Posted by
Arik on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:11:01 PM
All right, it's Wdnesday, and I'm waiting for the new Ann Coulter column to be put up, so I might as well write a little something to keep myself occupied.
I have to credit Laura Ingraham for the theme for this post. We get a couple hours of repeats of her show on weekend nights here, and I happened to catch a segment that struck a nerve. She basically summed up things I'd been thinking for a while, tied them together neatly, and gave the whole package a nice title: The War on Children.
Think about it: Everything the left does weighs in heavily on our children and grandchildren. They claim to care for them, but they wage an active war against them. It has several fronts, and I'll go through them one by one, and I'll probably miss one or two as I go, but I'll try to get them all in.
At the very forefront of their war is infanticide. The left loves to kill babies.
Abortion has become almost a rite of passage, a bloody sacrament by which the feminist gets her "street cred," her "blood wings," if you will. They try to pretty it up by calling it "Choice," but that is a lie. They don't consider it a choice, they consider it a requirement. You can't be a "True Woman" without killing one of your children. Don't believe it? Look at what was said about Sarah Palin, all because she had the Audacity to Hope for a life for her Downs' Syndrome affected son. They looked down on her for not killing the kid.
And don't think it stops there. Our Beloved President supports post-partum. abortion. He won't call it that, or or admit to it, but really, he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (
BAIPA), which essentially requires medical care for infants who survive abortion. If that's not supporting post-partum abortion, how about this: There is an argument within the Pro-Death ranks as to what really constitutes
birth. There have been a number of cases where The Death Squads have argued that infanticide had not been commited, and the baby had been killed after it had been full y delivered, but BEFORE the umbilical cord was cut, meaning it was not an "official live birth."
They like to call an unborn child a "fetus," or a "clump of cells." As if a fetus in a human mother might be born a goat, or a pig. Or as if that "clump of cells' is an undifferentiated growth, or a tumor. It's nonsense, and the type of skewed langauge that Orwell predicted. His title was a few years early, but the novel itself is looking more and more prescient by the hour. Right is Wrong. Black is White. Murder is Choice.
If the kid actually manages to survive the birth process, and get a few years on him, now he's got to worry about the education system. There's a reason that libs like Dear Leader want to get kids started in the educational system earlier and earlier, and it has nothing to do with getting them a better education. What it has to do with is getting kids away from the destructive influence of their parents. They do this all the time in such bastions of freedom as Cuba and China. The idea is to minimize, as early as possible, any attempts by the parents to instill moral and civic values that do not conform with the State-Approved Curriculum.
Proof: The liberals have been in charge of public education in our major cities for decades, and have grades gone up? Only in places where standards have gone down. Is this because our kids have gotten dumber? I don't think so, I think our educational system has gotten dumber. The problem is liberal educators are like teenage girls who can't wait to try the newest fad. There's always some new "theory" of how we should be teaching our kids, to make it more, exciting, or empowering, or some other buzzword that means, essentially, anything other than actual learning. And by "educators," I mean, typically, the administrators that make the major curriculum decisions that wreak havoc. Usually these people have more education than the teachers, but no actual experience in the classroom. Teachers know what works and what doesn't, but are told what to do by people who are conversant only in theory. You can always tell an administrator, because he won't actually admit to being an administrator: He will call himself an "educator," whereas a teacher will always call themself, proudly, "teacher." Words DO make a difference.
So, while the left tries to get our kids into indoctrination at earlier ages, they continue to fail them in actually TEACHING them something. It should be a matter of national disgrace that the school system in our nations capital has some of the worst, and most dangerous, schools in the world. You would think that the democRats, in a democRat-run city, would want Washington to be a bastion, a shining example, of what liberal education should be. In fact, as it stands, it is. The left has no desire to educate our students. They want them to remain dumb and compliant, so they will vote democRat in the next election. More proof: how many members of "The Party of the People" actually send their children to private schools instead of the public schools the so vehemently support? Answer:
A sizeable percentage. Thirty-seven percent of House democRats send their kids to private schools, and Ninety-six percent of those democRats voted AGAINST vouchers.
It's okay to kill your kids, just don't try to send them to a private school.
All kids are created equal, some are just more equal than others. This goes back to an earlier post where I argued that liberals think that they are somehow special; That they were born to lead. Obviously, their children should be given every advantage, so as to allow the magnificence of their parents genetic material to be carried on into future generations. They SAY all children are special. They BELIEVE only THEIR children are special.
Of course, most students don't need the advantages that private schools would give them. Obviously, they will never be expected to lead or anything. They just need to be able to sign the checks that the government, in all its magnanimity provides them with each month. Can you name more than three people, raised in the Welfare State, (other than professional athletes), who, by their own will and talents, picked themselves up out of poverty and made a success of themselves? I bet you can't. These stories are, by far, the exception rather than the rule. The Welfare system isn't intended to bring kids out of poverty, but to inculcate in them a dependency on the government.
Through the public school system, and into college, if public school didn't finish them off, kids are indoctrinated with left wing philosophy, telling them how to be a good comrade and listen to and believe all that flows from Chairman Maobama's heavenly lips. I've seen it myself, in some of the classes I've taken, and heard of other examples, including Kent State's own
Terrorist Professor. You heard that right: Not Professor of Terrorism, Terrorist Professor. This guy teaches courses in Cuban-Style Revolution, and, for a while, ran a how-to website for jihadists. Nice guy.
Then, after all that work, all that sacrifice, all that friggin' money in tuition, they go to commencement, where Obama or Mrs. Obama tell them they ought to get a job doing charity work. Don't worry about supporting your family, or anything, that's what the government's for. Of course, there won't be anybody paying taxes in, but that's okay, President Dearest eats rainbows and poops butterflies, so it shouldn't be any problem for him to create wealth out of thin air, should it?
Which brings me to the last strategy in the War on Children: Spend their future tax money today. Don't let them decide twenty years from now what direction they want the country to move in, let them pay for us to party today! I was concerned when Bush signed the TARP into law. I was upset when the bailouts came around for the Big Three, also on Bush's watch. I was Outraged and Appalled when Obama pushed through the Stimulus Bill, which could have and should have been more correctly called the democRat Re-Election 2010 Act of 2008. Obama seems to be intent on completing the dismantling of the nation that was begun in the '30's by Roosevelt. If the terrorists decide they are going to nuke Washington, and we all know it's a priority for them, may I humbly suggest that, if they are going to place it anywhere, place it in the FDR Memorial. God knows I don't want anything bad to happen, but if it's going to happen, at least give us the silver lining of wiping that disgrace off the map.
It seems to me that the nation is working its way more quickly then ever toward a schism, not between races, ethnicities, or religions, but between left and right. Growing up, I never would have thought it possible, but now it seems almost inevitable. And as I want to leave the best possible world for my children and their children to grow up in, you can be sure that I'll be on the side that thinks of the Constitution as more than an old document, that understands that the individual, not the government, is what makes America great, and that believes that liberty and liberalism are mutually exclusive. I hope to see you there.