Where we are going

Nowhere, apparently. So, in Flock you can't hit a stray button near return or the blog will publish. I wonder which. It is symbolic that nothing was published under the title of "Where we are going." The following is long, so take a day or two. Also, I have not read emails, so if you have been yelling at me, I apologize.

Anyway, I heard a Mr. Solomon Ortiz, NY Representative, proposed a bill that every person who goes in an adult club, good luck identifying that, would be taxed $10. The tax money would go to help people taken advantage of, abused, etc. No definition. The report didn't really identify who they are and how they are helped, but I bet a new department would work just great administering the program.

This annoyed me as it is an absurd intrusion, as well as taxation, whose only point is subjugation and taxation. Just pick something voters won't like and tax it; the people won't object to OTHERS being taxed without any reason or justification. How can someone object to such a program without being called in favor of slavery or abuse? The problem is one day, you are in the group being taxed and everyone else is fine with it. Welcome to socialism, no tyranny.

Cigarette smokers, SUVs, "big" business, utilities, coal producers, tobacco growers, bullet owners, fat people, white people....

The normal argument of anyone on the right side of thinking is:

What are you talking about? If you tax anything, the tax is put onto the price and we all pay! Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them along.

This is common fare on talk radio. The problem, here, is the right wastes its time trying to explain this, as the left knows it and doesn't care. In this way, you can say to the dull middle, "Read my lips, no new taxes on 95%" and other such fantasies. The true believers think they are correcting reality and the leaders rake in the cash, along with some trial lawyers.

It will be easier for lawyers in the future as there is no longer a concern with enabling authority. Just get the TV to hype some nut theory, then tax those whoever.... Didn't we outlaw alcohol once because of political correctness? Now, doctors advise having wine or beer every day. Don't outlaw it, just tax it.

Me, I am thinking we tax movie goers $10 each time they go in order to help the poor victims of public schools.

I looked into Ortiz and the first thing I found is his new proposal: everyone under 21 in the US MUST sign an agreement not to drink (first, this pushes aside the state's right of control) and if they do get caught having alcohol, like every child in Europe, their school record will be noted with the infraction (the federal government ordering local schools around) and the criminal will lose federal money (which belonged to them under the old theory of AmeriKa). Does this remind you of the guy in England who was denied a simple operation because he smoked? He wanted to get off welfare.

So, more on fascism born of ignorance:

Rascism is OK, if you are not "white:" I had to use quotes as the left defines Hispanics as non-white even though it is absurd and annoys Hispanics. I worked on the last census (which was recently transferred directly to the White House for control - think about it) and no Hispanics I came across accepted the notion that they were not supposed to be "white."

• Vote: lowering student loan interest rates; $59 million for a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program; $25 million for a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year- round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule.
  
• It would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-income black students, and a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program.
• Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

I never bought into the hand-wringing acceptance of reverse discrimination, but even those who do have to have an "exit plan." The Supreme Court even gets it. Come on, Rosa Parks got on the bus 54 years ago. The Civil Rights Acts was passed in 1964, thanks to Republicans voting to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Since that time, the Vietnamese and Korean diaspora has come and been absorbed, their children doing amazingly well. What is this "preferential treatment" supposed to be for? Permanent inability to compete? Of course that is stupid and to say otherwise seems alright if you are black?

If you think it through, advocates of these plans are the racists. They assume the group they feed off of is a permanently disabled hulk. A "black leader," whatever that is, needs to corral together some constituency. Most "blacks" whatever that means, are main-stream and middle class, but they don't make waves. Whites are terrified to say anything. Mrs. Obama is right that one can use white guilt. [One more time, there is no such thing as a race of homo sapiens. To say there is makes you a racist because that is how you see things.]

Just read the Bakke case if you want to understand reverse discrimination. A brief is here though it is not really subtle as to distinctions made. I think we have lost the ability to make distinctions. To prove my point, the Wiki on Bakke is a comic book sentence or two, then the added comment was the decision was "gayye." Why even bother talking to imbeciles. No, I am not being dramatic.

Under the old Amerika, the states were responsible for those powers not specifically granted to the central government. No so, today:

• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $22.8 billion in education funding, a 29 percent increase from fiscal 2001. The bill would require states to test students to track progress

The above provision is a watershed. Either you get it or you don't. Washington is in charge of you school's education. I used to be upset that the ex-Long Islanders in Montpelier had stolen away control of local Vermont schools, now that is subsumed. Next, the UN will tell us what to think. Oh, I guess they do. Once the snow melts, you will be killed by global warming.

The old trick, as I read in college in the 60's, is to take people's money, then give it back with controls placed on it. This is how the central government takes over. It is a pusher and the dumbed-down citizen stands off to the side with their soup bowls raised. Recall how the 55 MPH speed limit was put in place. When Montana refused to adopt it, the state was threatened with being cut off from all highway funds. As I recall, they didn't care. The last cowboys.

Teacher's unions don't need to be threatened for incompetence:

• Voted NO - to create a non-profit corporation to administer federally-funded vouchers for low-income children in the District of Columbia. (The Congress runs D.C. - enough said.)
  
• Voted NO - to pass a bill to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools.

• Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.

The left needs a dumbed-down populace who accept all manner of propaganda, who accept mommy government is the source of all. The public schools serve this purpose and are especially effective as the system overwhelms parents and churches without either knowing what is going on. It does so with a pretend objectivity. Parents trust their schools. At least some do.

Watch for heightened action against homeschooling and parochial schools. (Private schools is where the elite send children, so they will be fostered.) This is all so predictable. Oh, in Canada, the great model for the left, parochial schools receive funding from the government - won't hear that on TV.

The 2000 Census indicated:

Table 1 shows the number of home schooled children age 6 to 17 estimated from these data sources. Taken at face value, they show a growth from 360,000 in 1994 to 790,000 in 1999. Unfortunately, the point estimates from these data cannot be used directly to make such inferences. {The responses were not attractive, so there is an explanation as to why the questions were wrong.}

The 2003 Census (huh?) has the number near 1,000,000 of which 49% home school: Can give child better education at home.

In 2008 the Dept. of Ed says it is 1.1 million or 2.2% Oh wait, the National Household Education Surveys put the number a 1.5 million in 2007. Do you think the Census people could have made a "mistake?" The bottom line is since the mid-1990's homeschooling has increased 500%.

Home schooling is illegal in: Eastern Europe, China, and Iran. Think about it. Below, you will see educated people home school. They are the danger.

	Did not finish high school	High school graduate only	Some college, no degree	Associate degree	Bachelors degree	Masters degree	Doctorate
Home school fathers	1.2%	9.3%	16.4%	6.9%	37.6%	19.8%	8.8%
Males nationally	18.1	32.0	19.5	6.4	15.6	5.4	3.1
Home school mothers	0.5	11.3	21.8	9.7	47.2	8.8	0.7
Females nationally	17.2	34.2	20.2	7.7	14.8	4.5	1.3

The redundancy theory of social engineering: Voted For

• Summary: States that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. (How many of these do we already have? Where is it legal?)

So, you might think, Mr. Ortiz is a subversive from Bulgaria, but he is not. Our problem is we have lost, as a nation, our ability to understand the Constitution. We just make up laws, like telling us what kind of light bulb to use. I keep referring to it as "ends analysis." If we don't know our traditions, then our choices are the same as those of others, which include fascism, socialism, Marxism, tyranny, oligarchy. See anything you like, there?

From watching Mr. Obama, I still think he is a Manchurian Candidate, but he is merely letting others run with the vague notions he has been indoctrinated with during his entire life. Of course, pie-in-the-sky ideas will fail, but, in the meantime, the watering hole can be permanently fouled.

Here are critics of Mr. Ortiz.

• Rated 25% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights.

• Rated 72% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action.

So, he is "mixed" on affirmative action, which is doublespeak for discrimination against whites, yet he is fine with funding black or Hispanic only education. Seems to me that was found to be unconstitutional - in old Amerika. He will fund black schools, what more do they want?

Imagine if a Congressman submitted a bill to fund predominantly white institutions. The problem is, and this gets to the notion of what do we do know, once the dull understand they can vote themselves money (because those in power have made sure that the nation is dumb), then they will continue to vote for people who will give them what they want in exchange for freedom.

This is the end of substantive due process, the only thing holding our nation apart from the pain of history, so, as I see it, the social contract is broken. It is time now to think in terms of avoiding jail as you pull back and avoid all taxes and fees that one can. Avoid the dollar. Otherwise, you are feeding the enemy, Maybe we can join Tom in Ecuador.

If you want to participate in the downward spiral, then vote no on everyone. Party is irrelevant, just vote against every incumbent. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. There is no parsing insanity; you can't argue with a howling loon. Perhaps, you can slow things down, but the mob is afoot and no one can stand against a mob.

Only another mob will overcome a mob, as long as the first one doesn't actively impede any new mobs, like getting control of the last source of resistance discussion.