Dare we risk how far President Obama will go when he never has to face the voters again, and can appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his power grabs? Will this still be America in 2016?
While intelligent CEOs had thought they had found a way of reforming American education, they were totally unaware that left-wing, progressive educators were creating their own “reforms” designed to make things worse. With all our standards, tests, and accountability, and with No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, our literacy continues to decline. Only parents who are informed enough to teach their children to read at home can save their children from school-induced illiteracy.
If we focus on whether a given candidate is bent on doing what we consider evil, others, knowing the truth that people virtually always intend to do “good,” may dismiss it as radicalism. So a better question often is: What is the person’s conception of good?
This brings us to Obama. Like the average American, his goals are directed toward what he considers good. But on what is considered good is where he parts company — quite drastically — with the average American.
I consider — and repudiate — the notion that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for "the lesser of two evils" and amounts to a "compromise of principle."
Most Americans who have become aware of the academic and moral decline of public education tend to believe that the humanistic curriculum that now dominates the system is of relatively recent origin. They believe that the great emphasis now placed on the “affective domain” — all of those programs devoted to values, feelings, activities, behavior, group dynamics, sexuality, etc. — is somewhat new. Actually, it is far from new. The fact is that the groundwork for what we have in our schools today was laid in the 20th century by the Progressives who knew exactly where they wanted to lead America: to a socialist society.
How can we characterize government disaster aid? Well, we now complain about a crony capitalism through which Uncle Sam “picks winners and losers,” but what do the feds do through disaster relief? They pick winners and losers.
Flight is a powerfully redemptive film that highlights the disastrous effects that substance abuse can have on one’s life. Denzel Washington aptly portrays a man who has seemingly hit rock-bottom until things take a dramatic turn for the worse, proving that man’s fall into depravity is a hard and dramatic one without bounds. Flight proves to be an exciting film with masterful direction and action and can possibly be one of this year’s best.
If you wonder what life would be like without a particular government agency, it is not enough simply to subtract the agency from a picture of our current world. That would imply a rather disparaging view of the human race. If there were no FEMA, would people just sit around in the rubble for the rest of their lives? Or would they do something, learn from their experience, and take precautions to minimize damage in the future?
Thanks to the liberal Independents Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the Democrats have controlled the U.S. Senate since the 2006 midterm election. But as bad as these things are, would it be a good thing if the Republicans regained control of the Senate in the upcoming election?
A desire to extend suffrage to younger adolescents is nothing new. A few nations have already made the move, and approximately half of U.S. states allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries and caucuses. And some Americans would take it further. Executive director of the National Youth Rights Association, Alex Koroknay-Palicz, wants to grant voting rights to 16-year-olds; and former California state senator and then septuagenarian John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) proposed in 2004 an idea called “Training Wheels for Citizenship,” which would have extended voting rights to kids as young as 14.