?

What type of organization is more easily held to standard, small or large?

If someone asked you if you wanted more or less say in your life choices on a day to day basis, if you answered "more say" does that make you a Liberal or a Conservative?

Does "more say" on a day to day basis equate to you having more liberty to make your own choices? What does liberty mean?

Does liberal mean more or less? (ex. "Please give me a liberal helping of sweet potatoes.")

If liberal means more, more of what? More liberty? Is the root Latin word of liberty and liberal the same? Copy and paste this into Word and right click for synonyms.

Would you be surprised then to know that the motto of the Green Berets is "De Oppresso Liber", which is Latin for "To Free the Oppressed."

Every time I put liber in bold does it piss you off because I am dumbing it down for you too much? Does it also piss you off when the government wants you to simply choose for them to manage your charity instead of you making more complicated charity decisions for yourself on a day to day basis?

If they DID NOT manage your charity, by default wouldn’t you get to keep more of your own money by managing it yourself? Would you do a better job than they at choosing charities that actually make a difference and waste not?

Does having more choice in your financial affairs make you more or less free? Is money evil when a local charity receives a lot of it from their local community? Is it good then? Would it be fair to say that in that circumstance, money would actually be the root of all good?

So again, are you a liberal or conservative? Does it even fucking matter? Or does it matter more that you understand that what people call themselves doesn’t fucking matter, it’s the extent to which they desire to control you or let themselves be controlled by people who say they are not about controlling people.

So-called liberals have a reputation for demanding more forms of personal expression through diverse music selections, fashion options, or a healthly amount of promiscuity, and there is some truth to that, I believe, by watching the way they live their lives. None of that stuff is inherently bad. They like small, unique things. Why then do they vote for massive, non-customizable government that limits personal choice to participate in certain things? Is it simply because the masters of (D)esception have associated with the word Liberal with their mantra, and people take them at their word for it instead of really looking into details of the issues?

How fucking sorry is that? That we live such a fast-paced life that apparently people hear one word and therefore flock in that direction?

Have you understood by now that the word Liberal has been hijacked? Do you understand that what so-called liberals intend to do with the number of your choices is in fact the opposite of what it says when you right click the word Liberty in a Word document?

Does it matter more that you are a minority in the world; that Americans throughout our history have been minorities in a world full of oppression? Does it matter even more that you have an in-depth understanding your minority status, and most that you know what to do in order to preserve it?

When you can understand that we have been minorities because of our freedom and the richness and advancement that freedom, a synonym of Liberty, has created in our society, you can actually call yourself a Citizen. And it’s not because I said so, it’s because that is what was expected of you by our Founders.

Among The People, is that understanding more or less deep than it used to be? In recent years, is that understanding beginning to change, and which way is it changing?

How do you see it, and where do you fit in?