Saturday, February 2, 2013

Yale Univeristy...What's a diploma worth?

Many have referred to Barack Husein Obama as the most arrogant SOB to ever occupy the White House...and that may very well be true.  But I would point out that the most arrogant statement to ever come out of the White House has to be the following:
“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new world order.  A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations; when we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order…and order which a credible United Nations can use it’s peace keeping role to full fill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” ~ President George Herbert Walker Bush, January 16, 1991 - Yale University Class of 1948  [Who died and made him king?  And who the hell is "we" ? ..."a credible United Nations" What  a joke! It's the most corrupt organization ever devised by man!  The  UN founders were all communists!]
That new world order stuff was further encouraged by another Yale graduate, Bill Clinton.  I don't know how many speeches he made that included his so-call world view but the tyrannical idea has the backing of yet another Yale grad, Hillary Clinton. 
Now for all you anti-conspiracy theory buffs maybe you ought to look at where this stuff started.  It may not have started at Yale University but just look how long they've been pushing their agenda; Bush was indoctrinated in the 40's.  His son, GW also attended the world class school of propaganda along with John Kerry and other notable we-run-the-world wannabees.  On a side note... Have you ever wondered why George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton are best of buddies now that they're both out of office?  And why does Laura Bush attend CGI (Clinton Global Inititive) meetings?
Let's get back to Yale.  We know that many of the top schools in the country have been taken over by the communist left and without going over the entire list, lets just say that Yale is in the top tier. But did you know that Yale is also one of the top schools in the country that promotes sex and other stuff that goes against the traditional grain of American education.  But every once in awhile we have a Yale graduate that rises above the dregs of academia and proves that there is still hope for mankind.  One such graduate was Chief Justice Clarence Thomas who recognized the true value of his diploma: "he took a 15-cent sticker from a cigar and stuck it to his Yale diploma to symbolize its true worth."...he also stored the diploma in his basement! Wow! Good for him! 
Well I may have taken a long time getting here but there is another distinguished Yale graduate that pulled himself up by the bootstraps and let the world know exactly what Yale is all about, and his name is Nathan Harden and he tells all right here...maybe not all, but you can find that in his book, Sex and God at Yale ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following courtesy of Hillsdale College

Man, Sex, God, and Yale
By Nathan Harden

 Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix, a higher education news website, and blogs about higher education for National Review Online. A 2009 graduate of Yale, he has written for numerous publications, including National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The New York Post, and The Washington Times. He was a 2011 Robert Novak Fellow at the Phillips Foundation, a 2010 Publius Fellow Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2012.
In 1951, William F. Buckley, Jr., a graduate of Yale the year before, published his first book, God & Man at Yale. In the preface, he described two ideas that he had brought with him to Yale and that governed his view of the world:
 “I had always been taught, and experience had fortified the teachings, that an active faith in God and a rigid adherence to Christian principles are the most powerful influences toward the good life. I also believed, with only a scanty knowledge of economics, that free enterprise and limited government had served this country well and would probably continue to do so in the future.”
The body of the book provided evidence that the academic agenda at Yale was openly antagonistic to those two ideas—that Buckley had encountered a teaching and a culture that were hostile to religious faith and that promoted collectivism over free market individualism. Rather than functioning as an open forum for ideas, his book argued, Yale was waging open war upon the faith and principles of its alumni and parents.
Liberal bias at American colleges and universities is something we hear a lot about today. At the time, however, Buckley’s exposé was something new, and it stirred national controversy. The university counterattacked, and Yale trustee Frank Ashburn lambasted Buckley and his book in the pages of Saturday Review magazine.
Whether God & Man at Yale had any effect on Yale’s curriculum is debatable, but its impact on American political history is indisputable. It argued for a connection between the cause of religious faith on the one hand, and the cause of free market economics on the other. In a passage whose precise wording was later acknowledged to have been the work of Buckley’s mentor Willmoore Kendall—a conservative political scientist who was driven out of Yale a few years later—Buckley wrote:
"I consider this battle of educational theory important and worth time and thought even in the context of a world situation that seems to render totally irrelevant any fight except the power struggle against Communism. I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
This idea, later promoted as “fusionism” in Buckley’s influential magazine National Review, would become the germ of the Reagan coalition that united social conservatives and free market libertarians—a once-winning coalition that has been lately unraveling.
I graduated from Yale in 2009, fifty-nine years after Buckley. I had a chance to meet him a couple of years before his death, at a small gathering at the home of a professor. Little did I know at the time that I would write a book of my own that would serve, in some ways, as a continuation of his famous critique?
My book—which I entitled Sex and God at Yale—shows that Yale’s liberals are still actively working to refashion American politics and culture. But the devil is in the details, and it’s safe to say that there are things happening at Yale today that Buckley could scarcely have even imagined in 1951. While the Yale of Buckley’s book marginalized or undermined religious faith in the classroom, my book tells of a classmate who was given approval to create an art object out of what she claimed was blood and tissue from self-induced abortions. And while the Yale of Buckley’s book was promoting socialist ideas in its economics department, my book chronicles Yale’s recent employment of a professor who publicly praised terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
My, how times have changed!
There is clearly a radical sexual agenda at work at Yale today. Professors and administrators who came of age during the sexual revolution are busily indoctrinating students into a culture of promiscuity. In fact, Yale pioneered the hosting of a campus “Sex Week”—a festival of sleaze, porn, and debauchery, dressed up as sex education. I encountered this tawdry tradition as an undergrad, and my book documents the events of Sex Week, including the screening in classrooms of hard-core pornography and the giving of permission to sex toy manufacturers and porn production companies to market their products to students.
In one classroom, a porn star stripped down to bare breasts, attached pinching and binding devices to herself as a lesson in sadomasochism, and led a student around the room in handcuffs. On other occasions, female students competed in a porn star look-alike contest judged by a male porn producer, and a porn film showing a woman bound and beaten was screened in the context of “instruction” on how students might engage in relationships of their own.
And again, these things happened with the full knowledge and approval of Yale’s senior administrators.
As might be expected, many Yale students were offended by Sex Week, but university officials defended it in the name of “academic freedom”—a sign of how far this noble idea, originally meant to protect the pursuit of truth, has fallen. And the fact that Yale as an institution no longer understands the substantive meaning of academic freedom—which requires the ability to distinguish art from pornography, not to mention right from wrong—is a sign of its enslavement to the ideology of moral relativism, which denies any objective truth (except, of course, for the truth that there is no truth).
Under the dictates of moral relativism, no view is any more valid than any other view, and no book is any greater or more worth reading than any other book. Thus the old idea of a liberal education—that each student would study the greatest books, books organized into a canon based on objective criteria that identify them as valuable—has given way to a hodgepodge of new disciplines—African-American Studies, Latino Studies, Native American Studies, Women’s Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies—based on the assumption that there is no single way to describe the world that all serious and open-minded students can comprehend.
Indeed, Yale administrators have taken their allegiance to cultural relativism so far that they invited a sworn enemy of America to be a student, admitting Sayed Rahmatulla Hashemi—a former diplomat-at-large for the Taliban—in 2005. Talk about diversity!
Sitting for my final exam in International Relations, I found myself next to Hashemi, whose comrades were fighting and killing my fellow citizens in the mountains of Afghanistan at that very moment. The fact that the Taliban publicly executes homosexuals and infidels, and denies girls and women the right to go to school, gave no pause to the same Yale administrators who pride themselves on their commitment to gay rights, feminism, and academic freedom. In an interview, Hashemi boasted to the New York Times: “I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead, I ended up at Yale.”
It’s hard to overlook the paradox:
By enrolling Hashemi in the name of diversity, Yale abandoned the principle of human rights—the very principle that allows diverse individuals, including those of different faiths, to coexist peacefully.

It was my aim in writing Sex and God at Yale to bring accountability to Yale’s leaders in hopes of reform. Yale has educated three of the last four presidents, and two of the last three justices appointed to the Supreme Court. What kind of leaders will it be supplying in ten years, given its current direction?
Unfortunately, what’s happening at Yale is indicative of what is occurring at colleges and universities across the country. Sex Week, for example, is being replicated at Harvard, Brown, Duke, Northwestern, the University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin. Nor would it suffice to demand an end to Sex Weeks on America’s college campuses. Those events are, after all, only symptoms of a deeper emptiness in modern academia. Our universities have lost touch with the purpose of liberal arts education, the pursuit of truth. In abandoning that mission—indeed, by denying its possibility—our institutions of higher learning are afflicted to the core.
The political freedom that makes a liberal arts education possible requires an ongoing and active defense of liberty. Try exercising academic freedom in a place like Tehran or Kabul! Here in the U.S., we take our liberty far too much for granted. To the extent that Yale and schools like it succeed in producing leaders who subscribe to the ideology of moral relativism—and who thus see no moral distinction between America and its enemies—we will likely be disabused of this false sense of security all too soon.

Something to think about...



In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
Temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
Form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
The time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
Gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
Always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
The public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
Collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
Years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

 From bondage to spiritual faith;
 From spiritual faith to great courage;
 From courage to liberty;
 From liberty to abundance;
 From abundance to complacency;
 From complacency to apathy;
 From apathy to dependence;
 From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

"United States of America ",  Born 1776, Died 2016
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:         Obama: 19               Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by:    Obama: 580,000      Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million  Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties
won by:
Obama: 13.2             Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the
taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
Income tenements and living off various forms of government

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
Criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say
Goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

James Madison, call your office. Your Constitution is nowhere to be found.

Congress and Congress alone is granted the power ‘to borrow money on the credit of the United States.’               Yes, but who's paying attention?

For what its worth...
Obama does whatever he wants with or without Constitutional authority and nobody in the Congress holds him accountable.  Sounds to me like we no longer have a Constitution...  At what point shall we say that our country no longer exists?  I say we have already passed that point; the American people just have not woke up yet.  ~ Norman E. Hooben
Don't miss the video at the bottom of this page.

Source for the following: The American
Debt and the Constitution
Congress and Congress alone is granted the power ‘to borrow money on the credit of the United States.’ Can Congress delegate that power to the president and restrain its own ability to take the power back?

President Obama often treats the Constitution as, at best, an annoyance.
When the Senate’s power to advise and consent to nominations (Article II, Section 2) was likely to derail appointments Obama wanted to make to the National Labor Relations Board, he used his power (provided by the same section of the Constitution) to make recess appointments to put his people on that board.

But the Senate was not in recess according to its own rules and according to the Constitution, which states (Article I, Section 5) that neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. No such consent had been sought or received.
If this naked power grab is sustained (it’s currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals), then the Senate’s power to advise and consent is essentially nullified. The president could declare the Senate in recess if it took a lunch break and appoint whomever he pleased to whatever office he pleased.

There are certain parts of Obamacare that that law declares unrepealable, despite the fact that it is an inescapable principle that what one Congress, president, or Supreme Court has the power to do, a future Congress, president, or Supreme Court can undo. Otherwise, they would effectively be amending the Constitution without following the procedures for doing so, as laid out in Article V. They would thus nullify the power of the states to prevent an amendment unless three-fourths of them agree to it.
One of the president’s demands for avoiding the fiscal cliff is that Congress give him the power to raise the debt ceiling, subject only to a two-thirds vote in each house to override him.

While it is hard to imagine Congress willingly surrendering so basic a power to the executive branch, I wonder under what authority it could do so. Congress and Congress alone is granted the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” (Article I, Section 8). Can Congress delegate that power to the president and restrain its own ability to take the power back?
The prohibition against delegating powers goes all the way back to John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, published in 1690. “When the people have said,” he wrote, “We will submit to rules, and be govern'd by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them.”

To be sure, the Supreme Court has long distinguished between “important” legislation and mere “details.” In 1890, the Tariff Act of that year empowered the president to reinstitute tariffs that Congress eliminated if he thought the countries so benefitted did not reciprocate properly. The Court ruled in Field v. Clark that Congress was not delegating legislative power to set tariffs, but merely empowering the president to act as an agent for Congress.
In 1989, the Court ruled in Mistretta v. United States that in this ever increasingly complicated and technological world, “Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives…. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it ‘constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.’” Thus, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration is empowered to make highly technical rules regarding the licensing of drugs.

But that doctrine does not apply here, for raising the debt limit is a simple matter, a mere matter of one number instead of another number. And the Constitution, unequivocally, grants that power to Congress and to Congress alone.
The way this proposal would work, as far as I can understand the convoluted, isn’t-politics-wonderful? idea, is that when the debt ceiling is within $100 billion of being hit, the president would ask for a higher debt ceiling. Congress could approve or disapprove of that request by joint resolution, and, if it disapproved, the president would veto the joint resolution and go ahead and raise the debt ceiling unless his veto was overridden.

But how does that square with the constitutional requirement that only Congress can borrow money? Congress will have formally voted to disapprove the new borrowing, but the president will have the power to borrow it anyway. If that isn’t delegating the power to borrow money to the president, contrary to the explicit dictates of the Constitution, what on earth would be?
James Madison, call your office.

John Steele Gordon has written several books on business and financial history, the latest of which is the revised edition of Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt.
FURTHER READING: Gordon also writes “The Scariest Day of My Life,” “Churchill and the Power of Words,” and “George Orwell, Call Your Office.” Norman J. Ornstein thinks “Obama Should Force Recess Appointment Fight.” Michael Barone says “Obama's 1-Man Rule Thumbs Nose at Founders.” Steve Conover discusses “How to Fix the Debt Ceiling (A Bigger Threat Than the Fiscal Cliff).”
If this doesn't wake you up, nothing willl!

Friday, February 1, 2013

Will Obama have you shot?

Sometimes I get very discouraged because it seems that no one is paying attention to that which is going on around us (by 'us', I mean American citizens)...but I don't ever give up!  In the 2010 Alabama 2nd Congressional District, primary candidate Rick Barber was right on with his Gather Your Armies video:
Its too bad that Rick lost in the primaries however his message is still viable today.  After four years of Obamanation the United States is more un-united than united and there's signs that some people are beginning to get Rick's message (although I doubt Chris Mathews will ever get it!) , gun sales are up, ammunition sales are through the roof, and NRA membership has increased substantially.  Most of our troubles are not broadcast by the main stream media for they too are part and parcel to our troubled times...they cover it up or refuse to inform the people.  We, or should I say, "I", can brag about all the warnings that I have given over the years but Dr. Garrow can summarize what I've been saying for the past four years in about twenty minutes.  Listen closely for what he is saying is absolutely clear, the Obama machine wants to destroy the American dream and if you don't heed these warnings you can kiss your country goodbye.  (Short note: The reference to placing like minded (left-wing) people in high ranking military postions started with Bill Clinton (and possibly Jimmy Carter) so Obama is just following in the footsteps of the power brokers out to destroy this once great country.)  Will Obama have you shot?  Listen up and you decide. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Thank God For Guns

Related: Gun Conrol Laws

It’s time we stood our ground

Bonus videos at bottom of page.

Stand Your Ground, Stand Up For Your Rights

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin 1759

Over the years we have all heard the above quote or a disambiguation of it, usually from the anti-war crowd, twisting it to mean if we submit to any measure for security, we are not deserving of liberty.

What they and many others did not do, though, was to research the quote and its context. Had any done just a little research they would have discovered Ben Franklin was addressing those who would not accept one of the guns he purchased to help protect what was then the frontier from marauders and murderers.

“Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security”

Sadly we are once again facing the claim of if we just give up a little bit of our liberty, that being our rights under the second amendment to bear arms freely, we can be safer and our children less likely to be slaughtered in schools or even on the streets in drive-by gang shootings.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Using the recent, tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, Barack Obama today announced he was signing 23 Executive Orders and memorandums he says will make us safer, with a back drop of children around him.

While I cannot say every proposal a bad one, ultimately we are expected to allow infringement upon our second amendment rights in order for Obama to make us safer. Or so he wants us to think.

For all of his talk over the years of “we cannot return to the failed policies of the past,” that is exactly what he is doing now, returning to failed gun control policies that did nothing to make anybody safer.

We had a so called “assault weapons ban” in effect from September 1994 to September 2004. We also saw some 32 School Shootings, including the deadliest High School shooting in our history, Columbian during that period. The ban did nothing to prevent a single one of them.

This time around we are seeing more red herrings thrown in designed to convince the general public how we must accept more infringement on our right to bear arms. Obama and others advocating more laws like using phrases such as “weapons designed for the battle field have no place on our streets.”

That statement is 100% true, but it is also very misleading as such fully automatic Military weapons are already banned for the general public, only those with special licenses willing to pay higher fees and keep them registered being able to purchase one. They are already highly regulated and few have the ability to even get near one.

But due to the appearance of several weapons we can legally have, semi-automatic firing, some even using the term “self-loading” lately, the effort is to discourage or ban those merely because they look scary.

Another red herring being used is the capacity of the magazine, most wanting them to be restricted to 10 or less cartridges. That a magazine can be changed out in just a couple of seconds slips by them as does a criminal or maniac arming themselves with several weapons. Empty the magazine, throw it down and pull out another.

Once again we see the call of “background checks” as if none are being done already. Even at gun shows, a licensed dealer must submit a background check before delivering a buyer a weapon, unless of course they possess a concealed carry license that would show they have already passed a background check.

There is a call to require such checks on private sales, but how will they enforce such a requirement? Criminals dealing in stolen or illegal weapons will not be rushing to have the latest forms required when selling such weapons from the trunk of their cars nor will there be much a background check of those smuggling illegal weapons in over our porous borders that both Obama and past presidents have refused to seal.

The futility of these ongoing attempts to disarm innocent citizens and infringe upon our second amendment rights was pointed out in a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that stated, “Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.”

We can see the same outcome right here in some of our larger American cities like Chicago, Illinois and Washington D.C., both of whom have stringent anti-laws and restrictions along with some of the highest murder rates in the nation.

We are supposed to believe these new measure are “reasonable” and “common sense.” They are not.

We are supposed to believe nobody is intending to take our guns away from us and disarm us. I don’t buy it. If that is not the ultimate goal, why then does the left always jump to such knee jerk reactions after a tragic shooting, almost always where guns are not permitted, of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of looking closer at potential root causes, such as the affects of Psycho-therapeutic drugs?

Since the intent of the second amendment is to give citizens the ability to ward off any despotic, overbearing government control over us, not hunting, we should we very wary of any effort to infringe on that right, regardless of promises to make us safer.

As Harvard discovered, it actually places us more in danger.

It’s time we stood our ground and stand up for our rights. Ruger Firearms has a page up on their website providing us with links to our elected officials along with a link to a letter to be sent to your elected representative telling them we want our rights preserved, not infringed upon.

We are seeing some states and County Sheriff’s standing their ground, informing the administration they refuse to enforce any new restrictions that violate the second amendment.

We need to stand with them and support them. We need to let Obama and others in government know our rights are sacrosanct and not open to negotiation.

We need to remind them they are public servants, not lords over us.

These are our rights and nobody should be allowed to fool us into believing if we just give them up a little, we will be better off.


Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Runaway Slave: A Highly Recommended Documentary

For more information go here.

Breaking News: School Bus Driver Shot...hostage situation

See update info at bottom of page.
I just got off the phone...
My wife called from the stables (where we board our horse) and said she may have trouble getting home because a shooting occurred not far from where she is at... She did not have much in the way of details and it has not hit the local television as we speak...
Take that back...
The local TV just came on with the report...apparently there is a hostage situation and a bus driver was shot...
Will keep you up to date as I get more info.

Meanwhile this is all I have: FromWTVY News Dothan, Alabama

Bus Driver Reportedly Shot in Dale County

Click image to view slide show.
Authorities report that a hostage situation is ongoing.
Witnesses say they heard gunshots and saw students running off of a Dale County School bus.
Witnesses also say that they bus driver was shot and killed.
At this point, it is believed that a child is being held by the shooter.
Police are not releasing further details at this time. They are expected to release more information in an official capacity shortly.
We have reports that two victims were shot surrounding this incident.
More reports in to WTVY at this time say a suspect came onto the bus and shot the bus driver.
Stay with WTVY for more information as it comes in.
We have reports of a hostage situation surrounding the bus driver shooting.
Reports say one child is confirmed to have been taken by a suspect behind Destiny Church in Dale County.
We have reports in to our news room that a bus driver was shot.
The Dale County bus driver was shot at the intersection of Dale County Road 1539 and 231 in Dale County.
We have reporters en route. No additional details are known at this time but stay with WTVY News 4 for the very latest information.

Update video.  For more updates go here (WTVY News) or here (Dothan Eagle) Overnight Update: Sheriff Wally Olson Press Conference (un official)