Merriam Webster
Metrosexual:: a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes

We are all familiar with the phrase, “Metrosexual” and we all know at least a few who are willing to assume this role of a man who takes on feminine characteristics to fulfill a new role in our society, just how far he is willing to go in the assumption of this semi-feminine identity while maintaining a dainty masculine image varies, but we can be sure the image is being promoted by our faithful media. No, I am not speaking of the men who easily fulfill the Gary Cooper role model of FA men; I am talking about the effeminate “Straight” men who are pleased to have you question their sexual identity and the women who create these confused weaklings. The women, who perpetuate the myth that men are evil and dirty, then smother their boys with motherly attention, not for the sake of the boys, but to cater to their own feminine insecurities and neurotic weaknesses.

Some are quick to call our president a Metrosexual, but, I’d rather focus on the economy and jobs, than worry over his dubious manhood, it is the younger male demographic that I am speaking of and their mothers.

We’ve all heard and seen these boys in the public whining like little girls to their parents, instead of watching little girls.

This late breast feeding is labeled attached parenting. The woman in the photo carries it to more of an extreme by sleeping with her son. She says that hopefully this will be his last year. Now we are wondering who is in charge of this bizarre situation.

There is no scientific proof, but if we compile the anecdotal experiences of objective people who have begun to question this new gender bending concept in our society, the results will be persuasive. It is primarily a Liberal trait, but there are exceptions, Like the Whore Hopping serial rapist, President Clinton and the waitress sandwich boys Chris Dodd and Teddy Kennedy. It’s true, enjoying the assets of a tasty waitress in a menage a trois can bring up images of indirect latent homosexuality at the very least. However, Dodd and Kennedy were more old school in their perversions; they would never pretend to have a feminine side and would never pretend to have homosexual desires, even while they are exhibiting those same tendencies during their brotherly love sessions. The Metrosexual is more than willing to expose his feminine nature to the world and maybe even partake of the forbidden fruit.

What is wrong with this, you might ask, nothing if you are gay, but if you were designed to be a straight man by the genetics in your DNA and you have a “gay side” because of perverted parenting, it is a tragedy. A tragedy not only to the individual, but to our culture as well.

Many of you who think back will remember boys who were raised by overly possessive and protective mothers; the boys were effeminate in their actions. Usually the mothers were happy not to be raising those typical male hellions. It was if they wanted to change the world by raising their sons as daughters. Thus those boys eventually became angry teenagers or they were always willing to be looked after and cared for by the omnipotent mother. In time, mother is frail or impossibly possessive and the boy has the option of marrying another mother or finding a man friend for companionship and comfort. The state becomes a surrogate parent and we have created a loyal progressive.

This article in no way is meant to condemn gays or the gay lifestyle. We are born the way we were born and there is precious little you can do about it. I wanted to be 6 foot five, but I ended up three inches too short, that’s the way it is and I can’t do anything about it. However, raising boys in an overly protective atmosphere with a feminine dominance is wrong.

Notice the title on Time: Are You Mom Enough? They are encouraging women to raise their sons as dominated weaklings, rather letting them assume the roles of coarse hairy legged men of history. The new man is to be a Metrosexual, secure in his identity as a submissive wimp, Americans meet your Metrosexual his name is Liberal and the Super Mom is his creator, for few things are more destructive to the psyche of a man than an overly possessive mother.

First Lady Obama presumes that her husband’s Supreme Court Nominees will protect political rights not enumerated in the Constitution. She made this remarkable claim at Democrat fundraisers by stressing that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees and can be counted on to protect the right to “Love whomever we choose” and “the right privacy”. This mysterious “Privacy” right is presumably a reference to Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.

In a typical Michelle Obama statement, her bathos logic maintained its chaotic and barely decipherable cross word puzzle style:

“Let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.

But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”

Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.

Now with the latest political appointments being bragged about as stooges for the Obama regime and the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself from the hearing of the Individual Mandate Clause of Obama Care, the seriousness of the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are being viewed with skepticism by people wanting to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.

Ms Obama’s speech was not a collection of off the cuff and extemporaneous remarks, she gave the same speech again at another fundraiser in Detroit. She obviously has sound reasons to believe her decidedly un-American speech claims.

We are now left wondering what these Progressive “Plants” are programed to achieve with their “Love who you choose” clause and what other Progressive objectives they are programmed to pursue or do they await directions from the White House. Does this include children, animals, and multiple partners or can we expect an element of reasonable restraint from political operatives within the Supreme Court.
Michelle seems confident that these justices are in her husband’s pocket.

Michelle has reassured us that her husband’s political operatives believe we should be able to speak freely and worship openly, but then again, maybe political stooges may see that only certain speech and worship are considered to be within the proscribed politically correct boundaries and everything else should be considered offensive. Since the question is bound to arise, how ideologically programmed are these Progressive Stooges in the Supreme Court.

Should women from the Left take pride in the fact that they have a victory with mandated condoms and birth control for college students; therefore, they can play humpy rumpy with even less responsible men and forget that their sisters in many parts of the world are still struggling against mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, childhood marriage, state condoned sexual abuse, and religious sponsored murder. Perhaps these issues are a little too close to a real struggle as well as incongruent and counter productive to the president’s true ideological beliefs, since most of those crimes against routinely happen in the Muslim World and are much more difficult to deal with than the concept of free condoms for college women with healthy libidos.

We should also remember that Ginzberg told the Egyptians trying to write a new Constitution for their new country to forget using the US Constitution as a template; consequently, they are now debating how many hours after a wife dies is a man allowed to have sex with the corpse of his deceased wife. Yes, the Feminist movement should be proud of its progress and its stooges.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Who Made These Bones

This fossil skull is between 11,000 and 14,500 years old, according to radio carbon dating of samples from their campfires in caves of southwestern China. There are unique features of this skull and of at least two other specimens that make this find unique. Notice the bony protrusion of the cheek area, the width of the face in the region temporal mandibular joint, the excessive bony structure of the mandibular rami, the massive molar structure, the anterior portion of the jaw is protruding and massive, the bony structures suggest a massive mandibular musculature, the eye sockets are large and broad, perhaps indicating an individual with superior eyesight. The wear of the incisors suggest a seed and plant eater who relied heavily on those feed sources at least seasonally and probably more often, especially when the hunting or trapping failed. Every hunter/trapper who knows how to set snares, knows that it is much easier to snare deer or trap them in blind canyons and kill them as you need them, a type of primitive animal husbandry and meat preservation, but professional anthropologists have never visited a primitive hunting group like this because there are none.

Did this creature die because his lower incisors overwhelmed the upper incisors, causing infected gums and impacted teeth, making it impossible to eat roots,nuts, and seeds, thus did it become too painful for him to masticate the plant materials with the lower incisors cutting into the upper gum and against the impacted remnants of the upper teeth?

Were his teeth and that powerful jaw that served him so well, responsible for his demise? It happens to older horses all the time and judging from the right angle of the extending rami and the advanced wear of the teeth, this individual was an older male with a limited ability to grind seeds and nuts. Of one thing we can be sure, this is truly a unique creature of this world.

Before we allow the anthropologists to muddy up the water with highly predictable, politically biased, but extremely speculative claims of species migrating out of Africa, species that supposedly represent unique groups or a hybrid product of the evolutionary chain that branched off and eventually perished, let’s look at this new find through the eyes of a former trapper and professional hunter, who survived for years using many of the same analytical skills of the ancient hunter gatherer. Since we aren’t in the caves, we will need to rely on the findings of students and anthropologists; thus, our findings are compromised from the beginning, for no one reads “sign” (traces of life and movement) like a man who made his living reading “sign”.

Because of carbon dating, we know these creatures lived in proximity to modern humans, during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition of 11,000 to 15,000 years ago. We can also conclude that there were more than three individuals, for if the question of which came first the chicken or the egg is enigmatic, the question of the origin of these individuals is just as problematic, for the breeding of a species requires more than three specimens. The coward and the lemming will say they walked out of Africa without leaving a trace and then were overwhelmed by modern man; unfortunately, there is no sign to suggest this scenario, it is just accepted wisdom or should we say stupidity, for academics must accept and repeat unsubstantiated conjecture as fact in order to be accepted by your peers in academia.

We know these individuals were hardy enough to survive the coldest glacial period of approximately 20,000 years ago, back when ice covered one-third of the earth’s surface, the glaciers were over a mile thick, and a good portion of the earth’s water was trapped in these ice formations.

This early hunter liked to live in caves; the temperature of caves is constant, a bit on the cool side, but during an ice age it would seem like central heating. They liked to eat a large red deer, we may assume it is the size of an elk, since we have been given no specifics. The article mentioned that he was probably a stone tool maker, since there is evidence of worked stones at the sight, but the modern bushman knows it is nearly impossible to butcher, transport, cook, and eat a deer as large as an elk without stone knives.

It is the charred bone of the Red Deer that is the tell-tale sign of prehistoric beings with culinary skills, for charred bone survives the tests of time so well it is nearly as impermeable as stone tools. The men studying these people have named them the Red Deer People and one name is as good as another, but more important are the features of this well-preserved skull and the cavalier use of the word People. Notice the bony structures of the face, particularly the supra-orbital ridges above those large eyes and the huge nasal opening. This individual may have had the well developed sense of smell required to track game by using his sense of smell. The large eyes may indicate superior vision or perhaps a night hunter. There is no curvature of the cheek bones, the feature we rely on so heavily to define beauty; instead, we have a flat massive bone structure that would have served well for the attachment of a massive mandibular musculature for the grinding of seeds and roots. The wear pattern of the incisors suggest this possibility.

The forehead is well developed, but begins a distal curvature prematurely, when compared to a modern skull. The high forehead has been a trait of humans for hundreds of thousands of years. In man the frontal lobes protect the region of the brain associated with behavior and personality. The diminished area on top of the skull represents a compromised section of the brain associated with sensory data, but this information is only useful if we assume that this creature and modern man had similar brains with the exact formation and function; with the skull’s variance, should we assume the brain is the same?

This creature survived one of the coldest epics of the last ice age, referred to as the Glacial Maximum, a period that ended approximately 20,000 years ago, and the transition into the equivalent of our modern climate, known as the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, a period of change between 11,000 thousand years and 15,000 years ago. This transition saw a major die off of flora and fauna, but along with the die off came a rebirth of new plants and animals. The large Red Deer that this creature depended for protein, didn’t make the cut and it is safe to assume that most of his plant foods also perished. Was he unable to adapt, did he lack the mental capacity to alter his hunting and gathering knowledge and technology to meet the challenges of changing world? Perhaps, but remember, we are being objective by employing the skills of a modern day hunter and trapper and not relying on political or cultural biases that tend to contaminate the “scientific” findings of anthropologists.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that it is nearly impossible to say. With sadness, it is easy to realize academics with their clueless abilities to relate to real world problems often miss real clues for their lack of experience in the lifestyle that this creature survived in and thrived for eons. Unfortunately, the Indiana Jones persona is a myth. The best that we can hope for is to recover DNA samples and continue to chart the blood of the families and species of the world, but to assume this creature explains or provides proof of evolutionary theory or intelligent design requires more than a stretch of imagination. Remember, if we chart the stored information within the DNA of a one cell organism, it will require hundreds if not thousands of pages of data.

Let’s take into consideration the fact that for the forces of nature to form a fossil, a unique and specialized set of characteristics from the environment need to be present; to assume that early species were thoughtful enough to only travel and die where fossils can be formed to help us in recording the steps of man and other creatures that walked upright, requires either a very weak mind or a very devious mind.

Our anthropologists are quick to theorize about the possibility of interbreeding between modern man and the Red Deer People, it isn’t impossible to “conceive” of the idea, when we think of the breeding habits of some modern men and of some modern women like Ms Fluke who seem to have problems with self-restraint and logic. But there is that cheek problem, the laws of attraction, and how much cultural definitions of beauty or ugliness is someone willing to overlook just to have their ashes hauled, but then we are also left with the mule or hybrid problem, the fact that nearly all cross species breeding, that can produce a viable life form, results in an organism that is sterile. But just maybe, it really isn’t science when we reach out to consider the “but maybe” syndromes.

Breitbart is laughing his ass off right now in his grave.

The media responded just like he thought they would with the latest video of Obama recently released by Breitbart.com:

You really need to spend a few minutes watching the video because it is a classic example of our (unbiased) media backing their horse in the race. In it we see the CNN host, Soledad O’Brien, dismiss the video. When Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak explained the significance, that being the relationship between the racist professor Derrick Bell and Barack Obama, O’Brien tries to school Pollack, and in so doing gets schooled herself:

“Derrick Bell is the Jeremiah Wright of academia,” Pollak stated. “He passed away last year, but during his lifetime, he developed a theory called critical race theory, which holds that the civil rights movement was a sham and that white supremacy is the order and it must be overthrown.”

“So that is a complete misreading,” O’Brien interrupted. “I’ll stop you there for a second — then I’ll let you continue. That is a complete misreading of critical race theory. That’s an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that’s not correct. But keep going.”

“In what way is it a critical misreading?” Pollak countered. “Can you explain to me? Explain to your readers (sic) what it is,”

“I’m going to ask you to continue on,” O’Brien quickly replied. “I’m just going to point out that that is inaccurate. Keep going. Tell me what the bombshell is. I haven’t seen it yet.”

Pollack keeps his cool as O’Brien loses it and after repeatedly being asked to explain to her viewers what Critical Race Theory is she, as Ed Morrissey describes, “beclowns” herself:

“Critical race theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law and as a legal academic who would study this and write about it, he would advance the theory about what exactly happened when the law was examined in terms of racial politics,” O’Brien explained. “There is no white supremacy in that. It is a theory. It’s an academic theory and as one of the leading academics at Harvard Law School, he was one of the people as part of that conversation. So that is a short definition.”

Completely wrong.

But that’s what happens when a ‘unbiased” network producer uses Wikipedia to try and save their host.

Oh, and what do you know, that Wikpedia entry got changed today.

The coup de grâce?

When another panelist on the show accuses Pollack of being racist:

Then Panelist Jay Thomas interjected. He asked if Pollak was afraid that a secret black movement was going to rise up and murder him.

Guess he didn’t know that Pollack is married to a black woman.

Woops.

The lengths that our media will go in defending this poor excuse of a President is exactly what Andrew wanted to prove. And prove it he did.

Exit quote:

Visitor logs show that Derrick A. Bell visited the White House twice since President Obama took office. The logs show two visits by an individual of that name on January 29 and 31, 2010.

Well why wouldn’t he? Bell was REQUIRED reading for Obama’s students.

Ain’t that special?

More here

How lucky we are, we who mourn the erosion of freedom and bemoan the implementation of Statism; for now, we at least have the consolation and comforting feelings that come with knowing there is a high degree of intellect directing our international diplomacy, designated as “Smart Diplomacy”. The phrase our former First Lady uses to describe her self-professed skills in diplomacy; skills that were apparently acquired in managing the “Bimbo Eruptions,” her husband precipitated during their marriage and sometimes bizarre journey to the White House. Skills that became patently obvious with the Obama Administration’s opening of our embassy in Damascus and Ms Clinton describing Assad, the butcher of Syria, as a reformer. Yes, if the diplomacy of the White House and the State Department were any smarter, the dictators of the world would be cowering in fear when Hillary flexes her brain and farts intellect by the bucket.

Unfortunately, reality has gripped the world; various blood stained “Reformers,” miscreants, tyrants, and benevolent dictators know the US is a war weary country and Hussein Obama is in an election year. The military may be beginning to resent being used as pawns, according to some returning vets, while political leaders make strategic military and political decisions based on popularity polls. Our citizens watch in disbelief as our president goes to the United Nations for a dubious permission slip to engage Libya in a “Lead From The Rear,” war to depose a dictator who by all outward appearances was beginning to reform, but threatened to deal harshly with those in revolt. If only he would have claimed to have a nuclear warhead with inter-continental capabilities, he would have been treated with respect by Obama and others and perhaps still be alive and in power, much like the monster of North Korea who lived out a natural, but surreal comic book existence with Obama’s tacit blessing.

Thus a limited military action, supposedly utilizing air power with surgical precision, our Fearless Slayer of Defenseless Monsters promised a speedy victory over tyranny; unfortunately, the war that wasn’t a war and the precision execution of a tyrant turned into a five month orgy of flexing our military technology and our economic might as we rained down an array of our most sophisticated weapons in an attempt to kill one man. Sadly our proposed orgy of singular execution was but an impotent display of presidential miscalculation and “Smart Diplomacy;” for in the end, a sadistic mob tore the dictator apart, but other dictators were taught to fear the consequences of falling out of favor with America’s own skinny little tyrant.

While Hussein Obama strutted on the world stage and posed in the dual role of Superman and International Bully, our enemies began to see the weaknesses and possibilities or perhaps the impotency of a high tech super power bully engaging a primitive enemy and culture while losing the support of his people. For the absolute absurdity of the situation was never more apparent, than the theater of sublime hypocrisy: a Community Organizer imposing a “No Fly Zone” and using it as an excuse for the bombing of tanks, trucks, and infantry with American air power. With logic that eluded all but the most dedicated sycophants, Hussein Obama continued to rain holy hell on Libya, until a mob tore Qadaffi to pieces. America’s greatness and her beacon of freedom fell several notches during that afternoon of mayhem, but the power of “Smartness” or perhaps dumbness was definitely out in the open, for the world to judge.

Now, the world watches as another dictator slaughters his people who dare to resist tyranny and thumbs his nose at Obama and Hillary with her bucket of smartness. The citizens of the world look up at the throne of Obama, not with a hopeful look, but with a smirk, for they know President Hussein Obama on his throne is really nothing more than a childish Community Organizer on a toilet.

The people that Obama leads, the entitled, self-serving self-designated intellectual snobs, and the ultra-rich Elites, are willing to ignore his military adventurism; except, for those faithful followers in the defense industry. No, it is a delicate balance of a coalition of factions, for the Socialist Pacifists can only stomach a certain amount of military adventurism; until, one day in the future, they look upon Hussein Obama with the familiar fish eyed stare of outage and indignation, formerly reserved for former war-time presidents; yes, even “Smart Diplomacy” can fail, and a benevolent leader may need to whack those who oppose him with a big stick, straight from the Qadaffi and Assad school of diplomacy or tyranny, but on a much grander scale: so a word of caution to you disillusioned pacifists, don’t be too obvious with your revulsion of this man and his barbarism, tyrants with power are tyrants indeed. To grow a perfect Socialist Garden, you must chop up the weeds with a hoe; don’t let Obama see you as a weed that is polluting his garden.

The trick is to be on the correct side of public opinion. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being America’s first Marxist President is an example of being on the right side of public opinion or perhaps the Left side of public opinion. Being blatant and openly involved with Crony Capitalism is pushing the envelope of public opinion, even for the Socialist with tunnel vision, but they are a forgiving group and able to overlook the most glaring contradictions in their anointed one, their “Gift from God,” according to Nancy Pelosi.

We have learned not to take threats from the self-styled tyrant, Hussein Obama lightly, he boasted of being able to destroy the coal industry and imposing skyrocketing energy prices; by rejecting the Keystone Pipeline and any pretense of a self-sufficient energy policy, he has single-handedly insured America and the world, that we will be paying crippling energy prices for decades. There is a slight problem with manipulating energy prices ever higher: the cost of living and the cost of food quickly follows energy’s lead, for everything is produced by energy and is transported by energy. Thus America’s buying power is reduced and the downward spiral of an economy begins its descent toward an inevitable collapse.

Obama uses his highly overrated intellect, much like a child to cast blame for his personal failures on others:

“Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3%. It turns it retracted close to 9%. We lost 8 million jobs just in a year’s span, about half a year before I took office and half a year after I took office,” Obama said.

“So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn’t understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we’re helping states more so they don’t teachers, etc. The key though is we’re setting ourselves on a path where we can get our debt under control.”

Yes, for those of us “out there”, back in 2009, who are wondering how such an intelligent man can communicate in such a disjointed and non-sensical manner or more importantly, how or why he occupies the most powerful position in the world. We can’t help but wonder, will America’s entitled classes awaken to the realization, that a deflated economy and runaway inflation spell economic doom to even those who are above the economic vagaries of the once Free Market, that even those under a supposedly benevolent statism and a benevolent tyrant like Hussein Obama will eventually run out of credit or other people’s money and be forced to turn off the welfare pipeline. But in classic Doublespeak, straight from Orwell’s 1984, Obama feeds his entitled people from the trough of Socialist nonsense, during a press conference, he attributes the growing price of oil, not to world tension, his energy policies, and a weakening dollar, but to a strengthening economy that increases the demand for oil:

“And when gas prices are on the rise again because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases. And if we start seeing significant increases in gas prices, losing that $40 could not come at a worse time…”

The world and America can only withstand so much “Smart Diplomacy.”

A Previous Subtle Effort By The Same Obama Propagandists

How symbolic, the red and blue spheres merge and the resultant color is a deeper shade of blue. Propaganda is considered effective if it is subtle and delivers a covert or subliminal message without the subject being aware of the intent. In this image, the profile of Obama was superimposed over the merging of Conservatism and Socialism with the profile of Obama and the result is a deeper shade of blue; picturesque and convenient, Obama brings the country together and we are united under a deeper shade of Marxism. It was created by the same team that made the Chrysler commercial; it hasn’t achieved fruition, but not for a lack of effort by Obama and his lackeys.

Our public school systems have been infiltrated with the Leftist Part Line for decades. At first the message was so vague, we thought it was merely coincidences, teachers and text writers surely couldn’t be so blatant and obvious with their political agenda; oh, but think back, while we refused to call liars and Socialists as such, they increased their efforts and relied on terrorists like Bill Ayers, confidant to our president, for the Leftist message now in our children’s text books.

Now, either Eastwood has allowed himself to be duped like a moron or he is a part of the deception; regardless of his intent, he has been used as a key element in the Leftist propaganda movement. Unfortunately, we have all been played for dupes by the creative schemers of the Left for while Eastwood tells America we are at the halftime of the recovery, during the halftime of the largest event in television history, the insidious message is implied that America needs to give Obama four more years to complete his anemic recovery, that seems to elude everyone but billionaires, bankers, and others on the dole.

The fact that Chrysler is staging a fart, stumble, fall type recovery based mainly on enriching Obama cronies and unions with our taxpayer money is pushed from our consciousness; since, we receive the subliminal message to equate the auto maker’s efforts with our fight against terrorism, the struggle of Obama to win reelection, and the struggle of the two athletic teams. In the excitement of the neo-gladitorial struggle portrayed on the boob tube, we are supposed to lose ourselves in the excitement and intellectual numbness of the game, much like the games in Rome that staged to entertain the masses or the mob in Rome to keep them content and less likely to riot. Thus in a similar way, we are played for fools by the people who stage our games; no they aren’t staged to prevent us from rioting, but what an excellent time to exploit our self-imposed stupor to insinuate a covert message to reelect our failed president by one of his corporate acquisitions, with a percentage of Obama’s funny stash money, more commonly known as tax payer money.

Oh, but you say the message is vague and imprecise, how can you make the connection: sorry people, the message is supposed to be vague and imprecise, it is supposed to leave a subliminal impression that will encourage the mobs of unthinking drones to vote for Obama once again; after all, hasn’t he struggled valiantly to repay his contributors and unions with taxpayer money, at least when he can find time between golf games and vacations. The fact that the connection is obvious to those who are alert and cognizant means the message is there. If you want to deny it, like Eastwood who so gallantly gave his check to charity, but also willingly gave his image and voice to the Marxism of Obama, means you either endorse the Socialist cause or you are to dense to notice the ever deepening pool of Obama Socialism.

Excellent article adapted from a speech given by Charles Murray regarding the need for the Department of Education:

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard. I don’t think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate. I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education. But I am in a small minority on that point, so let’s move on to the pragmatic questions.

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere—in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but—notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi—the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement. Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention. When the push for President Johnson’s Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

(3) So what is the federal government’s track record in education?

The most obvious way to look at the track record is the long-term trend data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Consider, for instance, the results for the math test for students in fourth, eighth and twelfth grades from 1978 through 2004. The good news is that the scores for fourth graders showed significant improvement in both reading and math—although those gains diminished slightly as the children got older. The bad news is that the baseline year of 1978 represents the nadir of the test score decline from the mid-1960s through the 1970s. Probably we are today about where we were in math achievement in the 1960s. For reading, the story is even bleaker. The small gains among fourth graders diminish by eighth grade and vanish by the twelfth grade. And once again, the baseline tests in the 1970s represent a nadir.

From 1942 through the 1990s, the state of Iowa administered a consistent and comprehensive test to all of its public school students in grade school, middle school, and high school—making it, to my knowledge, the only state in the union to have good longitudinal data that go back that far. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills offers not a sample, but an entire state population of students. What can we learn from a single state? Not much, if we are mainly interested in the education of minorities—Iowa from 1942 through 1970 was 97 percent white, and even in the 2010 census was 91 percent white. But, paradoxically, that racial homogeneity is also an advantage, because it sidesteps all the complications associated with changing ethnic populations.

Since retention through high school has changed greatly over the last 70 years, I will consider here only the data for ninth graders. What the data show is that when the federal government decided to get involved on a large scale in K-12 education in 1965, Iowa’s education had been improving substantially since the first test was administered in 1942. There is reason to think that the same thing had been happening throughout the country. As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story. American education had been improving since World War II. Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

There is absolutely no need for the federal government to be involved in education anymore. This should be left up to the states. But ever since the unions became heavily involved in teaching we have seen ever increasing educational disasters. How could it not be a disaster when the education system is separated between unions who are only interested in their own needs and students/parents who want a better education for children.

And now we have fallen behind most of the world in almost all areas of education. The only successes? Privately run schools. One example is Illinois. 9 of the 10 best schools for graduation rates in that state are charter schools.

Another example:

In 2010, the South Carolina Department of Education privatized four schools that were 98% black in enrollment. In the space of one year, math scores on the Palmetto Assessment of State Standardized test (PASS) increased on average by 11%.

But woe to anyone who attempts to bring choice into education, or attempts to reform their State’s education system. Just look at Wisconsin and the recall effort underway by the unions against a democratically elected Governor who dared to go up against them.

Charles Murray also brought up post-secondary education:

…The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper—genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work? The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper. When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution, he likes to answer, “Oh, maybe six or seven.” The situation at his college is not unusual. The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking. It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.

The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A. It has been its enabler. The size of these programs is immense. In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion. It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars. Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college. The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs. Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that its policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges. But I view that as part of the Department of Education’s indictment, not its defense.

In short, the Department of Education, while maybe needed to help in desegregation is no longer needed, has made education worsen, and it is not Constitutional.

Exit video’s:

Watch these two short videos of Juan Williams and Michael Medved being interviewed by Warner Todd Huston on the state of our schools and the Department of Education:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As a country boy with six years of formal schooling, I am hardly the one to question the role of intellectuals in politics; however, after reading an article by Gary Gutting in the New York Times, I am reminded of a university professor who asked me to help him with a mule problem.

I love mules, but you must be careful with a mule, they can kick with lethal force if they feel they have been offended. Since most of my career with horses has been directed more toward sorting out human problems, rather than equine problems, I was a little apprehensive at the prospect of trying to help this professor and his mule. To be honest, professors tend to be among the least capable in matters dealing with animals and simple everyday problems. Problems that men of humble origins and trades can often solve with little or no deliberation, often baffle learned men, who tend to struggle with theory and morality rather than simple and obvious solutions.

In my youth, I helped several professors who wanted to be closer to the past and nature by owning and riding a horse. Fair enough, everyone needs an excuse for owning these expensive beasts, and seeking some elemental force of nature, makes as much sense as the rest of the excuses. However, mules often have a proclivity for exacting revenge on the human race for perceived injustices of a past life; therefore, I believe, mules are best handled by bona fide mule men, not university professors living in nineteenth century log houses, who want to get in touch with their roots (human not tree), but I heard a calling to help my fellow man and I saw an opportunity to make a few bucks.

I rode my Triumph motorcycle out through the country and enjoyed the colors of fall. I marveled at the beauty of the hardwood leaves after the frosts had killed them, and arrived at the professor’s farm with more than a little trepidation for what might lay ahead, hoping I wouldn’t end up like the colorful leaves.

The professor was glad to see me and dropped the standard pretensions of a tenured professor with condescension for all those who speak with country accents and wear cowboy boots. He seemed to be almost childlike in his excitement at my presence. He was proud of his farm, a former homestead, it was over 150 years old. Some poor homesteader had put his whole life into this 160 acres, a quarter section that at best, could barely yield forty bushels of topsoil an acre, it had never grown a decent crop and today it was a struggle to grow a garden, but it had once again, grown another crop of hard wood trees. But the professor owned it now, and it was a beautiful farm, despite not having crops or pasture.

He showed me, his log barn, his fine harness carriage, his buckboard, and his mule Emily. It was a match made in heaven; he loved the mule and the mule loved him. Emily was a mule that had never been abused by cruel hands and she was a model citizen. I had worried over problems that didn’t exist.

While the professor gushed over his mule and his farm, I began to wonder why I had been summoned to this farm. Everything seemed perfect, far better than most equine situations I am called to visit. The professor finally had to take a break in his speech to catch his wind and I asked why he needed me.

He apologized and said,”I need you to raise the front door of the barn.”

I was once known as a guy who could or at least try to do anything around a farm or ranch, but this seemed like ann odd request. It was an old square log barn and had large blocks of limestone located in strategic spots for a foundation. It was a good system, but not really designed to last a 150 years; the blocks had settled a little deeper every spring during the rains, and now the barn was a little lower than normal, but still high enough to function well. I tried to tell the professor the height of the lintel was well within the realm of reason, but he was agitated that I couldn’t grasp the seriousness of the problem.

He said I would need to see the problem myself, and put a halter with a lead shank on Emily and led her through the front door of the barn. I’ve only worked with thirty or forty mules, so I don’t really know if this is typical mule behavior, but when she walked through the door, she carried her ears straight up and rubbed them against the oak lintel of the door. As a horseman, I have been asked to deal with some bizarre problems, but this didn’t really seem to be a serious problem.

When I told the professor my feelings, he was incredulous, “Don’t you realize, she will wear the hair off her ears.” He showed me a vague strip of wear on the front of her ears. I wasn’t totally convinced that the perceived wear of the mule’s ears and the lintel were related, but some arguments aren’t really worth getting started.

I explained that the lintel over the door of the well made dove tailed barn was a special log, chosen for its strength, grain, and straightness. If I sawed into the log, we might be inviting trouble by compromising strength at a critical spot, that spot being the span over the door.

He was lost in deep thought over this information being added and causing complications to this unique predicament. I broke the silence by saying, “There is a much easier solution.”

With a look of incredulous exasperation, he twisted his lips to the side of his face, to hear my solution, “I can dig a trench about eight inches deep in the dirt beneath the door.”

He looked at me like I was an idiot and said, “It’s not her damn feet I’m worried about, it’s her ears.”

This professor considered himself an intellectual, and to him, I was but a mere tradesman of mortal lineage. True to the myopia of philosophy, his only concern was the ears of the mare, and he was determined to reach a conclusion by employing critical thinking: I was limited, by nature of an inferior intellect to solutions not based in theory and critical thinking, but to those related to real and practical solutions.

Mr Gutting is a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame; and is convinced of the superiority of critical thinking, but fails to mention the utter failure of the Obama Administration, an administration made up exclusively of critical thinkers from academia. Yet, after this stark demonstration of dismal failure by critical thinkers, we are supposed to be reassured by Mr Gutting’s self-serving arrogance, that seeks to legitimize a personal image of importance, after all, he writes for The Stone, “A forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.”

With unabashed arrogance, Gary assures us of his intelligence, by informing us that he is among the most august of critical thinkers, “I’m an intellectual myself”; it’s just possible, that within this particular oxymoronic phrase, may be a clue to this deviant personality that is currently running amuck in government and in a permanent state of denial as to the charges of incompetence and corruption. Denial has become more than a river in Egypt, it is an endemic example of hubris among the not so bright intellectuals, currently in serving in the Obama Administration, who are teetering above the abyss of failure and humiliation.

From the nimble but dull fingers of Gutting and the pages of the NYT:

What is an intellectual? In general, someone seriously devoted to what used to be called the “life of the mind”: thinking pursued not instrumentally, for the sake of practical goals, but simply for the sake of knowing and understanding. Nowadays, universities are the most congenial spots for intellectuals, although even there corporatism and careerism are increasing threats.

It is such a joy, to read of someone describing himself as an intellectual, who writes with such finesse and precision. I am reminded of a cowardly man doing battle with a bed of rattle snakes while armed with a grub hoe. After reading this pregnant phrase of many vectors, “someone seriously devoted to what used to be called the” it’s obvious that intellectuals aren’t required or expected to write well. For reference, we know Hemingway was the master of the simple and concise sentence, and Melville was a genius with the complex double and triple entente; may we assume Gary Gutting is the champion of lost and bewildered adverbial phrases.

It would be easy enough to eviscerate Gary Gutting on the merits of his writing ability and embarrass him in front of his peers and anyone else who can read, but it is his message we seek. For if there is a protasis within this fart, stumble, fall style of writing, it evades the reader. For while his prose delights the ear of those who crave the mundane and boring, his adverbs assault our dignity in a relentless pursuit of relevance, but like the dog chasing its tail, his periphrasis becomes his catharsis. Relating to Aristotle, in Chapter VI of Poetics, “Tragedy through pity and fear effects a purgation of such emotions.”

Gary Gutting is primarily concerned with Newt or more precisely, fear of Newt. Newt is a bit of a problem for Leftists; oh fear not, they have excess baggage charges and they are ready to confront and dun him for back payments, but that is not the strategic issue. The prospect of an empty suit engaging Newt in debate is the terrifying issue. Oh dear, it brings to mind the great defeats of history, Stalingrad, Waterloo, The Little Big Horn. There is always the excitement of the contest beforehand, and the first few minutes when hope still springs eternal, before that same hope becomes a forlorn hope, but it is only a matter of time, before they are faced with the inevitable prospect of annihilation and utter defeat.

How best to neutralize the prospect of a witless pseudo-intellectual champion being embarrassed in the arena of ideas and indirectly casting aspersions toward all those who say with arrogance and condescension, “I’m an intellectual myself”; there is a simple solution, impress upon everyone, that intellectualism is a collective team effort of critical thought and that is how ignorance must be defeated. One man can’t be expected to lead a country; he needs a gaggle clueless intellectuals.

Unfortunately, Newt doesn’t need a team for a debate or a teleprompter, and pitting him against a fool who seems to be bewildered without his faithful teleprompter, will be like slaughtering lambs in an abattoir. A scene that doubtless will cause even the most cold blooded Socialist to admit the futility of resisting the epiplexis of a Newt/Hussein comedic tragedy.

Poor Gary, in an attempt to establish credibility as an intellectual and advance his vague aphorisms, he tries to use the obligatory and token reference to poor Plato, a man who understood the inherent weakness of adverbs and relied as little as possible on the ancients for guidance. We can assume that Gary not only understands the Cliff Notes version of Plato, but he is not afraid or reluctant to employ a deluge of adverbs.

In his “Republic,” Plato put forward the ideal of a state ruled by intellectuals who combined comprehensive theoretical knowledge with the practical capacity for applying it to concrete problems. In reality, no one has theoretical expertise in more than a few specialized subjects, and there is no strong correlation between having such knowledge and being able to use it to resolve complex social and political problems. Even more important, our theoretical knowledge is often highly limited, so that even the best available expert advice may be of little practical value. An experienced and informed non-expert may well have a better sense of these limits than experts strongly invested in their disciplines. This analysis supports the traditional American distrust of intellectuals: they are not in general highly suited for political office.

We now know that in a politically correct world, we need intellectuals to prescribe correct thinking and appreciation; otherwise, we might lose ourselves in original thought processes.

Intellectuals tell us things we need to know: how nature and society work, what happened in our past, how to analyze concepts, how to appreciate art and literature. They also keep us in conversation with the great minds of our past. This conversation may not, as some hope, tap into a source of enduring wisdom, but it at least provides a critical standpoint for assessing the limits of our current cultural assumptions.

Read his entire article if you must, but be prepared to ask yourself why tuition must continue to rise for your children and grandchildren, and will this dubious degree they seek at such expense, teach them to write with the clarity of Gary Gutting or will they be able to maintain the skills they acquired in high school.

But it does not support the anti-intellectualism that tolerates or even applauds candidates who disdain or are incapable of serious engagement with intellectuals. Good politicians need not be intellectuals, but they should have intellectual lives. Concretely, they should have an ability and interest in reading the sorts of articles that appear in, for example, Scientific American, The New York Review of Books, and the science, culture and op-ed sections of major national newspapers — as well as the books discussed in such articles.

It’s often said that what our leaders need is common sense, not fancy theories. But common-sense ideas that work in individuals’ everyday lives are often useless for dealing with complex problems of society as a whole. For example, it’s common sense that government payments to the unemployed will lead to more jobs because those receiving the payments will spend the money, thereby increasing demand, which will lead businesses to hire more workers. But it’s also common sense that if people are paid for not working, they will have less incentive to work, which will increase unemployment. The trick is to find the amount of unemployment benefits that will strike the most effective balance between stimulating demand and discouraging employment. This is where our leaders need to talk to economists.

Knowing how to talk to economists and other experts is an essential skill of good political leaders. This in turn requires a basic understanding of how experts in various fields think and what they might have to offer for resolving a given problem. Leaders need to be intelligent “consumers” of expert opinions.

According to Gary Gutting the intellectual philosopher, our leaders should now, not only be intelligent consumers of intellectual thought but must read the Leftist dogma of Scientific American, the New York Review of Books, and effete pseudo-intellectual rags like the New York Times, but they must also have the ability to listen to monotonous circumlocution and derive a pretense of meaning from gibberish. Intellectuals are now to be elevated to a higher standing, not only in the community, but more importantly in government and leadership. For now, they will advise and direct our leadership so they can make intelligent decisions and we are left with the story of Emily’s ears.

Come and play
Everything’s A-OK
Friendly neighbors there
That’s where we meet

Can you tell me how to get
How to get to Entitlement Street

Absolutely nothing is sacred

A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, Lily the Muppet – who worries about her family not having enough money to feed her properly — pitched free food at school:

“Sometimes we can’t always afford to buy all the food that we need,” Lily said. “I mean, but we’ve been finding lots of ways that we can get help…Yeah, for example, at school I get a free breakfast and a lunch…part of the meal plan.”

Lily’s message is being circulated through schools, hospitals and food assistance programs as part of Sesame Street’s “Food for Thought” multi-media campaign, which includes DVDs and a booklet listing “services that can assist your family” as well as “referrals to social service agencies.”

Organizers say they have produced a million of the kits.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, the Rev. Douglas Greenaway of the National WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Association lauded Sesame Street’s ‘Food For Thought’ campaign – even linking it to federal deficit-reduction.

“What ‘Food For Thought’ does is remind people that eating healthy now gives them a good health outcome in the long term. So the folks you’re looking at up here, the programs that they represent, what ‘Food For Thought’ does is really a deficit reduction strategy, and we hope policymakers will take notice of that,” Greenaway said.

Greenaway didn’t elaborate further on how this would work towards deficit reduction.

An aside:

Bert and Ernie derive from characters in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Bert was the cop and Ernie was the cab driver.

The original Bert and Ernie

The following video offers a bit more context than the video clip that’s gone viral:

Click here to view the embedded video.

At least in this clip you can see a bit of what was going on prior to the police using oc sprays to try and disperse the students.

So what other alternative recourse should the UC police have taken? The students were certainly given fair warning.

HuffPo:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department’s use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a “compliance tool” that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

“When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of “active resistance” from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

“What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Kelly said.

What I find to be ridiculous is any comparison of “brave” students and supporters of the Occupy movements to brave protesters of the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings; and also to how those in authority deal with the protests. I bet Syrians and Iranians would have much preferred OC sprays to what they’ve been experiencing at the hands of their government’s police and military.

Did the students have a more preferable means of being forcefully removed than what they experienced?