Right to Opine

Why did we keep our daughter home from school today? So we could watch the President’s speech with her and provide corrections where necessary. You can be sure our public schools will not balance their adulation of The One with anything approaching reality.

After last week’s firestorm of protests over the supplemental materials provided to teachers, President Obama gave a rather bland and predictable speech to our nation’s students this morning. (The prepared text can be found here.) The problem with his speech wasn’t what he said, but that he didn’t mean it.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But you don’t really mean it. It’s one thing to claim to set high standards. It’s another entirely to enforce those standards. One of your biggest backers, the NEA, opposes enforcement of standards (i.e., failing students and denying graduation). As a state senator, U.S. senator, and now as president, you have done absolutely nothing to change that. Without enforcement standards are meaningless. Your record speaks for itself.

My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had.

But you know that’s only a half-truth. The fact is, you were largely raised by your maternal grandparents, one of whom was vice president of a bank. You didn’t grow up poor. You didn’t grow up disadvantaged. You grew up in a comfortable neighborhood in Hawaii and chose to waste your time hanging around a Marxist mentor and smoking dope. Puhlease.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

Ah, if only you really believed that. If you did, you’d support eliminating affirmative action and other racial quotas. You’d support reducing government expenditures on welfare and entitlement programs. You’d insist that college admissions and job opportunities be given to the best qualified candidate, not the most racially diverse candidate. But you don’t. Instead you support expanding entitlement programs, encouraging future generations to rely more and more on the government rather than themselves. You have put zero pressure on universities and corporations to give rewards to those who have earned them.

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time.

But we’re not allowed to let kids fail, even when they don’t do their work at all, much less when they do it but poorly. Instead we pass them on from grade to grade and they never learn from their failure because they aren’t allowed to fail.

If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave.

Um, actually, I think that is a pretty obvious definition of a troublemaker. (From Merriam-Webster: trou-ble-mak-er, n., a person who consciously or unconsciously causes trouble.) Quit with the touchy-feely stuff, sir, and just tell them to shape up. Of course, there have to be consequences or they won’t, so never mind. Keep the feel-good slop flowing.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day.

Yes, but the group you ask for help includes Marxists, tax cheats, racists, etc. Hopefully our kids will choose wiser advisors.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation.

And let’s all recall what that revolution was about…taxes! A sobering history lesson for you, Mr. President, as we host our TEA parties across the nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Um, why isn’t the ACLU up in arms over this? A high school valedictorian can’t mention God in a graduation speech but you give your homeboy a pass? To quote our fearless leader, “Enough!”

Domestic, Education culture, Domestic, Education

liberalism, n.: 1. The overwhelming urge to control by force of law behaviors of which others cannot be dissuaded by fact and logic; 2. The belief that such control is both desireable and moral.

Uncategorized culture

Now that the liberal media has had its chance to fawn over Cronkite, let’s take a real look at his impact. In 1968 he made a little trip to Viet Nam in the midst of a rather nasty and controversial war. Our adversaries had initiated a major offensive around the time of the celebration of their new year—Tet. Cronkite came back and told the American people that we had lost the “Tet Offensive” and were, in effect, losing the war. In order to do that, he had to do one thing a responsible journalist never does: ignore the facts.

The truth is that, though it was costly, our valiant armed forces did in fact turn back the NV and VC attacks and by the time Cronkite returned to the US, our forces controlled *more* territory than before the offensive.

Cronkite somehow determined that his opinion of the war was more important than the facts, and millions of Americans tuned in to learn that we were losing…horribly losing…the war in Viet Nam. This report garnered him accolades from the left, which pushed ever harder for us to leave SE Asia entirely. As a result, quite literally millions of Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese were slaughtered when we withdrew our troops. If Cronkite had reported the FACTS instead of his opinions, things may have gone rather differently for those millions of people.

Cronkite faced the ultimate test of journalism…and failed miserably. His family should mourn him. Millions of Asians do not.

Domestic culture, Domestic

An 82-year-old woman was stabbed 9 times in London Monday while walking home from shopping. How is she supposed to defend herself against such an attack by a man much younger and stronger? In the UK she can’t, as she’s not allowed to own a handgun for self-defense. Another victim of senseless gun control laws.

Gun Rights, International culture, International

The BBC reports that a man with two pistols shot another man in the leg in a London restaurant. We all know, however, that this could not possibly have happened because private ownership of handguns is illegal in England.

Gun Rights, International culture, International

CNN reports an Iowa high school football coach was shot and killed in the school’s weight room. We all know, however, that this couldn’t possibly have really happened because guns aren’t allowed on campus and criminals obey gun laws.

Domestic, Gun Rights culture, Domestic

No pun intended, but our federal government is spending almost $500K to determine just why men don’t like to wear condoms during sex. You have absolutely got to be kidding me! Seriously, have you ever worn one? Did you like it? Is this really that complicated?

Domestic, Economy Domestic, Economy, healthcare

How is an elderly man expected to defend himself when he is attacked by three much younger, much stronger thugs? In the UK, he can’t. This poor man was savegely beaten and stabbed to death because he couldn’t legally own a handgun even for the purpose of self defense within his own home.

The attack was captured on a hidden camera installed after Mr Baker had previously been attacked.

Security cameras do not stop violent crimes. Guns often do. Another senseless victim of insane gun control laws.

Gun Rights, International culture, International

CNN reports that authorites say the rifle used by James von Brunn to commit murder at the Holocaust Memorial Museum can’t be traced back to the original purchaser. What would be the point? The original purchaser didn’t commit this heinous act. Does it really matter who bought the gun? Other than returning the gun to the original owner? Why? It’s likely von Brunn purchased the gun legally and was the rightful owner (though not likely the original owner—it was manufactured between 1908-1928).

If a drunk driver kills someone, do we trace the car back to its original owner? Hunt down the 10 year old who bought the Louisville Slugger used by a street punk to bash the head of a mugging victim? Tracing guns used in crimes is equally absurd. The original owner didn’t commit this crime. Mr. von Brunn did.

In an unrelated note, a visitor to the museum displayed an all too common folly:

“We want to see the museum, and we trust the city of Washington to keep us safe,” he said. “Had we been in that lobby we could have been in the line of fire.”

Your trust, sir, would have been sadly misplaced as von Brunn clearly demonstrated. Had von Brunn chosen to open fire on the visitor, the city of Washington would have been helpless to protect him. Your personal protection is your responsibility. Except, of course, in DC where it’s virtually impossible to legally carry a handgun for self defense.

Domestic, Gun Rights culture, Domestic

Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology makes us illegally download digital content like movies and music. Or so says Cambridge professor Patricia Akester. Yes, and

• Bars on store windows make us break in and steal cash from the register
• Car alarms make us steal cars
• Home security systems force us to burglarize our neighbors
• Bank safes make us robbers

I could go on but you get the point. It’s amazing the lengths to which liberal academics will go to justify immorality.

Education Education