Did you ever wonder who writes the tax laws that now make a several thousand page book? It is those who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means of the US House of Representatives who has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of entitlement programs including: Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Medicare, Enforcement of child support laws, Temporary assistance for needy families; and foster care and adoption programs. The counterpart of this committee in the US Senate is the Committee on Finance; but all bills regarding taxation must originate in the House of Representatives.

According to an AP Tax Writer from Associated Press, Mary Dalrymple:

“Three of the four senior lawmakers on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, the panels in charge of writing tax laws, turn to paid professionals to file their annual returns. …More than 60 percent of taxpayers use professionals to have their returns prepared and filed. The number typically increases a little each year.”

So, if those that make and maintain tax laws feel it is so complicated – why are they not pushing to reform the present tax system or rescind the 16^th Amendment? Why are they not working at passing the Fair Tax Act?

The preparation of income tax paperwork that must be performed annually and, for some, quarterly make up a lucrative multi-billion dollar industry. Do you think they are going to be supportive of tax reform or changing the tax system to a consumption tax?

Accountants will always be needed, whatever tax system we use, so what’s the problem?

The government spends (out of tax money collected) more than $75 million per year in order to collect taxes - this is just the paperwork.

Everyone needs to contact their representatives and senators to either enact the proposed legislation for a flat tax with little or no paperwork or, better for everyobe, pass Rep. John Linder’s (R-GA) proposal to do away with income tax and replace it with a flat consumption tax with no paperwork unless you are in retail or services business – and even then the paperwork is greatly reduced.

Make April 17^th just another day. Now is the time while it is fresh in your mind to contact your congressmen and women – demand a fair tax system, especially one that will keep the government out of a very personal item – the money you work for should be yours until you decide to spend it.

Did you ever wonder who writes the tax laws that now make a several thousand page book? It is those who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means of the US House of Representatives who has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of entitlement programs including: Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Medicare, Enforcement of child support laws, Temporary assistance for needy families; and foster care and adoption programs. The counterpart of this committee in the US Senate is the Committee on Finance; but all bills regarding taxation must originate in the House of Representatives.

According to an AP Tax Writer from Associated Press, Mary Dalrymple:

“Three of the four senior lawmakers on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, the panels in charge of writing tax laws, turn to paid professionals to file their annual returns. …More than 60 percent of taxpayers use professionals to have their returns prepared and filed. The number typically increases a little each year.”

So, if those that make and maintain tax laws feel it is so complicated – why are they not pushing to reform the present tax system or rescind the 16^th Amendment? Why are they not working at passing the Fair Tax Act?

The preparation of income tax paperwork that must be performed annually and, for some, quarterly make up a lucrative multi-billion dollar industry. Do you think they are going to be supportive of tax reform or changing the tax system to a consumption tax?

Accountants will always be needed, whatever tax system we use, so what’s the problem?

The government spends (out of tax money collected) more than $75 million per year in order to collect taxes - this is just the paperwork.

Everyone needs to contact their representatives and senators to either enact the proposed legislation for a flat tax with little or no paperwork or, better for everyobe, pass Rep. John Linder’s (R-GA) proposal to do away with income tax and replace it with a flat consumption tax with no paperwork unless you are in retail or services business – and even then the paperwork is greatly reduced.

Make April 17^th just another day. Now is the time while it is fresh in your mind to contact your congressmen and women – demand a fair tax system, especially one that will keep the government out of a very personal item – the money you work for should be yours until you decide to spend it.

The candidates running for Presidential Election 2008 are discussing issues for the primary election – not enough are talking much about the taxation situation that is tied in with the economy and government spending. Since 2005, the Fair Tax Act, a proposed legislation initiated by Rep. John Linder (R-GA) has languished in Congress. While it is true that it is up to Congress to clean up their act when it comes to taxation and over-spending, the President of the United States must also participate in reform and push it the idea with members of Congress. The Executive Branch is in charge of the IRS (Internal Revenue System) which has become a hated government agency because of its power and methods, sometimes being called the American Gestapo.

John Linder and his co-sponsors carefully researched a better national tax system; based on what former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX)[I] had tried to do with his flat-tax proposal and his uncomplicated income tax system proposal. Carrying it further, the Fair Tax Act would rescind the 16th Amendment, the income tax system, and replace it with a consumption tax that would be a fixed percentage across the board. The committee gathered information from leading economists and other experts in order to come up with a reform of the American tax system that would be beneficial to all. Dick Armey spent 18 years in the House of Representatives trying to promote and initiate reformation of the governmental system of the United States. While this bill has been kicked around and basically ignored by this presidential administration, as well as members of Congress, presently there are 67 in the 110^th US Congress who are behind it. This has been a long fight, but the end result will be better for the American people, as well as the government – and will be an added bonus to the welfare of our economy.

The FairTax Book, (pictured at left) was co-authored by Neal Boortz (Libertarian) and John Linder (Conservative-Republican), was published on August 2, 2005, as a method of reaching out to the public in understanding and supporting the movement to de-fang the IRS and get rid of the intrusive, unfair income tax system.

Wikipedia entry explains the proposed tax system:

The FairTax (H.R. 25/S. 1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gain taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes[II] with a national retail sales tax, to be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services.[III] The proposal also calls for a monthly tax rebate to households of citizens and legal resident aliens[IV], to “untax” purchases up to the poverty level. The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total register price (23¢ on top of every #1 – calculated the same way as income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional state sales tax (30¢ on top of every $1). Because the U.S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices, it is expected that moving to the FairTax would decrease production costs from the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the FairTax effect on prices.
With the rebate taken into consideration, the effective tax rate would be progressive on consumption and could result in a tax burden of zero or less for some taxpayers. However, opponents assert that while progressive on consumption, the tax could be regressive on income. Opponents claim it would decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class, while the plan’s supporters argue that it would increase purchasing power,[V]and decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base and effectively taxing wealth.[VI] Many mainstream economists and tax experts believe consumption taxes, such as the FairTax, would have a positive impact on savings and investment (not taxed),[VII] ease of tax compliance, increased economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S.,[VIII] and increased U.S. international competitiveness (border tax adjustment in global trade). However, critics argue that it could be difficult to collect, having challenges with tax evasion, and that it may not yield enough money for the government, resulting in cutbacks in spending, a larger deficit, or a higher sales tax rate.
The FairTax has generated a large grassroots tax reform movement in recent years, led by the non-partisan group Americans For Fair Taxation. Increased support was created after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005 and additional visibility is being gained in the 2008 presidential campaign. While the proposed bill has yet to have a major effect on the tax system, the Fair Tax Act has the highest number of cosponsors among tax reform proposals (attracting 67 in the 110^th United States Congress), gathering much strong support than popular flat tax legislation.[IX] A number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the FairTax; however, it has not been voted on in either Chamber. The plan is expected to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government and supporters believe it would have advantages with taxing illegal activity and illegal immigrants. Because the FairTax plan would remove taxes on income, tax deductions would have no meaning or value and some law makers have concerns about losing this method of social incentive. The legislation calls for an aggressive repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, in order to prevent Congress from introducing new income tax legislation in the future. …
The FairTax legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of a purchase; in other words … American sales taxes have historically been expressed as a percentage of the original sales price (tax-exclusive); items priced $100 pre-tax cost $130 with the tax added. … Proponents argue that the 23% number represents a better comparison to income tax rates, which are presented as inclusive rates (See Presentation of tax rate). Critics also argue that the sales tax rate would need to be higher in order to be revenue neutral (See Revenue neutrality).
The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services. A good would be considered “used” and not taxable if a consumer already owns it before the FairTax takes effect or if the FairTax has already been paid on the good. Exports and the purchase of intermediate business sales would not be taxed, nor would savings, investments, or education tuition expenses as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption). Personal services such as health care, legal services, financial services, haircuts, and auto repairs would be subject to the FairTax, as would renting apartments and other real property. In comparison, the income tax system also taxes such consumption indirectly by taxing the income used for purchase. State sales taxes generally exempt these services in an effort to reduce the tax burden on low-income families. The FairTax would use a monthly rebate system instead of the common state exclusions. The FairTax would apply to Internet purchases and would tax retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States (collected by the U.S. Customs Service). …
The President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be “the largest entitlement program in American history”, and contending that it would “make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government”. Based on the advisory panel’s tax rate (which differs from the FairTax legislation), “the rebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior combined.” Proponents point out that income tax deductions, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation. This is $456 billion more than the FairTax “entitlement” (tax refund) would spend to cover each person’s tax expenses up to the poverty level. In addition, it was estimated for 2005 that the Internal Revenue Service was already sending out $270 billion in refund checks. …
The FairTax’s impact on the distribution of taxation or tax incidence (the effect on the distribution of economic welfare) is a point of dispute. The plan’s supporters argue that it would broaden the tax base, be progressive, decrease tax burdens, and start taxing wealth, while opponents argue that a national sales tax would be inherently regressive and would decrease tax burdens paid by high-income individuals. …
Economist William Gayle analyzed a National Sales Tax (though different from the FairTax in several aspects) and reported that the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the very rich would drop. …
Many mainstream economists and tax experts believe consumption taxes, such as FairTax, would have a positive impact on economic growth, incentives for international business to locate to the U.S., and increased U.S. international competitiveness (border tax adjustment in global trade). The FairTax is expected to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government[X] and supporters believe it would have advantages with taxing illegal activity and illegal immigrants. The FairTax would be tax-free on mortgage interest (up to the basic interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserve) and donations; however, some law makers have concerns about losing social incentives on home ownership and charitable conditions. There is also concern about the impact to the income tax industry and the difficulty with the aggressive repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which would prevent Congress from introducing new income tax legislation in the future.[XI] …
In an open letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people, seventy-five economists, including Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith, stated that the FairTax would boost the United States economy. …GDP would increase almost 10.5% in the year after the FairTax goes into effect.[XII] In addition, the incentive to work would increase by as much as 20%, the economy’s capital stock would increase by 42%, labor supply by 4%, output by 12%, and real wage rate by 8%.[XIII] Further, studies of the FairTax at Boston University and Rice University suggest the FairTax will bring long-term interest rates down by as much as one third.[XIV] As falling tax compliance costs lower production costs, exports would increase by 26% initially and remain more than 13% above present levels. According to Professor Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University’s Economic Department, revenues to Social Security and Medicare would double as the size of the economy doubles within 15 years after passage of the FairTax. Opponents offer a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax would bring a 3-year decline in the economy, a 4-year decline in employment and an 8-year decline in consumer spending. … The United States currently has the highest combined statutory corporate income tax rate among OECD countries. Bill Archer, former head of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked Princeton University Econometrics to survey 500 European and Asian companies regarding the impact on their business decisions if the United States enacted the FairTax. 400 of those companies stated they would build their next plant in the United States, and 100 companies said they would move their corporate headquarters to the United States. In addition, the U.S. is currently the only one of the 30 OECD countries with no border adjustment element in its tax system. Proponents state that because the FairTax is automatically border adjustable, the 17% competitive advantage, on average, of foreign producers would be eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas and at home.
If the FairTax bill were passed, permanent elimination of income taxation would not be guaranteed; the FairTax bill would repeal much of the existing tax code, but the Sixteenth Amendment would remain in place. The elimination of the possibility that income taxation would return (through a separate Congressional bill), requires a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution along with expressly prohibiting an income tax. … Separate income taxes enforced by the State would be unaffected by the federal repeal. …enactment of a constitutional amendment must be approved by two thirds of each house of the Congress, and three-quarters of the individual U.S. states, it is possible that passage of the FairTax would simply add another taxation system. …
The Americans for Fair Taxation plan is to first pass the FairTax and then to focus grassroots efforts on HJR 16, that calls for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. John Linder plans to include a sunset provision in H.R. 25 during the 111^th Congress that would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment within 5 years after the implementation of the FairTax or the FairTax goes away. …
During the transition, many or most of the employees of the IRS (105,978 in 2005) would face loss of employment. The Beacon Hill Institute estimate is that the federal government would be able to cut $8 billion from the IRS budget of $11.01 billion (in 2007), reducing the size of federal tax administration by 73%. In addition, income tax preparers (many seasonal), tax lawyers, CPAs, tax compliance staff in medium-to-large businesses, and software companies which sell tax preparation software .. could face significant drops, changes, or loss of employment. However, IRS testimony from 2004 stated that 45% of revenue agents and officers would become eligible for retirement in the following 5 years and there is concern about the loss of their work force as their hiring efforts struggle to keep pace with attrition. In addition, the IRS would not go completely out of commission until 3 years after the FairTax was enacted, providing employees time to find other employment. Proponents claim the projected 10.5% growth in the economy during the first year of the FairTax would provide plenty of new jobs to these workers … In the period of the FairTax was implemented, there could be a strong incentive for individuals to buy goods without the sales tax using credit. After the FairTax was in effect, the credit could be paid off using untaxed payroll. Opponents of the FairTax worry it could exacerbate an existing consumer debt problem. On the other hand, proponents of the FairTax note that this effect could also allow individuals to pay off their existing (pre-FairTax) debt quicker. …
FairTax supporters state that black market or illegal economic activity is largely untaxed under the current tax system. Economists estimate the underground economy in the United States to be between one and three trillion dollars annually. By imposing a sales tax, black market activity would be significantly taxed when proceeds from such activity are spent on legal consumption. For example, the sale of illegal narcotics would remain untaxed (instead of being guilty of income tax evasion, dealers would be guilty of failing to submit sales tax), but drug dealers would face taxation when they used drug proceeds to buy consumer goods such as food, clothing, and cars. By taxing this previously untaxed money, FairTax supporters state that the black market would be paying part of their share of what would otherwise be uncollected income and payroll taxes. …
The current income tax system fails to collect on a significant percentage of taxes. The IRS estimates twenty additional cents of taxes are owed on unreported income for every tax dollar collected. In 2001, the IRS estimated this shortfall to be over $312 billion. These figures do not include taxes lost on illicit sources of income, such as illegal drug dealing. … The number of tax collection pints would significantly reduce under the FairTax, as only retailers would file a tax return compared to every income earner. The FairTax would reduce the number of tax filers by about 80% (from 145 million to 25 million) and reduce the filing complexity to a simplified sales tax form. Research supports the claim that simplified tax systems lead to greater compliance. The International Monetary Fund found that Russia’s transition to a flat tax increased income reporting from 52% to 68% in one year. Similar results have occurred in Slovenia. … The federal government would be able to concentrate its entire tax enforcement efforts on a single tax – the FairTax. Retailers would receive ¼ of 1& as compensation for compliance costs. In addition, the overwhelming majority of purchases occur in major outlets, which are very unlikely to evade the FairTax and risk losing their business licenses. Economic figures show that 47% of all retail sales are made by just 688 businesses (“Big-Box retailers). 87% of retail sales are made by 193,000 businesses, which is 3.7% of U.S. businesses. …
The FairTax is a national tax, but can be administered by the states rather than a federal agency. This has a bearing on compliance, as the states’ own agencies could monitor and audit businesses within that state.

If the US government had listened to members of Congress in 1933, they would have not chosen the income tax system, but instead the sales tax system. Now, after all these decades, it is going to be more difficult to change the system – both by convincing those in Congress (and if they cannot be convinced, let’s hope that the voters use this against them when the vote in 2008) and working out the details involved. In addition, it is imperative that the 16^th Amendment be rescinded because of the reasons mentioned above.

It is disheartening to hear fellow Americans say things like “it will never happen” – not realizing that their attitude is what is slowing down reformation of our government and improving the lives of all American citizens. Unfortunately, this attitude toward civic affairs has become too frequent, and this is the main reason why we have members of Congress who get reelected election after election, yet do not perform their job as statesmen and stateswomen. Why should they? Some flowery words, some promises and personal character attacks against their political opponents is all that is needed to get votes from the general public – and it is time that the public shows them they are wrong. This coming election and all elections thereafter, let’s make it a point to do our homework, ignore the PR TV ads and the dirty political tactics, or whether or not one candidate is better looking than another, et cetera. Let’s base our votes on the individual – what they voted for in the past (proved actions) and not what they are saying now that they want your vote.

Together, we can make April 15^th just another day, improve our economic lives, and leave a better America for our children and their children.

[I] Former Representative Dick Armey is now involved in an organization called Freedom Works since 2003 that is dedicated to lower taxation, a fair tax system, less government, and more freedom.

[II] Commonly known as the Death Tax, effectively a tax upon items already taxed.

[III] Which means anything used/not new will not be subject to tax, for example if you sold a personally owned item to a buyer or from a garage sale, the tax would not be applicable.

[IV] An important specification in this bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting the refund.

[V] And allow more of one’s paycheck to go to savings accounts and investments, instead of waiting the remainder of the year for a “refund”.

[VI] Meaning, the more one makes in income the more one pays taxes, because the wealthier purchase more and items at high-cost value.

[VII] Imagine having savings accounts and investments where the profit is actually YOURS, without the government sticking their fingers into it.

[VIII] Which increases employment and reduces the unemployment rate.

[IX] Reason being is that the “flat tax” proposal will keep the same intrusive and unfair income tax system, that is theoretically a “direct tax”, and therefore unconstitutional; although the Supreme Court of the United States has failed, along with issues concerning the Second Amendment being ignored by States of the Union (including Wisconsin) in their abstinence of their duties as prescribed by constitutional mandate.

[X] Americans will actually SEE where their tax funding is going and the total cost of government. Personally, the 23% tax rate should be the first year, with a downward plunge each year by 1% until it reaches either 20% or 15%. In addition, the tax rate should not be allowed to increase or no new taxes introduced without a two-thirds majority vote of Congress; thereby making it difficult for government to increase taxes and provide a further incentive to watch their budgeting.

[XI] Why should the American people or the government be concerned with the parasitic business entities that have charged Americans to do their income tax paperwork in a system that is so complex that Americans are forced to pay for income tax preparation service businesses? Accountants will still be needed because of the sales tax program of FairTax, and therefore, will still have their jobs. IRS will be reduced to an insignificant government agency, which many Americans like that idea above all. And mentioning that, the FairTax will eliminate the problem of tax evasion that is present in the income tax system we have now. Except for the statistical requirements of a census, it is not the government’s concern in relation to our incomes and has no right taking it before we have the opportunity to spend it according to our desires and needs.

[XII] Nations that use a system like the FairTax, some of them being poor former satellite nations of the USSR, have improved their economy greatly – one as high as 13.7%.

[XIII] In addition, when you apply for a loan, the business entity will consider what you actually bring home, instead of the gross amount before taxes are taken out.

[XIV] This is good news because of the recent panic over lack of new home sales and new mortgages.

A party platform, according to Wikipedia is:

…also known as a manifesto, is a list of principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party’s candidates voted into office. This often takes from the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.

The Communist Manifesto (1848) written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is probably the most famous of what could be termed a political party platform. Communism evolved from the concepts of socialism in its purest form. Communism is broken down further into: Marxism Leninism, Trotskyism, council communism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, et cetera.

… However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the “Stalinist”, and supporters call Marxist-Leninist) and Maoist interpretations of Marxism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20^th century.

The views of Karl Marx are interesting and have created discussion in the course of studying political science in the world of colleges and universities; however it isn't include in the curriculum of universities and colleges to be a goal to change the American way of government - just a study in the combined instruction of political science.

Karl Marx was not the first to come up with such a discussion and a contributor to modern communist thought:

Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of 16^th century English writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason. … In 17^th century England, the Diggers, a Puritan religious group known as advocated the abolition of private ownership of land. … Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, through such thinkers as Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. … In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19^th century Europe. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat – a new class of poor, urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. [See also History of British Socialism]
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. … According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as actions with content. (McLean and McMillan, 2003) They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. … Marx himself wrote about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. …
In the late 19^th century the terms “socialism” and “communism” were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a “first phase” in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. …
Marxist-Leninism is a version of socialism, with some important modifications, adopted by the Soviet Union under Stalin. It shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties worldwide. … However, under Stalin’s leadership, some claimed that evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism within the framework of the Soviet model. Later, growth declined, and rent-seeking and corruption by state officials increased, which showed true to Marxism, that contradictions exist everywhere.

Socialism and communism are both economic systems that require that goods be owned in the greater community rather than individually private. In American political use of socialism it is in the form of what has been termed “income distribution” – where:
 

Income inequality metrics or income distribution metrics are techniques used by economists to measure the distribution of income among the participants in a particular economy. … Income distribution has always been a central concern of economic theory and economic policy.

The Great Depression brought the ideas of socialism into the American mainstream and was presented in such a way the American public didn’t quite realize it. It was then that the labor unions began its climb and fight to gain control over labor activities of America, with the Democrat Party being the perpetuator of labor/trade unions with the underlying control by organized crime leadership. The purpose that was defined for the formation of such unions in America was

“a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the conditions of their employment”[I]

However, at about the time of the socialist movement in Europe and the public awareness of the ideology of Karl Marx, unionism that was created in America in the 1930s was an offshoot of the 19^th century unionism. It was time when the Industrial Age had come into full swing and the plight of the worker was grievous and ripe for labor union activity. The concept, of course, in its beginning was to end child labor practices, improve the safety environment of workers and to provide a better wage atmosphere that met the cost of living index (standard of living) with relationship to reduced work hours within a week and other benefits for the working class. Of course because of organized crime elements being involved in its imitation or founding of trade/labor unions in the United States, unions have developed a bad name. If one follows the media’s coverage of union corruption this view has been substantiated. It is quite a shame that this is so prevalent, because the concept of the principles of labor unions, as well as even some aspects of socialism would appear to be a benevolent ideology rather than what it has become – a parasitic tool for those elite who are in charge.

Some business entities, such as Wal-Mart has remained union free – only because it views its employees as associates who are part of the scheme rather than an aristocratic hierarchy with just CEOs and the upper management receiving the benefits of good business and profits. This occurs in the form of profit sharing. The down side of this is that the profit sharing is naturally higher as one climbs the corporate ladder, so the profit margin is squeezed by taking away other opportunities from the common associate, such as increasing the number of part-time employees versus full-time in order to prevent providing benefits.

The major concern with trade/labor unions is their political power or lobbying strength with elected public officials at all levels of government. This makes them no better than the business counterpart of the so-called business aristocracy that created the need for unions in the first place, and in which the Left continues to insist that corporations are evil, despite not balking at taking donations from aforesaid entities. Labor/Trade unions in America have a long history of violence; as well as coercion and intimidation as a means of making employees join their fold or view their policies in the same light as the union boss. While those practices have lessened as we began the 21^st century there is still negative issues to address. The involvement of government in all these phases of the private sector have been encouraged by those who believe that some form of socialism combined with trade/labor unions will improve the fundamental concepts that formed America in the first place. It is true that legislation and newly formed agencies of the government that oversee business practices, food manufacturing and other factors beneficial to the American citizen as a whole have been beneficial to the standards of living in the United States. Unfortunately there are those who cannot envision a line drawn as to how far to go with this vein of ideology, and that pure socialism is not economically viable as well as that union leadership has elements of corruption that transcends the need for which it was established.

Thus, since the days of FDR, we can see the decline of the Democratic political party evolve from the advocacy of the rights of the blue collar worker, with the underlying manifesto of the socialist and communist movement incorporated into their political platform, with the Republican Party coming in at a distant second to this phenomenon. The Clintons, along with their elite counterparts have stained the ideology of liberalism to the point of ludicracy; thus the reason for their new description of themselves – “Progressives”. The word Progressivism can be used in several ways, however, it applies to their continued movement toward the collective and the eventual destruction of individual rights and freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is good, but those who advocate it must realize it also entails that the folks who make those choices are obligated to accept the responsibility of its benefits and drawbacks.

Despite being shown how detrimental “political correctness” is and the concept of the Left’s idea of diversity, that is purely multi-culturalism at its worst; one soon can realize that they are promoting a society under government that believes it is okay to take from the rich to give to the poor[II], despite that Americans are more generous than other citizens of other nations when it comes to charity[III]; the advent of private property being given up for the good of the collective; and other ideologies that are counter to the idea of a democratic republic envisioned by the founders of the United States.

So then we come to the examination of the change in American society, part of the process occurring slowly over the past fifty years and others over a briefer period involving the newest adult generation. Americans have become, in general, apathetic, self-serving, and more concerned with material rather than things that are most important in life. Some of this has been caused by us, “We the People”, while the gist of it has been caused by letting the minority to dictate how we should run our lives and become the instruments of leadership of our country through the voting process.

We live in a fearful time with an atmosphere of seemingly that the world is against Americans no matter what we do – and that concept or perception has a great element of truth in it. But like the primary blame of bad leadership falls on the voters, so to can we blame ourselves (as well as our leadership) for the perception of foreign peoples in their view of us as a people. True, much can be focused upon the fact that the foreign media that is run by leftist counterproductive elements in feeding lies and innuendoes that those people tend to believe, but our own actions have caused this as well. Sometimes our ego that makes us American has been construed as a pompous, spoiled people. Sometimes we look at other cultures with disdain instead of intellectual interest and attempting to understand instead of dispels it. That does not mean we must adopt other cultural attitudes or practices, but at least attempt to be aware of, understand and respect it for what it is. Much of that cultural is historical tradition, just as we have ours.[IV]

J.R. Dieckmann writes in Stop Saying We Can’t[V]:

  I’m tired of hearing “we can’t.” We can’t secure the borders. We can’t deport 12-1/2 million illegal aliens. We can’t find them. We can’t deny them free health care and social services. We can’t count them, If we could, we would find more like 20 million.
We can’t offend Islam. For that matter, we can’t offend anyone. We can’t keep holding war prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. We can’t win the war in Iraq. We can’t attack Iran. We can’t stop Iranians from killing our troops in Iraq. We can’t find Osama bin Laden.
We can’t spy on Islamic radicals living in our country. We can’t pass any meaningful legislation without compromise and dilution of everything in it. We can’t keep national security secrets from Congress, and consequently not from the media, either. We can’t pardon Scooter Libby but then again, we can’t jail Sandy Berger for stealing and destroying classified government documents either.
When will our government tell us something we can do? With this, “we can’t” attitude that we hear continually from Washington and the media, is there anything we can do except collect taxes to pay for all the things we can’t do?

Here a few things we can do that our government might want to consider:

We can build a fence and secure our southern border. We can deny illegal aliens free government services, jobs, and other incentives to break into our country. We can make English the official national language and stop pandering to Spanish language speakers.
We can change the laws to make illegal entry and residency in the US a felony punishable by immediate deportation, with no trial and no jail time at taxpayers’ expense. Individuals in our country illegally can be given a brief hearing in front of a U.S. magistrate to present any evidence of legal status they may have. Failing to do that, they can be transferred to a holding area for the next shipment to the country of their origin. Ninety-nine percent of the time, these days, that country would be Mexico.
On second thought, we should send them all back anyway, and let Mexico deal with the problem.[VI] It would help to discourage the Mexican government from participating in the illegal invasion of America. Once we make illegal entry a felony, local law enforcement would then be compelled to arrest these trespassers instead of granting them sanctuary. It would also make illegals feel less comfortable and secure in the U.S.[VII] Such a strong, forceful policy would then discourage others from breaking in, and compel those already here to leave, never to be granted entry again.[VIII]
We can find illegals. They are easy to find. All we have to do is talk to them. Stiffer immigration laws would require legal immigrants to learn English and to assimilate into American culture. If they can’t respond to questioning in English, then the chances of their being here illegally are pretty good. We don’t need more legislation from Congress to address this problem. We need only to strengthen and enforce existing laws.

We can win in Iraq and in the War on Terror.
All we need is to address the root of the problem honestly[IX]. The problem is Iran. Iranian leadership has threatened to wipe Israel and America off the map. Iran has been training terrorists and has been complicit in fighting and killing American soldiers in Iraq. Iran is behind the violence from Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is at the head of promoting a worldwide Islamic state and imposing Shar-ia law on the rest of the world.
In essence, Iran has already declared war on the U.S.[X] and the Western world. What can we do is justifiably and officially to declare war on Iran and cut the head off the snake. Then we should proceed to wipe the current Iranian leadership and theocracy off the face of the map, along with their nuclear and weapons installations. Their proxy groups would collapse quickly without the funding that they are now receiving from the mullahs.
The only problem is that our Congressional wimps are afraid to fight war with war, and a war declaration would be difficult to get from this Democrat-controlled Congress. These current Democrats would rather see Islamofascists overrun the world than to approve of war as a means of defending our nation and culture. It’s not that we “can’t” do it; it’s that we “won’t” do it.
The other real problem we seem to be having is identifying the “good” Muslims from the “bad’ Muslims. The trouble with Islam is not that it’s an evil religion. The real problem stems from the integration of civil laws within religious laws. Every religion has its religious laws, which – if violated – are punishable by God alone. Islam includes Shar-ia law punishments devised by men according to their harsh interpretation of the Koran[XI]. That is the problem.
Shar-ia law is not compatible with Western law. … It is therefore not possible for a Muslim to adhere both to Western law and to Shar-ia law. This is now becoming evident in Great Britain where Islamists are insisting on imposing Shar-ia law on Britain. An alarming number of radical British Muslim clerics have clearly stated this as their goal.
Islam must change and it’s going to be up to us to force that change or live with the consequences of radical Islam. Muslims must wake up and realize that Shar-ia law is obsolete in today’s modern world. Most American Muslims already made this change long ago but not so in Britain where their Islamist problem is similar to our Mexican problem.
Upon migrating to Britain, Muslims insist on bringing their Islamic culture with them, instead of assimilating into British culture. … Muslims must keep their religion to themselves instead of pushing it on us by insisting upon special accommodations for them.

So what’s the answer?
In both cases the answer is the same; deport the undesirables to the country of their ancestral origin if they refuse to assimilate or abide by our laws. … There is nothing wrong with worshiping Allah if that is what they believe[XII], but there must be only one set of laws that applies to everyone in any country.
It is Shar-ia law – not the Islamic faith – that is causing the unrest between Islam and the West. Written in the 7^th century, the Koran forbids ever changing anything contained within it. That presents a real problem for the 21^st century. It’s going to be up to the Islamic leaders to override these ancient dictates, but so far I don’t see anyone doing that. If they refuse to revise Islam, the only possible path and it’s not confined to individual bombers. Many Western Muslims already realize that.
The truth is that our great country can do anything to which it commits. If we can put a man on the moon and stare down the Soviet Union, we can certainly deal with the problems that are destroying our culture, security, and our country today.
All it takes is the will to solve these problems. Willpower is seriously lacking in our government today.[XIII] We need to look for and elect candidates who are willing to address these problems with real solutions, not just lip service while secretly pandering to the very people and ideals that are destroying our country.[XIV]
The candidate who simply professes partisan rhetoric on minor issues is not the kind of person we want running our country.[XV] We see all too much of this in the current field of candidates, especially on the Left. Who has the courage to address the big issues? Let’s hope that we will find a strong, courageous leader. We need exactly that kind of president to keep America safe and free. We need a “can do” president[XVI] … now. God Bless America.

Two terms of a Democrat president, President Clinton, did not establish peace in the Middle East using the ideology that continued diplomacy was the answer instead of ultimatums when it came to rogue nations and Islamic fascist organized leadership. Frequently you will hear from the Left that America and/or Western civilization created the element of Islamic fascism and continues to fuel the fire; and the only element of truth in that naïve statement is that the attitude of terrorists being criminals (and indeed they are basically) instead of an organized world enemy whose fundamentalism is based on Islamic fascism, thus dealing with them as such. Diplomacy, sanctions, and the wish they would just fade away hasn’t worked. Now, and since the evidence of the 9/11 tragedy, anyone see that the Islamic fascist will just continue to inflame the world with anarchy and chaos as the result of their efforts.

It would be so very nice if we would just “all get along” – but there are those who refuse. How many times has Israel give into Palestinians in an effort to provide them an opportunity to become a sovereign nation of their own” Indeed, Israel has done more to establish some basis of stability than the surrounding Arab nations – all of who denied the Palestinians sanctuary back when Arafat was first established as an Islamic fascist leader.

And in regards to the rhetoric that America’s policies and actions have created Islamic fascism and continues its inflammation, David Limbaugh writes in his article Muddle-headed Politicians and the Terrorist Threat:

Have you seen the latest reports and photographs of Al Qaeda’s brutality and savagery in Iraq? In view of these, how can any reasonable person still maintain our own policies and actions are making them do it? How can so many be blind or indifferent to the ruthlessness, tenacity and implacability of our jihadist enemy? How can they so easily downplay or ignore this global threat as if its existence is purely a product of our perception, which we can wish away with positive thinking, legislate away or make disappear by withdrawing from Iraq? Ending our involvement in Iraq will not end the Iraq war as Democrats glibly imply, or our involvement in the global war. But it will surely increase the violence and death in Iraq and the likelihood of victory for out terrorist enemies. …

Walter E. Williams writes about another issue concerning the danger of our complacent attitude toward the Mexican Invasion in his article, Illegal Immigration:

… Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? … If a “yes” answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country? Why not abolish the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services?
… If people commit criminal acts, should there be an effort to apprehend and punish them? In general, my answer is yes, with one important exception. … The United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. The resulting ethnic mosaic goes a long way toward explaining our greatness as a nation. Immigration has always been a blessing for us, and it still is. But yesteryear’s immigration and today’s differ in several important respects. … Hispanic activists seek to impose their language and culture on the rest of us. At some public schools, they’ve raised the Mexico flag atop the U.S. flag. They’ve announced that they seek to take back parts of the U.S. that were formerly Mexico.

To illustrate the attitude of the media, Michelle Malkin writes in her article, When Peaceniks Attack, Journalists Snooze:

A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and “wanted to make a statement” on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.
The shooting got not mention in The New York Times – not even a squib in a back section (though the paper did see fit to put the shooting of 7-year-old girl in Trenton on the front page). Local media outlets have gathered a few news tidbits about the shooter, Matthew Marren, who killed himself after attacking Schrieken outside his Willingboro home. … Schrieken did not know Marren. PhillyBurbs.com reported that a relative said Marren was “angry at the government and wanted to make a statement” on Independence Day. Authorities found two suicide notes … A random act of insanity? Not so fast. There’s more to the story. A reader whose son is the best friend of Senior Airman Schrieken wrote to Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs (littlegreenfootballs.com) blog with background details:
“My son’s best friend, Jon, who’s in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base, was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22-year-old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said ‘not any more’ and shot him point-blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself.
“Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier. We are very worried about our Airman … he’s like a son to me. He’s been to Iraq and Afghanistan on our behalf and then gets shot in his own driveway here in the U.S. by an anti-war, anti-American lunatic. This is gut wrenching.”
Now imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to “make a statement?” The Times would be holding front-page vigil, and Katie Couric’s brow would be furrowed for a week. …
Funny how the Root Causes crowd becomes so incurious about the root causes of crime when the suspects are anti-military nutballs and anti-war protesters. To the extent leftists pay any attention at all this attempted murder, you can expect it to be downplayed as an isolated incident. Never mind the pro-fragging comments made by troop-bashing academic fraudsters like Ward Churchill; the iconic banners that proclaim “We support our troops when they shoot their own officers” and “Don’t impeach Bush … execute him”; the countless acts of vandalism against military recruitment offices nationwide since 9/11; and the burning of soldiers in effigy by hate-filled peaceniks.[XVII] … Harmless rantings? No. Ideas, like the bullet in Jon Schrieken’s chest, have consequences.

[I] Wikipedia – “Trade Union”.

[II] Income distribution policy.

[III] This may be because of the average wealth in America is more than certain other nations, not that Americans are apt to be more charitable as far as a personal trait.

[IV] And why we must protect it. We may admire another culture, but we must not change ours because of it. Culture is also history and traditions are what help continue unification of our people. It doesn’t matter whether a person is a naturalized citizen (immigrant) or whether we are a descendant from an immigrant or Native American – we are a united people under one flag and with the same desire for freedom and liberty.

[V] Note: The “Rosy the Riveter” poster reproduced here was used in WWII as part of the campaign in the war efforts of the civilian populace, particularly where women would take traditional employment in replacement of men who were sent to the war front. Glenn Beck, radio talk-show personality in Atlanta, Georgia, used “Rosy” as an icon to reestablish pride in America and a symbol of the inner strength and fortitude that Americans experienced during the world-crisis period of history. It showed that Americans had a “Can Do” philosophy and a concerted effort in the fight against tyranny and oppression around the world, as well as united support in the form of factory workers, volunteers for the Red Cross, rationing so as to provide the troops what they needed, and the simple idea of a Victory Garden. Icons in the form of posters, like Rosy and Uncle Sam, defined a motivated and patriotic generation that may not ever occur again unless we reform our values and principles in America.

[VI] Like the Mexican government has forced us to deal with their problems and their insistence in brainwashing the Mexican people that part of America belongs to Mexico rightfully.

[VII] Maybe when citizens turn in illegal aliens or those suspected of it, the law enforcement won’t state that it isn’t their job and ignore your report.

[VIII] It is important that the illegal immigrants sent back are never allowed to be in the list of those waiting for immigration status legally – those that are legally trying to become part of America deserve the first chance and those lawbreakers deserve no chance. Sound cold? Time and again scenarios and warnings have been described based upon facts and actual statistics, but there are still those who think that Mexicans can break the law and not wait in line with everyone else because they are “trying to make a better life” and “they take jobs that Americans don’t want.” Hogwash.

[IX] The reason for the Iraq War was invasion: After ceasefire in 1991, UN sanctions, and the continued brutal policies of Saddam Hussein with a record of genocide in the 1980s – he was a rogue national leader that had to go – WMDs or not , he was no worse than Adolf Hitler and a cancer like Iran/Palestine (Khomeini/Arafat) in terms of promoting peace in the Middle East.

[X] And in terms of foreign policy and diplomacy, so has Mexico.

[XI] Qu’ran.

[XII] “Allah” – “God” is supreme over all – not just a select few, and laws of men should be attune with the basic principles/laws set forth in the Ten Commandments (thus the reason why the reproduction of Moses’ tablets inside/outside buildings of justice as a tradition in the United States; even the “Golden Rule” established by Buddha applies: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, et cetera. In the Supreme Court of Justice we also find the principles of Code of Hammurabi, also an ancient code and part of civilized history, as well as the Magna Carter – traditions and principles of our nation at its founding.

[XIII] And emanating out to the people who stand by the spineless and politically-minded (vs. statesmanship) elected officials.

[XIV] No more secret meeting concerning legislation that is public or will be public law. The people can and must be able to view the progress of the voting progress in Congress on CSPAN.

[XV] Whether that person is sitting in the Oval Office or in an office of the Congress. Voters need to be looking at the individual seeking election or re-election and not his/her political party affiliation.

[XVI] And members of Congress.

[XVII] Sound familiar Vietnam-era Americans?

Ken Connor writes …

Abraham Lincoln once famously observed, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.”
The truth of Lincoln’s observation is, no doubt, at the core of the apprehensions that New Yorkers have expressed about the Khalil Gibran International Academy scheduled to open next month in Brooklyn. Adding to their apprehensions is the fact that KGIA is just three blocks from a mosque which has a history of employing radical imams and which was frequented by one of the terrorists implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It takes a lot to rankle Gotham City dwellers, but, given their experience with radical Islam, one can sympathize with their angst. Mind you, KGIA is a public school and will be funded with public tax dollars, some which will come from families of the victims of 9/11. World Net Daily reports that the school’s curriculum “will integrate intensive Arabic language instruction and the study of Middle Eastern history and historical figures,” including the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. WND also explains that field trips will include destinations in the Middle East and that “teacher materials will be adapted from publications supplied by the Council on Islamic Education.” New York City school officials have tried to assure the public that the school will be “non-religious” and will not promote a political or religious ideology, but skepticism abounds. …
Our current climate of political correctness in this country has produced a dizzying double standard as it relates to Christianity and its competing world views – including Islam. Can you imagine the response of New York City educrats to school organizers who would have the temerity to advocate public funding of a school that would focus on the life and teachings of Jesus, promote the virtues of Western Civilization, and offer field trips to the holy city of Jerusalem (complete with side trips to Bethlehem and the Sea of Galilee)? Why, those “constitutional Neanderthals” would be thrown out on their ear! Their proposal wouldn’t even pass the laugh test at the NYC DOE. Before you could say “ACLU,” there would be a federal lawsuit to enjoin public funding of the proposed “inherently religious” enterprise. Not so, however, with Kahlil Gibran International Academy. In post-modern New York City, all religions may be equal, but some are more equal than others.
Second, it is duplicitous to suggest that one can separate Arabic culture from the religion of Islam. That’s like trying to square a circle. It can’t be done. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state.[i] Islamic fundamentalists do not draw a distinction between religion, culture and politics. The three are united under Sharia law. These religious zealots see the state as a primary vehicle for advancing Islam.[ii] Indeed the coercive power of the state is essential to spreading the teachings of the Koran. The words, “religious liberty,” are not in the lexicon of these fundamentalists. “Convert or die!” is their mantra. Will citizens of the Empire State be funding the education of the next generation of suicide bombers who are committed to the expansion of a worldwide Islamic state? Inquiring minds in the Big Apple want to know.
One would hope that these concerns would be self-evident[iii] to school officials charged with the responsibility of educating New York City’s schoolchildren, but apparently they are not. Sadly, those who dare to voice their concerns are branded “intolerant bigots” by the NYC educational elites.[iv] For the elites, to be deemed “intolerant” or “bigoted” is a fate worse than death in the Age of Tolerance and Moral Relativism.
The fact that the school officials do not credit even facial legitimacy to the concerns being raised by ordinary citizens speaks volumes about the critical thinking skills of New York’s educational establishment, many of who are products of New York City schools. One can only conclude, therefore, that the NYC public school system is, in fact, in dire need of radical reform – just not the kind that radical Islamists have in mind.

This sort of action is happening in the state of California as well. Today, colleges and universities require two years of foreign language – and too many public schools require that Spanish be taken – no more choice. Will the Arabic language requirement be added to the required school curriculum as well in the near future? Now that a Moslem is in the US Congress and has been supporting anti-American/pro-Islamic fascist organizations – is this the beginning of the introduction of Sharia law into the government of the United States of America.

These are trying times with a world war at hand that is not understandable and it doesn’t help when the media and our educational system ignores the truth of dangers that lie ahead – but we don’t have to take it any longer. We don’t have to play patty cake with political correctness – because they are the MINORITY who is trying to run everyone’s lives according to their ideology – not the freedom of choice that was meant to be.

I think that all Americans should open their windows right now and scream – “I am not taking it any longer!” – and relay those feelings to the state and federal government officials that are supposed to be representing ALL the people of America on an equal basis, as well as protecting and keeping the laws of our US Constitution. State governments should not be allowed to countermand the Constitution of the United States, whether it be the Second Amendment or the First Amendment – and it is high time for the Supreme Court of our land to acknowledge that this is occurring and put a stop to it. The NEA, at least in New York, apparently has either fallen asleep or been overrun by the enemy of what America stands for. And we, the American silent majority, need to let them know we are not standing for it any longer and they must be laughed and/or booed off the stage. Tolerance like many things must have a line drawn and somewhere along the line the Democratic Party and its coercive labor unions, like what controls the teachers of our national educational system and what our students are taught in our schools. Start being a responsible voter and let those who are running for office that we are not going to accept anything less than statesmen and stateswomen who are earnestly out to perform well in our local, state and federal government – For the People and By the People. No one should care whether the candidate is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian Independent or whatever. What should count is what they have voted for in the past (their actions) and ensure that it matches with what their words are during their campaign to get your vote. And maybe, just maybe, one day we won’t have to pick the “best of the worst” and instead have difficulty in choosing because of the quality of candidates available. The power belongs to the people and knowledge is power – do your homework and never take for granted what truth is, even when it is printed here. As Inspector Clouseau stated – “Suspect everyone”. And even if you voted for a candidate, once they are in office keep your eye on them. It is not just the government they are running but the present and future of our nation’s survival and success.

And isn't it strange that the very folks who are always worried about "offending" and being tolerant or cry bigotry are those that are encouraging enemies of America and indeed the very group of people who show little in terms of "tolerance" and anti-bigotry are those that organizations within our nation are catering to?
Consider what John Shadegg, US Congressman, wrote about our educational system:


I personally believe there is no place in the federal government for a Department of Education. It is not in the Constitution. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government has any role in education. I believe that the federal government doesn’t have a role in education. I have several members of my family, including my wife, who are teachers, who are not at all happy with the so called No Child Left Behind bill, which I think has gone far astray from what it was even intended to do. And I would like to hope that at some point we could get the federal government out of the business of education altogether, and acknowledge that this is policy that should be decided at the state level.
______________

i] This is the problem with the new government of Iraq and now, with the advent of a religious-minded political entity in power, Turkey will be seeing the same problems soon – after the founder, Atatürk, worked so hard to separate religion from the government and gear the Turkish government and society into a nation that would become truly the gateway between the East and the West.

[ii] And, New York City, primarily a “blue” political zone is seemingly surrendering to the very ideological mentality that killed thousands on September 11th, 2001 – the day of modern “infamy” as the word used by their demagogue Franklin D. Roosevelt called the day of the attack by the Imperialist Japanese upon Pearl Harbor and the outlying military installations on the island of Hawaii on December 7th, 1941.

[iii] As in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

[iv] As well as moronic organizations like the ACLU.