Why Political Parties Lose Elections...

State GOP strives for unity in 'turning point' election year

The article is about the GOP in California, but it could just as easily be about almost any political party in any state. The storyline goes something like this: one faction of the party isn't happy that the rest of the party doesn't agree with them totally, so they're going to muck it up for everyone else.

This is why parties lose elections. No matter what your differences within your own party, there's no doubt that someone from the opposing party is going to be even less inclined to hear your point of view. Principle is nice: but principle doesn't win elections, politics do. Often in politics, the best choice is between the lesser of two evils: standing behind your party in order to prevent what you consider as the greater of two evils from taking office would make sense.

Unless, of course, you prefer to stand on principle...For all of you who think this is a perfect world and you can hold out until the world comes to agree completely with you: stay away from politics. You're only setting yourself up for repeated disappointments. If, on the other hand, you want to shape policy and get something done, then make sure someone from your party takes the office...It's not really any more complicated than that...

Abortion Bill Passes in South Dakota

South Dakota Legislature Passes Bill to Ban Abortion

It's probably one of the most "red" states on the map, so if a bill banning abortion was going to be passed anywhere South Dakota was as likely a candidate as any. Given the precedent established already, I doubt it's going to be able to withstand judicial review; but it's guaranteed to put the issue of abortion on the front burner for the upcoming election cycle. Pro-abortionists will be screaming that "days of coat hangers and back alley abortions" are coming back, so count on hearing a lot about that over the upcoming year...

European press split over Irving

European press split over Irving

I'm just wondering how anyone who denies the Holocaust can call himself a historian with a straight face? And how can anyone else take his claim seriously?

I agree that handing out criminal sentences is probably a heavy-handed penalty for what is, essentially, the crime of being a moron. If we're going to start locking people up for being stupid, then I've got a list of people who should be wearing handcuffs by noon...at the latest...earlier if possible...

What's So Bad About 'Teaching to the Test'?

Let's Teach to the Test

Ever since the words "No Child Left Behind" entered the public consciousness, the rallying cry of the opposition has been that it makes teachers "teach to the test." Umm...that's exactly the point!

The problem that has been going on in this country is the lack of a standard so we can say definitively "This child has sufficiently mastered the material for this grade level and is now ready to move ahead." Instead we've been left with subjective judgements which unfairly favor or disfavor children based on each teacher's individual self-imposed standards. So it is that bad teachers who simply pass students along without teaching have been allowed to remain in the profession. After all, no one could prove they were doing a bad job. It could always be blamed on someone or something else. Not any more...

Now there's a standard to tell us exactly how the school is or is not serving its clientele: the students and their parents. And, not surprisingly, they don't like having their failings held up to the light and exposed for all to see.

If you're teaching children properly, they will pass the tests without special preparation. If a teacher finds him or herself having to make wholesale changes to lesson plans in order to make sure that their students pass the test, then the problem wasn't the test: it was the lesson plan.

No more lesson plans drawn from out of blue by teachers with agendas to cover topics beyond what they're assigned to teach. Too many teachers use their classroom time to force their political agendas onto their students rather than focus on the reading, writing and arithmetic they're being paid to teach. And now they're mad that their attempts at brainwashing are going to be curtailed by being forced to actually teach the required curriculum.

I, for one, couldn't be happier that some standards are being enforced. I'll be happy when it comes down to annual testing and students aren't allowed to progress to the next grade if they don't pass...No exceptions...

Islamofascists Continue to Kill Despite Apology

Danish apology fails to quell Muslim anger

..and this is exactly why you never, ever negotiate with terrorists...Supposedly, they wanted an apology, but it turns out they just wanted to an excuse to be violent and now you look weak. And so it is with all terrorist demands.

Those who look for "root causes" and all sorts of OTHER bleeding-heart excuses may never understand that sometimes people are just bad people and need to be dealt with accordingly. If someone is willing to kidnap, burn and kill because they're so violently passionate about their point of view; even considering the idea that they might be up for an open-minded debate on the topic is bordering on insanity. They will never be satisifed with anything other than complete domination: if you're not willing to accept their domination, then you better be prepared for a fight because a conversation ain't happening...

All that issuing the apology has done is tell the Islamofascists that the Danes can be cowed into submission. It was a huge mistake...

NY Times Discovers Third World Corruption

Chad's Oil Riches, Meant for Poor, Are Diverted

Much to the chagrin of the NY Times, they have discovered that the government of an oil-rich country is corrupt, mistreating its populace...and there are no Republicans to blame!

I know it comes as a shocker to the good people at the NY Times, but they could have written this very same story about pretty much any Third World country. With few exceptions, the primary reason most of these countries remain "Third World" is because the money that industrialized nations pour into them winds up in the pockets of those in charge.

Believe it or not NY Times (and those who share their willfully blind world view): this is the primary reason that so many fiscal conservatives don't want our tax dollars being spent on huge foreign aid packages. It's not that there aren't people in those countries who need help: it's that until the government changes, the money isn't going to get to them anyway, so why are we busy filling the pockets of corrupt strongmen?

I liken it to alcoholics: they won't do anything about their problem until they hit rock bottom. The people of these countries would demand change if the situation gets bad enough, and we stop giving these strongmen the financial resources they need to keep a strangehold on them. You can't fund a private army if no one will give you the money to keep it fed. You can't support roving bands of thugs by robbing a populace that is devoid of money. Eventually the strongmen will be tossed out by a popular uprising. Our foreign aid money would be better spent funding education through Peace Corps-style on the ground programs and supporting rival pro-democracy movements in those countries rather than paying to perpetuate the problem as we do today.

It may feel better to toss a huge sum of money at a country and pat yourself on the back for being a caring nation, but all policies like that do are ensure that things will never change. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

It's time to change our foreign aid policy...

Democrat Hypocrisy on Patriot Act Exposed

Patriot Act moves ahead despite opposition

For the last few years the news has been filled with one Democrat after another decrying how this administration bullied the Patriot Act through Congress and is using it to trample on Americans' civil rights. So when it came time to renew it, you'd think they'd filibuster, hit the streets in protest, stomp their feet - do whatever it took to make sure that this civil rights atrocity came to end, right? If they truly believed all the horrible things they've been saying, they'd stand up to protect American citizens from these abusive practices the Patriot Act is responsible for, right?

Wrong.

96-3 Wrong.

That's right. Only 2 Democratic senators - Russ Feingold, who is pretty much against everything anyway, and Robert Byrd, the former Klansman. When it came to stand up and be counted, the Democrats sat down and whimpered instead.

Why? Because they know they've been lying all along. They know that the provisions of the Patriot Act - for the most part - only give the government the same rights to go after terrorists that it has to go after every other type of criminal. All their lies about civil rights being trampled have been just that: lies. Lies to fire up their base. Lies to make people hate Republicans. Lies to make people distrust the president. Lies. Lies. Lies. And the vote proves it.

A few Democratic senators, aware of the hypocrisy of their position, have justified their votes saying that "important provisions" were changed that made it more palatable. That's a bunch of hooey: superficial changes were made to certain parts of the act, but it is essentially the same piece of legislation they've been decrying. It's just a poor attempt to hide from the hypocrisy of their dirty and deceitful tactics.

The next time anyone tries to use the propaganda line that the administration is using the Patriot Act to trample civil rights in this country, just tell them:

"96-3 says you're a liar"

and walk away...