The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to prevent political monopolies; thus ensuring individual liberty and justice for all.

"The diffusion of power - horizontally among the three separate branches (Republicanism) of the federal government, and vertically in the allocation of power between the central government and the states (Federalism) - the Constitution's Framers devised a structure of government strong enough to ensure the nation's future strength and prosperity but without sufficient power to threaten the liberty of the people.” - Edwin Meese

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. - Patrick Henry

It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government. - Thomas Paine






Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Uncle Sam's Cave and Michael Brown

Remember Plato’s Cave, that’s what is going on folks, We’re not seeing reality, merely selective reflections.

Imagine a young white child growing up, maybe he has black friends, maybe never met one, really matters not.

He/she grows up seeing mostly black crimes being reported each day of his/her life, even though there are many more crimes by others.   Those black crimes may have only been 15% of all crimes, but to the people receiving the news 90% of the crime reports are of black people doing wrong.

What are whites to assume:
1) that maybe there’s a lot of black crime,
2) and maybe a lot of black people are bad?
3) Maybe most crimes are committed by blacks?
4) Maybe these people will assume those blacks must be doing something, since no one else is having that problem?
5) Would they be in denial?
6) Would it appear white people commit fewer crimes?

In short, this is the root of the image problem for blacks.  The media skews the reporting completely out of proportion and out of context of the larger picture by overly focusing on black crime, instead of all crime.

This obfuscates reality to the white person who perceives a problem limited to one group of people who must be doing something wrong, that easily lends itself to an unpretty stereotype of blacks by whites.

It equally obfuscates reality to the black person.  90% of the crime reports a black person sees are of black people, and black people being abused by police, without any mention of other races being treated the same, and the apparent indiffernce of whites. This too, leads to an unpretty stereotype of whites by blacks

What are blacks to assume:
1) that blacks are the only ones getting treated that way?
2) that whites approve, since they are in denial.
3) Would they become angry and sometimes violent?
4) Would they begin to think everyone is against them and everything is about race?
5) Would it appear white people get away with crimes?

In short, we are all being given selective information, in a way that hides the truth, the big picture, the context, and presents a false reality.

In simple statistics, its the equivalent of over representing some of the data, while leaving out other pertinent data, to give a false impression or view of things.

What would result from this?

We're seeing the results of it every day in America, some of it live in Ferguson Missouri.  Both sides, will struggle to come together, both having received a grossly distorted view of the world. And history will continue repeating itself, until the truth can be seen by both sides.

Now the begging question: why is this being done by the media?

1) is the media doing this thinking it is helping the minorities?

2)  is this an intentional effort, to present a totally inaccurate view of the world and for what Machiavellian reason?

3) what if someone wants us perpetually pitted against each other and why?

This is not the brotherhood of 'America the beautiful'  that I believe in so strongly.

Rob John 8/19/2014

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs ...


I have a plan to destroy America - Richard Lamb



Text of original speech

I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm


I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” –Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

A description of liberals, what do you think?

Not being worth the time of day is exactly how too many liberals treat anyone who disagrees with them, unwilling to discuss the issue, and arrogantly confident in their beliefs, assuming their beliefs are infallible, closed-minded and unwilling hear or discuss other ideas and opinions. 

In short they are  intolerant of and disrespectful of opposing views