ACTION

Many on the political Right will observe that the late Nelson Mandela was a communist. That will be the extent of their assessment and observations there after may not be charitable by Mandela supporter standards.

I was an anti-Apartheid activist in college and also conservative, despite often wearing " Malcolm X " medallions.

My support wasn't an embrace of communism but was a demand that South Africa finally live up to her rhetoric about being a free state.

Left of center activists like Mandela forced their nations to honor rhetoric about freedom & amend governing documents to end legal bias against Black people, as precursors for abolishing it against anyone.

The same holds true here in America as liberal jurists like Thurgood Marshall and allied advocates successfully changed Jim Crow, which if we're candid, was simply Southern-fried Apartheid.

Conservatives who promote the considerable virtue of a constitutional Republic, individual rights and free markets have much to applaud in Mandela's example, while wincing at his embrace of figures like Cuba's Fidel Castro.

They can also research the role right of center Blacks here, like Jay Parker, and South Africa's conservative Zulu populace, played in addressing not only Apartheid but how the former Soviet Union and its client states sought to exploit the situation for their own benefit.

Nelson Mandela's life challenges conservatives to make the West " the Free World " in reality and not just rhetorically because the disconnect invites socialists who use racial injustice as leverage to ultimately undermine such countries, if their wards allow it once taking power.

The Soviets were sent packing from more than one Third World country once victory over colonial masters was gained.

It would be remiss of me not to also note perpetual bloody coups and poverty afflicting these lands. Post-Apartheid South Africa didn't live up to some conservative fears that she'd implode into chaos, nationalize her economy; nor engage in state-sponsored pogroms against her White minority.  

She was beset by violence among Black activist groups and assaults against White farmers engaged in holding actions in the hinterlands.

Nelson Mandela, as a communist, ironically helped ensure South Africa could realistically become a member of the Free World, as opposed to rhetorically.  

If he could do so from the Left, can we on the Right do any less within our nations to make sure the Free World truly is "free" for all its citizens?

Original post: http://capblackhood.blogspot.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-free-world.html

Obama "asking"  for ideas from Conservatives on how to fix Obamacare is equivalent to a muslim asking a Christian for a "Bloody Mary"...it won't EVER compute...
Someone sent me an email saying scammers have set up at least two phony Obamacare sites, the real Obamacare site is the one that doesn't work...
obama,reid,pelosi,shumer now poster 'children' for The Walking Dead aka the Socialist Democratic Party...
Cal

once again the Government lies

Nelson Mandela has been declared brain dead on Sat. 22.06.2013 @ 18:34
And that they're covering it up

This is part of a message I had received from a friend in South Africa shortly after it happened

I haven’t read this yet. I have read the original and loved it. 

Wanda Draper Ph.D, is the professional woman that inspired me to write a book to help other in the target audience of special needs or autism. Her book, “Your Child Is Smarter Than You Think,” that is being rereleased or is already now; gave me back my gumption and confidence as a parent. I knew my little one was hiding his secret true intelligence.  Confirmation came recently from a Microsoft Grade Readability Calculator, showing eleventh grade sixth month level. There is some error no doubt; but he is  afraid to show his true talents because of anxiety. Wanda is right!

I am sure this book will be an A+ addition. When I get my copy I will let everyone know. By the way Amazon says they are taking orders but if you want a copy, I can help you with this. The author has copies available or they are available through the author.

Below is what Amazon has to say about the book

“Your Child Is Smarter Than You Think! bridges the gap between how children think and learn and how they feel and behave. Dr. Wanda Draper discusses a whole-child approachto articulate the child’s development and its relationship to behavior and learning from infancy through adolescence. Based on thirty years of experience with thousands of children of all ages, and their parents and teachers, she suggests simple yet powerful ways to help children achieve success in school and life. She says, “You can’t send the head to school and leave the body at home—the whole child goes to school, the whole child lives at home, and the whole child participates in the world.”
 
Through a down-to-earth approach, Dr. Draper offers insights about how to tell the difference between natural behavior and a real problem—and what to do about it. She gives a lively explanation of how children think and act in relation to how they feel. Your Child Is Smarter Than You Think! focuses, at each stage and pathway of development, on suggestions for how to successfully:
 

• live and work with a smart child
• help without interfering
• activate the learning loop
• communicate to get results

 
“Parents and professionals are often confronted by the challenges of children because they are smarter than we think.”
-Dr. Wanda Draper
 
Wanda Draper, PhD, professor emeritus of the College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma, testifies about the relationship between childhood development and adulthood consequences as an expert witness in capital death-penalty trials. She studied at Texas Woman’s University, with additional studies at Harvard University and in Geneva, Switzerland. The author of sixteen books, she has appeared on television, including The Oprah Winfrey Show, and has been quoted in CNN News, USA Today, The New York Times,The Washington Post, Parent magazine, and Reader’s Digest.”

I promise this is a must for educators and parents.

   Black Professor uses Racist Rants against White Students – Photo Credit You Tube screen shot

Sometimes wading through the new America according to Obama where everything is about race and nothing is about uniting as Americans is as difficult as it is tiring. So one can only imagine the utter frustration and even anger that White students had to feel sitting through class after class where a Black Professor made them the convenient targets of her inner demons.

This seemed to be the common practice of English Professor Shannon Gibney who turned her class at Minneapolis Community and Technical College into a frequent diatribe about alleged White privilege, according to the Daily Caller. Is it racism in reverse or is it the actions of an out of control teacher who is searching for fake racial victimization?

Imagine the reality of having a target painted on your back in an English class which has precious little to do with racism or racial issues. The class was turned on its head and used as a personal crusade against non-minorities: i.e. White people. Even if oppression occurred in the nation’s past, the reality that this professor and many of the civil rights pimps of today who continue to cling to divisive racist instigation is disturbing yet acceptable by leaders like Barack Obama. Remember who he inserted himself into the criminal trial of George Zimmerman by asserting that if he had a son, “He would look like Trayvon Martin”?

Professor Gibney is clearly caught in a time warp where her comfort zone is not complete unless she can raise the shadows of past racial injustices and create a whole new imagined racism stew today in modern Minneapolis, Minnesota.

One truly has to wonder did the English Department or the college even scrutinize her teaching credentials to see if she is really certified, because something is surely amiss here. She claims according to the Daily Caller that she was not, “talking about all white people, or you white people in general.” Professor Gibney instead suggested that, “We are talking about whiteness as a system of oppression.”

( click to read more )

Important question!

If Obama care is so GOOD for everyone, why is it being denied to all Obama's Lackeys and the congress including sub-god Reid's staff by "EXCEMTIONS" , or are they being punished?. maybe have I got something wrong here !!

Ron H

Please sign the petition at white house .gov  to impeach  obama

http://thelastgreatstand.com/lgs/2013/11/24/200-300-phony-obama-citizenship-investigation-kits-handed-out-on-capital-hill-time-to-fess-up-or-join-him-in-prison-now-its-getting-fun/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – If the law known as Obamacare gets struck down in the latest court challenge, the victors will thank a Hudson resident and Case Western Reserve University law professor who discovered what the law's critics say is a major flaw.

Jonathan Adler, 44, says he didn't even appreciate initially how significant his discovery might be. He thought it was an interesting bit of legal arcana, worthy of scholarship. But his analysis of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, has led to four pending cases in federal courts, two likely to be decided within months, that offer ACA opponents their best chance of gutting the law.

Oral arguments were heard in one of the cases, in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Adler, a Case law professor since 2001, pored over the ACA after it passed in 2010 and found this:  Congress created a system for providing tax subsidies  and penalties in order to give incentives for people to buy health insurance or for employers to provide it. States were supposed to create new agencies that would offer online insurance-shopping options, and states would tie into a federal tax system to dole out the subsidies and assess the penalties.

But the ACA made clear, Adler says, that the subsidies were to be used in these new state marketplaces, or "exchanges." There is no record, he says, that shows Congress directed the subsidies to what has since evolved: a large, federally run, health-policy shopping exchange. When the subsidies are mentioned in the law, Adler says, it is always and only in the context of state exchanges.

Congress did provide for the creation of a federal exchange, but as a backup, Adler says. 

Things haven't worked out that way. When the law was put into practice, 27 states, including Ohio, said they did not want to start their own exchanges or partner with the federal government for a jointly run exchange. They are using the federal system instead, forgoing federal grants that would have helped them establish their own marketplaces. According to the Pew Research Center, that means nearly 60 percent of Americans who lack insurance live in states that refused to have their own exchanges.

Based on the law, Adler says, the Internal Revenue Service has no legal authority to give tax subsidies to people enrolling in the federal exchange. The IRS wrote a regulation as if it has that right, but Adler says the ACA never empowered it to do so.

Although this particular issue involves the signature law of President Barack Obama's White House, there have been legal parallels with the desires of other administrations, including President George W. Bush's, on environmental and other matters, Adler says.

"In none of these areas does that authorize the administrative agencies to rewrite the laws altogether," Adler said in a telephone interview this morning with The Plain Dealer. "They've got to go back to Congress."

This may sound like a novel theory for the policy and law blogs, some of which Adler participates in. He initially used his research for a paper that he presented at a legal conference at the University of Kansas in February of 2011. 

But then a friend and influential health-policy analyst, Michael Cannon at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, told Adler that he was onto something big -- something that could profoundly affect Obamacare.

Without the tax subsidies, the ACA cannot work. Its central tenet is insuring nearly every American, but health insurance would be too expensive for many people without the subsidies.

Adler, commenting via Twitter this afternoon, said that "our argument is that the law should be enforced as written." He also tweeted, "It's the IRS and Administration that are trying to 'overturn' the law with creative re-interpretations."

Cannon and most conservatives say the ACA represents a massive government overreach. And so Adler and Cannon teamed up after the University of Kansas paper and spent more time on the issue, publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and an influential paper in Health Matrix, a journal of law and medicine They wrote more columns and made appearances, not only to gatherings of policy wonks but also before members of Congress.

And their work is now at the center of four court cases. Besides the one on Washington, DC, others are pending in Virginia, Oklahoma and Indiana.

The Obama administration tried to get the case in Washington, DC, dismissed but failed. Critics of the Adler-Cannon work say they are focusing too narrowly on individual sections of the law and fail to take into account congressional intent. 

“The health law’s purpose is to help every American access affordable, quality health coverage, whether it be through a state or federal exchange," said Yianni Varonis, a spokesmen for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat and a champion of the ACA. "In the unlikely chance that this lawsuit succeeds, its result would be to make it harder for Americans living in states that refuse to set up their own exchanges to obtain affordable health coverage. Congress had no intention of doing this or of creating two classes of health care citizens.”   

Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor and authority on heath law, said in 2012 that the "legislative history of the ACA establishes that Congress understood that premium tax credits would be available through both federal and state exchanges." Jost wrote in the Health Affairs Blog that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also assumed that subsidies would be available on all exchanges, state and federal.

Adler disagrees and says the CBO was focused on an assumption that every state would have an exchange. Furthermore, he contends, the CBO's assumptions "can't trump the law." (For those interested in getting more deeply into the weeds, Adler and Cannon responded to Jost's analysis with their own Health Affairs Blog piece.)

Adler acknowledges that some Democrats might have wanted subsidies to be awarded broadly on the federal exchange. But that's not how the rushed legislation worked, and that's not the way laws work, either, he says.

"I'm a firm believer that the laws we have are the ones Congress actually enacts, not the ones that we wish we had or we wish that Congress had enacted differently," Adler said.

Furthermore, he said, "no one has found" that a member of Congress specifically made a case for providing subsidies on the federal exchange when the law was being worked out. The subsidies, he said, are always mentioned in the context of state exchanges.

"It was somewhat surprising that we didn't find such contrary evidence," he said.

Democrats and many pundits say the Adler-Cannon argument and its related legal cases are long shots. But the argument represents the current legal tack and best chance that critics have to unravel the ACA. The judge in the Washington, DC case, Paul Friedman, has suggested he will try to rule within months

Adler, who was in Washington and watched part of the oral arguments Tuesday, says his legal rationale is strong, but he has studied courts long enough to know not to assume victory.

"As far as what's going to happen next, it's hard to predict," he said.

"As I teach my students in administrative law, courts are always reluctant to strike down decisions made by administrative agencies."

one more that may be worth looking at

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/12/if_obamacare_is_overturned_a_c.html

This is one we need to pay attrition to as well , we have known it might come to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPIsjH25GHo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbPIsjH25GHo&app=desktop

Attempting to explain the difference between the society we are, a republic, and the illusion that so many think we are, a democracy, this retort was offered to this simple fact. We are a democracy because we have representative government.

That simple analogy was so beyond any reasoning I’d ever considered, like an epiphany it became obvious that this simple misconstruction answered the reality that today this nation is so far from its design, our designers would not recognize it.

If we envisioned the course of our nation, following a path like a river, we’d now be walking beside a dry stream, like one in the Texas drought, where the only thing in the river bed would be is dry sand. It would be void of any semblance of it once was, or any suggestion of what it once was.

The why would not be because of a drought, thought that may be an analogy, but because as a society we have so diverted, and changed the course of our design, there is nothing left for us to ‘even recognize’ who, or what, this nation’s miracle once was.

Is it that simple? Is our nation’s destruction accelerated and advanced as easily as replacing the design of representative government with the entry drug of communism, democracy?

For those who question this analysis, let me share who first advanced this obvious conclusion, Vladimir Lenin, who realized that it is the perfect tool, this democracy—for it by its very construct—creates the cornerstone of communism; that there will never be the respect of nature’s laws, and nature’s God, if advanced. For foremost in the constants of nature’s law is this simple endowment of self-evident acknowledgement, that all men are equal. That all men are born with free-will, that all men have domination over their greatest wealth—that very life of creators gift—and that all men have the rights to be protected from the domination…and the control…of other men.   

This reality has been confirmed in the reality of mankind since the ‘trial of Socrates.’ Man’s first challenge to the power of the most dangerous entity ever created from the mind of mankind, government. It has been confirmed by the philosophical evaluations of philosophers over the ages. From Socrates, to Montesquieu, to Tocqueville, to our own present American philosopher, Thomas Sowell of this reality.   

Thinking of the retort, that we have elected representatives—thus we have a democracy—was a simple analogy of error we seldom consider. For the design of using the vote…as in representative government of this nation’s design…and the universal voting rights of everyone, as in democracy, are as inverses as night and day.

If as a society, we do not understand this reality. What is missing creating this error? In my simple analysis, my conclusion is that we as a nation do not understand physics. The reason we as a nation must understand physics, is that the reasoning required to comprehend our design, is based on the simple reality of the second law of thermodynamics, or as many know of cause and effect, Newton’s second law of motion. The concept, the fact we must comprehend and understand is ‘cause and effect.’ For it is the actions of the decision to do, by man, and the fact that he…that same man…will reap the results of those actions which is the basic knowledge we must comprehend.

For it is this simple fact, this simple constant, that is our nation’s design. As such, those who voted in this nation were never designed to be universally all. For what rational nation would allow those to vote, who did not have to live with the results of the decisions they made. How can a man, who pays for the excesses of government spending, and the result of the actions of that government, in rational reasoning, allow those who would benefit from the theft of taxation to have the opportunity to also vote? It is the most illogical, irrational, and unreasonable concept ever devised by man. For by doing so, it refutes that basic concept of physics; that the cause and effect must be in the genre of politics have results to all ‘equal.’

There never was, nor was never intended that all men in a society would be allowed to vote based on the simple reality—they exist! For to do so is so irrational, illogical, and in diametric opposition to the simple physics of the physical world, the universe in which we live, it is incomprehensible that anyone would even contemplate such irrational, illogical, design.

Is that the problem? Is it that our society, the men who inhabit this planet, have no more understanding of the ‘constants’ which make up the universe? Is it the simple reality that in all of the empirical history of man, we have one thing that is an example of confirmed variable? Is it beyond understanding that the variable is, that man, and his ability of ‘abstract’ thought and reason, is that variable? Alternatively, do we even comprehend what the concept of variable is? Do we even lack that?  

There are many different definitions used in many genres that identify variable for their use. The only constant is that ‘variable is not consistent.’ In the society of man, this is most easily recognized by considering an experiment. In the hypothesis of man we conduct experiments to use the same genesis, our foundations, resulting in a conclusion. If the conclusion is repeated over and over every time we do the experiment, then we say because of the results are constant, not variable, then the hypothesis is proved, and accepted.

Yet in the actions of man, there is no hypothesis of our political environment we require proof. For in our society of man, we repeat our experiments over and over, even when in that experiment we have—by the results—confirmed, proven it is failure. Yet we, in the environment of the artificial entity of man, government, do it again and again, with failure after failure. The difference, we compose different inputs to the same experiment, proven to fail, with some illogical illusion that, no, now we have the answer. Never once do those who believe in ideology, not reality, accept the fact that the very constraint, the very idea, is in error and will never no matter the application be successful, or work.

The examples could fill a book; communism, islamism, democracy, totalitarian sovereignty, which are all synonyms of the same disease that has plagued mankind since its conception; government. It is no more evident than the illogical insanity of advancing both theft, slavery, and insanity of the ideology of communist control—by government—of the health care system.

In the history of the literacy of mankind—there is one, and only one—example of a concept of government with the result of success. It was the wonder of the United States of America, from 1775 to 1789. This brief window of existence a nation with the only design of government that had within its construct, all of the protections of man’s natural laws, and the laws of God’s design were preserved. It wasn’t even a design of western man, it was the plagiarizing of the construct of the tribes of the North American continent; where the Iroquois federation of five tribes, established a unwritten constitutional government and elaborate political system. The key, the wonder, you not only enumerate—restrict—government, you keep it powerless, unable to dictate—to be the totalitarian sovereignty—to the society of man. This is the reason of this nation’s very existence, and something as a nation, with the corruption of the illusion we are a democracy, and those who do not have to live with the error of their vote, have destroyed.

That is the error. That is our demise. That is the ignorance of our society. Perhaps that is the easiest correct. The means to restore reality, restore reason, and restore logic to this absolute insanity of the path currently of this nation. Perhaps the answer is that simple. If we ensure that those who vote, must be responsible to pay for the actions of this government; perhaps the sanity of our design can be restored.

This is not something new, something original of our nation, not known before. For long before this nation, in the early 1700’s the Scottish in their union with England made the obvious observation. ‘Government has no right to steal in the form of taxation, that which an individual by the criminal laws of the nation cannot do.’

Is it that simple? If we reject the power of government to steal in the name of government—that no man in society can do—is that just how simple our preservation may be?   

   Last Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the President’s Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, as laid out in the US Constitution in Article II, Section 3. The speakers for the hearing were, Michael Cannon, a director for health policy affairs at the Cato Institute and Jonathon Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Together, they blasted the President’s execution of Obamacare, or, more accurately, his failure to execute. They pointed out that, after passage of the law, Obama has on numerous occasions, changed the details of the law. From collecting taxes that were not authorized to choosing to delay taxes that were authorized, he has picked which parts of the law to enforce, while disregarding other parts and failing to enforce others.

   The aforementioned Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, lays out the duties of the President of the United States, one of which is “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This was the subject of the hearing Tuesday and, together, Cannon and Turley dismantled the handling of the laws by Obama and made it abundantly clear the Framers of the Constitution would not approve of the piecemeal attention given the law by the President. As egregious as the abuse is in this regard, I believe Obama has gone way beyond this charge in his attempt to grab powers from the other branches of government.

   In the last five years under Obama, He has intimidated the Justices of the Supreme Court, gone around the Houses of Congress and consolidated central power not in the government, but in the Executive branch. His EPA, has passed regulations without Congressional approval. Those regulations have laid waste to companies, levied fines and destroyed employment across massive swathes of the country. They have killed the coal industry, causing concern among the electric companies. The last large lead smelter will close in the next week or two due to regulations, amounting to back-door gun control. His Border Guards are ordered not to enforce laws regarding illegal aliens (yes, I said it) entering our country and they dictate which, if any, violators get deported.

   Then, there are the multitude of executive orders given. Under Obamacare, one of the provisions was that doctors were not required to ask certain question of patients. One of those questions was whether or not there were guns in the house. Last year, Obama penned an executive order that it was okay for doctors to ask the question, under penalty of Medicare money. Another order okays questions of sexual orientations and behaviors. There are orders for government grabs of food, crops and water in the event of a national emergency. The President decides when to declare a national emergency. There are guidelines and executive orders for when martial law can be declared, with more orders giving even more power to the President. Evidently, the National Defense Authorization Act of a few years ago didn’t go far enough.

   There are many websites that someone could visit with many conspiracy theories, from FEMA Camps to be used for detention of American citizens opposed to big government to others.The problem is that a lot of those theories are rooted in the possible abuse by a government bent on control. As I look at our history, it occurs to me that many of the things that are going on in the government are the same things that Thomas Jefferson laid out as grievances against the King of England in the Declaration of Independence.

My Status is the same as always.
I'm here (on this Earth) to serve Jesus and Others.
I know that my words may be somewhat severe, but I always speak them with the truest of motives. I Love all of you enough to speak the things that I truly believe will help all know how best to live as the Lord wants us to. I am always open to any Ideas that can be backed up first by the Word of God, second by true moral standards, or third by undisputed historic/scientific evidence.
I've served in the military to defend everyone's Right to Speak their own Minds and Beliefs. I don't, and you don't, have to agree with all I purport to be True.
Debate is one of my favorite forms of conversation, better than surrounding myself with "yes men".

The Leaders of Our country today have seemed to do just the opposite. By surrounding themselves, with "Yes men. yes women, yes media and yes apologist", we hear nothing but repeated lies and whacked out Ideas made up by the president and perpetuated thru out our society these days.

By following these Simple rules that I use to validate my beliefs, the leaders of today would make much better decisions, about everything, whether they hold my religious beliefs or not.

You don't have to be a Christian to benefit from ALL the Moral teachings of the Bible. There are no teachings of Jesus contrary to moral Law from anywhere in America, unless you really believe you can change right from wrong. The so-called leaders of today, typically leading from behind, don't seem to even possess even the slightest of morals or intestinal fortitude. From the "Coward in Chief" to the lowest member in Congress (with the possible exclusion of Ted Cruz), even the veterans after the ilk of McCain, seem to have Zero accountability to The People of These United States or Any Higher Power. We in these States that understand that the entire basis of this country's existence is, and always has been, based on "CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES" have no President representing us. It seems that Ubama represents only himself and his whacked out socialist ideology. The President Is supposed to be a Servant of the People of the People. His Leadership is to inspire others to do the Will of the People. This he does not do. Personally, I believe that the best Leaders have been in the Military or in real public service(Dr's, Police, Firefighters, etc...) not community organizers or career Politicians.The founding Fathers would be appalled at the politicians living in office I'm Sure. They get there and completely forget the reality of living in and for this country and people,IF they ever did know these things. Term limits are a must. Thank You All. 

If there is ever anything I can do to explain the Bible or my Beliefs to help you out, just ask. I will do my best to use Bible to interpret Bible and back up my beliefs.
The Lord has truly blessed me with the time to repent and come back into His service, of that I am Eternally Thankful. I pray not only for You all, but the whole World, without ceasing.
May God Richly Bless you, my Beloved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEVFg0M1SlA …

A Two Point American History Month ( My name for

     Are White UCLA Professors racist for correcting minority

students grammar mistakes?  - Photo Credit  Advance the Struggle

If you are a college student in Obama’s America then you are wondering if the protest at UCLA is a throwback to the 1960’s civil rights era or is it  just Affirmative Action 2013.  Whether or not racism is alive and well on the left coast at UCLA, it appears that a white professor who has been targeted by some minority students is certainly not engaged in discrimination.

What is his alleged sin?  He is accused of correcting the grammar of some minority students who did not conform to graduate level standards, reported the Young Conservatives.  Is it a crime?  Maybe it is a crime, but Professor Val Rust of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies did not commit it.  That most onerous crime was committed by teachers of these minority students in K-12 and perhaps even undergraduate studies.

This is tragic because all too often, minority students who are not working at the graduate level standards which are expected are far too easily drawn to the post-Obama era “Somebody did this to me…and they are probably white,” sloganeering.  In a hot minute you can expect the civil rights Calvary headed to the UCLA campus in the guise of General Incompetent Al Sharpton and Colonel Rhyme-a-Lot Jesse Jackson.

Former President George W. Bush would have labeled the problems these minority students face as the soft discrimination of low expectations. After all, Rust was quite clear about his alleged issues with the student’s performances. Professor Rust explained in a letter to the department that,   ”I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don’t feel that is appropriate.”

So what exactly are these students expecting the result to be by engaging in an endless series of 60’s era sit-ins and protests?  Are standards in graduate schools supposed to be lowered and lesser levels of achievement supposed to be acceptable?

(click to read more)

By Oscar Y. Harward

The United States of America was founded on certain principles; principals that our Founding Fathers felt were necessary to insure the future viability of this Country and the governing structure as they had envisioned. Their applied wisdom, embedded in our Constitution, is irrefutable.

Today (y)our Federal Government is rapidly drifting away from the intent and expressed commands of the Constitution.  The all-consuming quests for power at Federal levels are far exceeding the intent of our founding fathers and the intent as they had envisioned into the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were striving to create a system of check-and-balance insuring that our Federal Government would remain a Republic.  The United States was founded by a collection of 13 States united to give a central voice in international affairs, a limited national affair, to regulate commerce, and to harmonize across-state laws.  They even gave the States the right to withdraw from this Republic if they felt the Republic was not fulfilling its responsibility to the State(s).

Our Founding Fathers fought incredibly hard for our Independence from England.  These men understood the value of a free people's government in protecting the peoples’ freedoms and rights.  If anyone has any question on this issue, they should read the Declaration of Independence; a Document that should leave no question(s) as to our Founding Fathers intent. 

Furthermore, the "Federalist Papers" will further substantiate the defined intentions as incorporated within the Constitution.

Every student in all schools should be required to read, understand, and achieve the ability to articulate the details and limitations within our Constitution and its’ full understanding.  The same student requirements also apply to the Federalist Papers.

Each candidate for election seeking any and all ‘Federal’ office(s), or any appointed manager in any Federal government department, should be compelled to openly share his/her personal detailed knowledge, findings, and conclusions on our Constitution and the Federalist Papers, before their approval.

Our Founding Fathers, with their wisdom, set up three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary); all of equal significance so neither of the three branches of government could supersede any of the others.

Article I, Section. 9 of or Constitution addresses "State's Rights" and their taxes: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State".    

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson made the first substantive attack on "State's Rights" when he sent troops to Charleston, SC in response to their refusal to submit to a tariff on goods exported to northern States.  Fortunately, cooler heads convinced him to recall the troops before they reached Charleston.  Vice-President Calhoun did resign in protest and wrote the "States Right's Doctoring".  In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln sent troops to South Carolina in response to their threat to withdraw from the Republic. 

While each of the ‘Bill of Rights’ Amendments are of significance in difference to different individuals, one as a ‘sore of dispute’ with me is where President Obama, his administration, and Capitol hill Democrats seem to ignore, attack, disobey, and prosecute (y)our Constitution in my personal life is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment is now under attack and in violation of the Constitution by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.  Several States’ Amendments, as passed by the voting electorate, are under attack and prosecuted by this administration; even though these Amendments are in compliance with our US Constitution.  While our Constitution was based on Christian values, President Obama and AG General Eric Holder are filing Federal lawsuits against these ‘States Rights’ Amendments.

Today, we have legislation named as ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ more often called ‘ObamaCare’ as passed in early 2010; defined by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts as a tax bill.  Today, President Obama is passing out ‘waivers’ to Labor Unions, his own staff, Capitol Hill legislators, and other political friends.  Whenever in US History was a President able to dictate in giving ‘waivers’, other ‘differences’, or ‘exceptions’ to others on tax issues while requiring the remaining ones to pay; another unconstitutional active violation?  Additionally, this legislation is not working as promised.  ObamaCare is not protection and is not affordable to middle Americans.  ObamaCare legislation does characterize a ‘redistribution’ of the wealth.

Throughout our history, Moderate to Liberal Presidents and ‘Liberal’ Capitol Hill legislators continue to whittled away at our Founding Fathers in expand entitlements to other Americans and others around the world; some who have fallen through the cracks and in real need, while others desire all and will take anything and everything without helping themselves.  These latter ones would not work in a pie factory where all food was for free.  This is contrary to the intent of our Founding Fathers who wanted to provide an opportunity for all.  All of these entitlements are at (y)our taxpayers’ expense; now mostly with out-of-control deficit spending.

Why do ‘Liberal’ legislators always want to support and vote for spending more of taxpayers’ money?  Why should those who are motivated to work harder and smarter, in creating a better life for themselves and their own family, be penalized?

The evolution of our Federal Government has reached the point where one or two States may champion a cause and have a National law passed along party lines.  National laws supersede the laws of any individual State.  Effectively, a few States or  even cities, seem to believe they have the ability to impose their will on all other States.

For example, the Second Amendment protects (y)our ‘RIGHTS’ to gun ownership: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  With that being totally clear, New York, Chicago, and others elected and appointed officials seem to believe they can supersede the Constitution.  Each elected and appointed officials responsible for their derogatory irresponsibility should be imprisoned, themselves.  (Y)our schools should be teaching ()our children gun safety, the use of guns in hunting for food, and to protect their self and their family from criminal activity. 

The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many Americans with a left-wing view are even denying ‘life’ as unalienable Rights of human life; even denying (y)our ‘Creator’ in Heaven.

Reality law appears to be from passion without reason being applied.  We see a passion for power and notoriety without the reason to see, or understand, the effect it has on the American people.  Laws are written by lawyers and politicians with personal and political agendas; their only constraints are usually, but not always, in the limits of the law; absent morality.

Under current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), we have recently seen in the Senate a 225-year old law changed so that a single majority political party could gain absolute control of the Senate.  This change is reducing the 225-year old law from a previous 60  votes out of 100 Senate votes to proceed with legislative action to a now 51 votes out of 100 votes to proceed. 

Today the intent, and the explicitly, of our Constitution seems to have been largely forgotten by our elected officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill.  We see a manipulation of the laws and we see, somewhat, absolute partisanship.

We see President Obama and the Democratic Party united with a common agenda without regard for the History of this America, without respect for the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers,  without respect for the wisdom embedded in the Constitution, and/or more than 600,000 Americans who gave their lives in wars to protect our Constitution, and our American Flag.  We see President Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) that may compel each elected Democrat to toe-the-line on these ‘left-wing’ issues so as each candidate to ascertain DNC monies for (re)election(s).

What we see is a rapidly evolving Democrat Party that views itself as a ruling party answerable only to itself.  A ruling party that can pass laws at will, change laws by decree, and exert dominion over the people.  We see President Obama and the Democratic Party as a party that uses the law but does not have an appropriate understanding of or reverence for the law.  We see President Obama and the Democratic Party as having an insatiable thirst for revenue - and history has shown that thirst ultimately leads into conquest.  If we continue on this course, without respect to the intent of the Constitution, we will see the evolution of a ruling party over an oppressed populace?

This is not idle speculation, read the history of the rise of the Nazi party during the 1920's and 1930's.  In the USA, we have seen laws changed and people exempted from the law through decrees by our President and we are seeing the Democrat Party change procedural law in order to obtain and exert more control. We are beginning to visualize a spiraling taxation generated by a forced ObamaCare plan that seems to ignore the people's hardships and further suppresses the populace, all in the name of this same Party sponsored plan.

This is a control over the populace that is far more reaching than just providing a national health care.  It is a control over the livelihood and wellbeing of the populace forcing them to be dependent on the Government - and dependence removes the option of choice.

It is well within reason to assume that ObamaCare is just an early step in increased governmental control that will evolve to the point where our Government can decree the level of healthcare we are allowed, disallowed, or to receive.  This makes us further dependent on our Government and gives it much greater control of our lives.  By definition, this is truly a form of conquest.

It can be visualized that the implementation of ObamaCare is an important cornerstone in the governmental evolutionary process; a process which will allow implementation of an absolute monitoring of the populace under the guise of protecting people's health welfare.

If this is the case then there is a high probability that within less than a decade we will see increased electronic tracking of the populace, including the requirement that any individual using ObamaCare must have a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) device implanted on their person under the guise of insuring accuracy of healthcare and preventing fraud.  If we carry this visualization further we can envision a point where the Government can use our healthcare information to determine our acceptability in society, whether it be a chemical or mental imbalance (real or perceived), to remove undesirables from the populace for the safety of the populace. 

Although the Constitution does not address political parties we do have a two party landscape today; Republican and Democrat.  With both the Senate and President being from the Democrat Party and seemingly in full accord that the Government appears to have evolved into an only one controlling Democrat Party. 

The Republican Party can be discounted, or considered a non-player, for several reasons; the first being that the powers of the Senate are greater than that of the House, thus giving the Republicans limited ability to effect change, the second being that, of the three branches of government, the two most singularly powerful are controlled by the Democrats and they appear to be in full collusion. 

The Capitol Hill Republicans appear to be fragmented.  The RINO Republicans appear to be in bed with the Democrat Party on more and more deficit spending.  Many Americans are inquiring as to what is any difference between a Capitol Hill RINO Republican and a Capitol Hill Democrat.

Americans are listening and TEA Party Republicans are gaining strength across the USA among the Republicans at large.  Political polls show that Americans are now seeking a more Conservative leadership in Washington, DC.

Is President Obama's signature achievement investing all in ObamaCare?  Has, or is Capitol Hill Democrats too embedded in their support of ObamaCare to get out?  Is it too late for Capitol Hill Democrats?  Is ObamaCare just a stepping stone for President Obama and the Democratic Party; a major step for something more far reaching - maybe the evolution of a Socialist form of government?

A major problem in the USA today is that many in our schools, colleges, our universities, and even our law schools are just not teaching our children/students World and US History, the Declaration of Independence, our US Constitution, and/or our Founding Fathers’ ‘Federalist Papers’.  Our children are being cheated for not be exposed and taught more about our US History.

As Judge Robert  Bork once said, "Few professors spend even a week on Story [former Chief Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution], or The Federalist Papers [the Founders' commentaries on the Constitution], or the original Constitution. I know I didn't [at the University of Chicago Law School].... Nobody in law schools is teaching the Constitution. They are teaching Supreme Court opinions."

Every voter should be required to pass a simple test on our US History, our US Constitution, and our Founding Fathers.

Every politician going to Washington should know and understand the Declaration of Independence before taking this/her oath of office.  If they understood its’ meaning, each would have a much greater realization and appreciation of this great nation.

"Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes." George Santayana (1863 – 1952), philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist.

‘We, the people’ must remain vigilant in both our understanding and awareness of our government and of the people we place in office if we really want to keep America a land of the free.

If allowed but four words; could you explain why America should be admired, cherished, and preserved for the exceptional miracle it represents?

In this nation today when Americans are experiencing the destructive nihilism of government actions creating this destruction; those same Americans lack the capacity to explain or present the wonder of this nation. Is that by accident? Alternatively, could the answer be as citizens we haven’t been taught, either learned, or understand the wonder of this nation? To complete this absolute incomprehensible wonder, why can’t Americans but remember four words? For if, they know those magical four words, understand their meaning; they would have the answer, the philosophy, and the idealism of principles that define this nation’s miracle.

In the four words, one is absolutely paramount and required to understand this nation. For it is one singular concept that defines this nation; and it is not hidden. In fact, in the very declarative of this nation, the document ‘The Declaration of Independence,’ this simple reality stands out like a beacon in the darkness of night for our acknowledgement.

In the literacy of mankind, there is that simple singular sentence that does today, has in the past, and as long as this nation survives—a great question with the actions of our government and the present administration—will be the epitome of man’s greatest political philosophical idealism ever. What simple language saying so much. How can any American not know this, not be able to explain this, and in their heart not adhere to this marvelous principle? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ Is it not beyond comprehension that any American, if asked what this nation is for, could not explain the wonder of this philosophy?

So we know one word, it’s simple…Liberty…for without liberty, then man is slave and all of the other ideals, principles, or concepts are null and void, for they have no value for any man who is not immersed in this environment of wonder, liberty.

Yet our founders left us with an example of absolute wonder, a genius that many do not recognize or even understand. For they were men, men of reason, men of principle, and men of cognitive reality; they saw reality as it is, not in some relativism of false ideology of our current political environment. As such, they before any other action identified what they knew from the history, the empirical knowledge of the civilization of man before they even began to construct a government. What would you identify as the greatest danger ever known in the history of mankind? What would you identify as the greatest danger that man would have to consider if they were to begin and create a new form of government? A form of government this planet had never known. A government that was the diametric opposite of any attempt ever know of governance. A concept based specifically on the knowledge of every indefinable error, mistake, and problem that every government since man’s recording of literacy…and surely far before that…had experienced. Would you not first have to identify those things that created the problems? Would you then not have to specifically state the problems, and from that evaluation then begin the creation of a system addressing the errors of man’s past? Is this not the format of man using his capacity of intellect, his ability of developing intelligence, and as this knowledge results in wisdom—would it not be best to make decisions from wisdom—not emotions or platitudes, ideologies  or fantasies, illusions or hallucinations? Would it not be the reasoning of mankind that thought, intellect, and empirical knowledge of experience of man’s history…his successes and failures…be the most vital, the most important to this creation of the most wondrous society possible?    

If we as citizens today, do this same analysis, what would we discover? We’d discover what our founding fathers acknowledged and used as the very fundamental foundation of everything they created. The reality, the obvious, the known since literacy of mankind, and long before that; there is no greater danger to the liberty of man, than…? If you could answer anything other than government, you are in cognitive of reality! For in the history of the species of mankind, there is, nor ever has been anything as dangerous, or as detrimental to mankind than—government. How any American forgets this reality, this obvious fact, is beyond comprehension? What lack of reason, lack of even the slightest intelligence, the capacity of intellect would be require to not conclude this? Where, and what is an example that government has done, now or ever, anything to advance the society of man—except this nation—with the foundation of creating a government acknowledging this reality. With that acknowledgement, the greatest design of government ever created by man was established. The guidelines, the wonder, the miracle above any miracle ever by mankind led to the simple design of the ‘Articles of Confederation!’

Many dismiss this wonder, this marvel of the Articles of Confederation, who can only be identified as enemies of that simple philosophy of man’s endowed rights of ‘liberty.’ Their corrupted excuse, identical to the blasphemy of our current president complaint of the ‘Constitution,’ his very words, his condemnation; Obama stated that ‘I’ view the current Constitution as being a negative document. IN that it does not grant enough power to the federal government.’

This isn’t something new, this is the same complaint of others who believed in the domination of society and man. Who among us could not hear Alexander Hamilton stating the same, the obvious? For was this not the same argument to overturn the ‘Articles of Confederation’ and replace it with a government document that provide more ‘power and domination’ to the federal government?

It is not something a great revelation to realize the wonder of ‘The Articles of Confederation.’ One only has to read the indictments of the ‘Declaration of Independence’ those enumerated, and listed documentation of the King’s ‘repeated injuries and usurpations’ against the American’s ‘rights and liberties.’ Then read the Articles of Confederation. What you will discover is so simple, so obvious; it is beyond any possible confusion that our founders feared government more than any danger known to mankind. For in The Articles of Confederation, the fears of man—and the cure to prevent government usurpation; that attack on unalienable rights, and the preservation of man’s liberty—were addressed and preserved.

Therefore, we have the philosophy required to make liberty possible. It is this design to enumerate government, to restrict government power that only then can preserve the Liberty of man.    

So the next two words are exposed, fear government. For without this abject fear, and consideration by every action in our society concerning government, we as a society by our own volition become slaves.

Liberty cannot exist without the fear of government. They are not separate; they are a summation, which one cannot be if the other is. 

Liberty, fear of government, both is philosophies. Ideals that any civilized society must not only know but also understand ‘to even say’ they represent civilized society. Yet there is one concept, one remarkable word that must also be understood before even the application of liberty or government fear can be considered.

This is the magic fourth word. It is the word used by Jefferson as self-evident, that man endowed by their creator is created ‘equal.’ For is this word is not known, is not understood, is not applied correctly, the exceptionalism of the wonder of this nation’s design is corrupted, rejected, and made null and void.

The word is so simple, in design and definition, why it is misused, misunderstood, and misapplied is beyond the reasoning of rational mankind. Who among us has not heard this word used in so many ways, in so many misapplications, and in such convoluted presentations, even the meaning is distorted? It is such a simple world, such a simple idea, such a basic philosophy, concept and ideal yet the most confusing thing to the reasoning of most men in this nation. What word could create such confusion, such absolute incomprehensible reasoning of man? The answer is so simple for the word the concept the idea is something man created from abstract thought, begun with physical acknowledgement. In the world of measurement, in the world of math, in the reality of physical construct equal is recognized and exists. From man’s very beginning of physical measurement, the simple balance beam scale, where on each side the weight was equal to the other side when balanced…the beam horizontal…the concept began. From there man in his abstract thought, realized and concluded that in society, in the very existence of man there is equal—in the fact that all men are by some divine power equal in possessing life.

As Americans, we not only forget this importance to our existence, we forget or do not understand this is not something new. Aristotle told us, enlightened us, ‘that the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.’ Explained it with such simplicity why man confuses and convolutes this concept is remarkable. For to be equal, then all men, in the eyes of society, in the laws of the nation, and in the conscious of all other men must preserve and maintain their right of being equal.

Is that the nature of our society today? If you think so, or say so, then you are in cognitive of reality. Yet those who say we are not equal do not advance that men are equal, but the diametric inverse, the corruption of advancing equality, not men are equal. For is a man pays taxes to the state, while another receives altruism from that same state, redistributing the wealth of the payees taxes, where are they equal? This corruption, this absolute distortion of man is equal is the basis for the greatest majority of problems this nation is experiencing.

So we have the four words, the four philosophical ideals, the principles that create the exceptionalism of this nation known to no others. It is the light, the wonder, the imagination of wonder that the world desires but has no more idea of what it consist than the president of our nation has today.

You as Americans should know this as tacitly as the acknowledgement that you require air and its oxygen to exist. As intrinsically as knowing, that sustenance is as important to your existence as life itself. For without that sustenance that life is extinguished.

That is all any American must know. We are the society of man’s liberty. That liberty is preserved by restricting and fearing government, preserving that liberty by insuring our freedom from that same government. We must never veer from the simple reality that only by always making sure that before all of those considerations are adhered to, then equality, liberty, and the fear of government will not occur. All men must be kept equal, acknowledge as equal, and treated as equal—not in some illusion of equality—but equal.

This is the summation of an American. This is why this nation, this miracle of something unknown anywhere at any time to mankind—is—and will be, the true miracle of mankind, the highest advancement of homo sapient civilization ever imagined.