Sarah Palin’s keynote address to Alaska’s secessionist movement

I have some mixed messages and feelings when I watch this 2008 video of the former governer. It’s part pep-talk, it’s part campaign speech, party chummy condescension. If you love Sarah Palin, this video won’t bother you. If you don’t like her, this will make you hate her more.

But for those who live here, this is just another reason we are different here:

We had a sitting governor addressing the convention of the largest third party in Alaska, a secessionist party at that. While she clearly didn’t see them as a threat, she obviously feels they are legitimate enough to warrant comparison to her own viewpoint. She had during her time in office appointed and dismissed party members from her administration.

The AIP, while supposedly not wanting to secede but just vote on if we should… Remains the party that no one in Alaska has heard of but that everyone wants to join when they hear about it.

Why is this? What keeps the largest third party of capturing a single school board seat?

Anyhow, enjoy the show. Enjoy talking about peaceful secession and voluntaryism with people.

 

 

Sarah Palin speaks to the AIP

Advertisements

Question EVERYTHING!!!

Question Everything
By Jeff Thomas

From Internationalman.com

Image
The average person in the First World receives more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached—neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings
In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.
Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.
On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)
Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.
So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities
The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option—an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World.

Whilst those who do not receive the regular barrage that is the norm in the First World are no more intelligent than their European or American counterparts, their views are more often the result of personal objective reasoning and common sense and are often more insightful.

Those in First World countries often point with pride at the advanced technology that allows them a greater volume of news than the rest of the world customarily receives.

Further, they are likely to take pride in their belief that the two opposing views that are presented indicate that they live in a “free” country, where dissent is encouraged.

Unfortunately, what is encouraged is one of two views—either the liberal view or the conservative view. Other views are discouraged.

The liberal view espouses that a powerful liberal government is necessary to control the greed of capitalists, taxing and regulating them as much as possible to limit their ability to victimise the poorer classes.

The conservative view espouses that a powerful conservative government is needed to control the liberals, who threaten to create chaos and moral collapse through such efforts as gay rights, legalised abortion, etc.

What these two dogmatic concepts have in common is that a powerful government is needed.

Each group, therefore, seeks the increase in the power of its group of legislators to overpower the opposing group. This ensures that, regardless of whether the present government is dominated by liberals of conservatives, the one certainty will be that the government will be powerful.

When seen in this light, if the television viewer were to click the remote back and forth regularly from the liberal channel to the conservative channel, he would begin to see a strong similarity between the two.

It’s easy for any viewer to question the opposition group, to consider them disingenuous—the bearers of false information. It is far more difficult to question the pundits who are on our own “team,” to ask ourselves if they, also, are disingenuous.

This is especially difficult when it’s three to one—when three commentators share our political view and all say the same thing to the odd-man-out on the panel. In such a situation, the hardest task is to question our own team, who are clearly succeeding at beating down the odd-man-out.

Evolution of Indoctrination
In bygone eras, the kings of old would tell their minions what to believe and the minions would then either accept or reject the information received. They would rely on their own experience and reasoning powers to inform them.

Later, a better method evolved: the use of media to indoctrinate the populace with government-generated propaganda (think: Josef Goebbels or Uncle Joe Stalin).

Today, a far more effective method exists—one that retains the repetition of the latter method but helps to eliminate the open-ended field of alternate points of view. It does so by providing a choice between “View A” and “View B.”

In a democracy, there is always an “A” and a “B.” This illusion of choice is infinitely more effective in helping the populace to believe that they have been able to choose their leaders and their points of view.

In the modern method, when voting, regardless of what choice the individual makes, he is voting for an all-powerful government. (Whether it calls itself a conservative one or a liberal one is incidental.)

Likewise, through the modern media, when the viewer absorbs what is presented as discourse, regardless of whether he chooses View A or View B, he is endorsing an all-powerful government.

Two Solutions
One solution to avoid being brainwashed by the dogmatic messaging of the media is to simply avoid watching the news. But this is difficult to do, as our associates and neighbours are watching it every day and will want to discuss with us what they have been taught.

The other choice is to question everything.

To consider that the event that is being discussed may not only be being falsely reported, but that the message being provided by the pundits may be consciously planned for our consumption.

This is difficult to do at first but can eventually become habit. If so, the likelihood of being led down the garden path by the powers-that-be may be greatly diminished. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

Developing your own view may, in the coming years, be vital to your well-being.

 

Charity vs. Coercion

Another article from txfatherofseven.wordpress.com.

txfatherofseven


When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless. — Frederic Bastiat



I’ve posted this quote onFacebookonce but never got to dig into it more. One of the things about the…

View original post 495 more words

Common Core creates new wave of home schoolers!

A new out-break of freedom as GenX parents reject statist monopolized education!

The department of education is barely older than most of these parents, yet it continually speaks to them as if they were the children.

Children are people- not mechanical property of parents or the state. Children deserve to have choice in their educations, not statist-mandated   tests and programs.

Adults enjoy free choice. When you go to lunch , you have dozens choices- Asian, Mexican, home-style, Italian, smoking and non-smoking.

As an adult, you typically enjoy your lunch due to the CHOICES you have. No one forces you to eat the same lunch day after day, much less a lunch mandated by an-ever shifting cadre of statist nincompoops.

Homeschool is a great way to introduce freedom and enjoyment into the educational life of the children in our families. Let them develop curriculum that enhance their talents, and challenge them.

We love them, we want them to grow into thinking individuals and not robots.

Homeschool offers the best chance.

 


 

MORE PARENTS CHOOSE HOMESCHOOLING DUE TO COMMON CORE
by DR. SUSAN BERRY 27 Mar 2014 241 POST A COMMENT

As Common Core champions like Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue to attack parents, teachers, and taxpayers for what they claim are “myths” spread about the centralized standards initiative, many parents across the nation are not convinced.
They are refusing to subject their children to the stress, pressure, and confusion associated with the Common Core by opting out of the assessments aligned with the standards, or by withdrawing them from school and choosing homeschooling instead.
WHNT 19 News in Alabama reports a growing number of families making the decision to withdraw their children from school in order to homeschool because of “confusion,” “chaos,” and stress related to the Common Core standards.
“It [Common Core] has caused chaos in our house, and it’s not worth it,” said Lori Peden, who has withdrawn two of her children from McBride Elementary in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. “The teachers are not comfortable teaching it. They’re frustrated. Parents are upset, kids are not making good grades. That’s what I’ve seen.”
Peden said she never had plans to homeschool her children, but did so after she observed her son struggling with Common Core math assignments in which he was required to find and learn up to half a dozen different pathways to the same final answer, an endeavor that created confusion and constant stress.
“In math, they take a very long road to go a short distance,” said Peden. “You’re fighting over which method to use and how to figure out how he needs to do it. It’s a lot of time wasted, a lot of effort wasted.”

Megan King, a parent from Kansans Against Common Core, is also homeschooling two of her children because she is unhappy with the Common Core standards.
“My oldest is in middle school, and is on an advance track that I felt comfortable leaving him where he is at, but even with him I am seeing problems in the area of English,” King told Breitbart News.
King said she pulled her kids from public school as Common Core was being implemented.
“I noticed the dumb and confusing way math was beginning to be taught, and as I looked more and more into Common Core, I didn’t like what I was seeing on so many levels,” she explained. “My 4th grader had only read one literature book through the year. I asked his teacher about their reading and she said they had been reading small non fiction books (informational text).”
“I just felt my kids were not going to learn at a level I know they can and should be learning at,” King said.
Though homeschooling has been an adjustment for the entire family, King said the results have been worth it.
“I do recommend homeschooling,” she said. “It’s very rewarding, but I had to quit my job as a preschool teacher in order to homeschool, so we have had to really tighten our belt financially. But, even if a state finds its way out of Common Core, it will be years before things are what they were before No Child Left Behind and Common Core, so we, as parents, have to get creative and find new ways to educate our kids.”
Justin and Jennifer Dahlmann of Kansas also have decided to homeschool their children in response to the implementation of the Common Core standards.
KAKE.com reports that the Dahlmanns, who have four daughters from ages two to nine, said Common Core had been implemented at their children’s private school.
“Our own kids were taking these standards that are driving the curriculum and we didn’t know anything about it,” Justin said. “That’s when we started doing the research on it and realized how overbearing it was.”
The parents asserted that the Common Core standards are making education more confusing, as opposed to encouraging more rigorous critical thinking, as the standards’ supporters tout.
Homeschooling, for the Dahlmanns, is, in some ways, a form of protest of the “top down” Common Core standards.
“If this does nothing more than wake people up to becoming more involved with their children, that’s great,” Justin said. “But absolutely parents need to become more involved in this.”
William Estrada, Director of Federal Relations of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) wrote in December of 2012, that he believes “children – whether homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled – do best when parents are fully engaged.”
Estrada said that centralized education policies do not encourage parents to be engaged in what and how their children are being taught.
“The CCSS [Common Core State Standards] moves education standards from the purview of state and local control to being controlled by unaccountable education policy experts sitting in a board room far removed from the parents, students, and teachers who are most critical to a child’s educational success,” Estrada wrote.

 

If you like your hair-do, you can keep it

In honor of the great Hermit King, all men will now be required to wear the same hair-do!

image

Photo: Reuters; Getty Images; Getty Images
http://nypost.com/2014/03/26/north-korean-men-ordered-to-get-kim-jong-uns-haircut/
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery — and in Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, that’s now an order!
All North Korean men are now required to get the same haircut as their nutjob leader — shaved close on the back and sides, with longer hair on top brushed back off the forehead.
The state-ordered guidelines were introduced in the capital, Pyongyang, roughly two weeks ago, according to South Korean media.
And the rule is now being enforced nationwide.
But not all of the dictator’s subjects are impressed with the strongman’s inverted bowl-style ’do.
“Our leader’s haircut is very particular, if you will,” a source told Radio Free Asia.
“It doesn’t always go with everyone, since everyone has different face and head shapes.”
Meanwhile, a North Korean now living in China said the new haircut makes Koreans look like Chinese smugglers.
“Until the mid-2000s, we called it the ‘Chinese smuggler haircut,’” the Korea Times reported.
Until now, Korean men could take their pick of 10 state-approved styles.
Women will still enjoy far more freedom to wear their hair the way they want — with a list of 18 looks the communist government has deemed appropriate.
And it’s not the first time North Korea has ordered its citizens to clean up their act, the BBC reported.
North Korea’s state TV once launched a campaign against long hair, called “Let us trim our hair in accordance with the Socialist lifestyle.”

Venezuela arrests three generals for alleged coup plot

"I sleep like an infant at night"

“I sleep like an infant at night”

Once again the dangerous antics of Saint Manure-o Hacia la Izquierda. Like all dictators, he sees plots within plots all around him. He distrusts the people and his own.
 
Venezuela arrests three generals for alleged coup plot

By Sofia Miselem (AFP) – 2 hours ago 

Caracas — Three Venezuelan air force generals accused of plotting a coup against the leftist government of President Nicolas Maduro were arrested Tuesday, amid a widening crackdown on the opposition.

The unidentified generals were in contact with opposition politicians and “were trying to get the Air Force to rise up against the legitimately elected government,” Maduro told a meeting of South American foreign ministers.

“This group that was captured has direct links with sectors of the opposition and they were saying that this week was the decisive week,” Maduro said.

The stunning disclosure — the first known significant threat from within Maduro’s government — comes amid a growing crackdown on the president’s opponents after more than six weeks of street protests that have left at least 34 dead.

– Betrayed by loyalists –

The generals have been summoned before a court martial, Maduro said, adding that the plot was uncovered because other officers come forward to say they were being recruited.

Asked for details about the generals, a senior source told AFP that the information is “being handled only through Maduro’s office.”

It is the first time in 15 years of socialist government that generals have been arrested for alleged coup plotting, said military expert Fernando Falcon, a retired lieutenant colonel.

Massive protests in April 2002 resulted in Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez, being briefly ousted — before he was restored to power for another decade.

Maduro and his government have been the target of near-daily protests fueled by public anger over soaring crime, hyperinflation and shortages of such basic goods as toilet paper.

Demonstrators are also angry at oil-rich Venezuela’s close financial and political ties to Cuba, the only Communist one-party state in the Americas.

Maduro earlier had said he fended off a coup bid aided or supported by the United States and other “fascists.”

Protests have mainly taken place in middle-class opposition strongholds. Maduro still enjoys support among Venezuela’s larger, poor population, allowing him to weather the weeks-long protests.

– Machado defies Maduro –

On Monday, National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello announced that a prominent opposition deputy, Maria Corina Machado, had lost her seat and parliamentary immunity, and could be arrested at any time.

At a news conference in Lima, Peru, a defiant Machado said she would return to Caracas on Wednesday, adding she feared she would be arrested on her arrival.

She said she was returning “because I am a Venezuelan deputy and I will enter Venezuela as such to continue fighting in the streets without rest until we achieve democracy and freedom.”

Machado angered the government by going before the Organization of American States last week as a guest of Panama to discuss the crisis in Venezuela.

Panama’s representative to the OAS, Arturo Vallarino, said the move to take away Machado’s seat was “proof of the arbitrary acts being committed in Venezuela.”

Last week, two opposition mayors were arrested, and another prominent opposition leader has been in jailed for a month, accused of inciting violence.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSirjRFXHLSoOSkswXUh6h7INUrA?docId=7b182785-7233-417d-a3c4-0ce535daa7c1&hl=en