Friday, March 7, 2008

Overwhelmed

There is so much bad news right now and so many things I would like to comment about that I have become overwhelmed. Here is a sampling of some of it with a few comments.

California Court effectively bans homeschooling in the state
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue

Whatttttt?!!!! This ruling obliterates the rights of parents and means that children are now to be regarded as state chattel and under threat of force will be programmed according to standards set by our omnipotent masters in the state education unions. Recall my post http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-real-meaning-of-public-education.html regarding Chavez state takeover of education in Venezuela and my claim that his actions were identical in principle to those who advocate for state education in the United States. Speaking of Chavez:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/venezuela.colombia
Socialist dictator Chavez threatening war against Colombia

What causes wars? A few quotes from Ayn Rand from her brilliant essay "The Roots of War" linked here: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html :

Remember that private citizens—whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers—have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions—or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?

Statism—in fact and in principle—is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country's economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.


Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=523787&in_page_id=1811
Blair front runner to be President of Europe

There is going to be a President of Europe? What?...Speaking of global government, what are our friends at the UN up to these days?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282269.stm

The White House has led international condemnation but the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas called the attack "heroic" while not claiming responsibility.

When we got in... we saw young, 15-, 16-year-old guys lying on the floor with their Bibles in their hands - all dead on the floor.


However, the 15-strong UN Security Council failed to agree on a resolution condemning the attack because of reservations from temporary member Libya, which sought to link it to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip.

Remember, your tax dollars pay for a vast majority of the United Nations - an organization that finds itself unable to condemn a murder rampage at a Seminary.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080307/fed_credit_crisis.html?.v=2
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080307/dollar.html?.v=4
The Government continues to destroy the economy

What more can I say? More capitalism will lead to a better economy and prosperity and more socialism (government intervention) will lead to more depressions and misery.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V8NN6O4&show_article=1
The continued inanity and irrelevance of the presidential contenders and their "debates"

With the world today collapsing around us, we are faced with the spectacle of watching ignoramuses who obviously have little knowledge of philosophy, history, or economics vie to be leaders of the world and engage in "debates" which supposedly distinguish them from one another. In what way are these candidates materially different from one another and what is the likely outcome of any of their presidencies?

Where is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when you need them?

No comments: