Remembering Memorial Day

American war dead, Flanders Field, Belgium

Memorial Day... it is enough to remember today those who have fallen in defence of our nation. But it's not all we can do, for them or for us, and to leave it there, I think, deprives them, and you, of an important part of what they died for. It seems to me that you can remember them even more completely if you will remember what it was that they gave their lives in defence of. If you remember why it was that their lives came to be remembered on this day, then you can in some sense repay them and also deepen your own position in your own life.

Do you remember what Memorial Day was designated for you to remember? It has changed over the years, but it began as 'Decoration Day', back in 1868, on May 30th, a day chosen because it didn't mark the anniversary of any battle - an important point - as a day to officially mark, what people had unofficially been doing across the land on their own for some while, decorating the many, many graves of those who had 'died in the late rebellion'. After WWI, when many more graves were dug, the day was changed to Memorial Day to remember all of those who have died in service of their country, in all of its wars.

But what does it mean to remember? What can it do? Remember... the members of our lives who were lost can never be re-membered... those who are gone are gone forever, but in the service of... what? Why did they give their lives? Why decorate the graves of soldiers, those who have gone before their time, lives which were violently lost... why? Family and friends will remember their fallen family and friends, they have no need of a national holiday to do that, there is no use for you who they do not know to pretend to remember those you never knew - but that is not what we pause this day to remember.

What did their untimely deaths have to do with your life here and now?

Does their death have any relevance to your life? Asking another question might put us closer to the trail, what relevance can your life have to your nation without remembering why they lost theirs?

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who gave their lives, the 'last full measure of devotion' in the service of the United States of America, but not just to their homeland - any country can do that, and they do - nothing exceptional there.

But we are an exceptional nation, and simple remembrance will not do, because simply defending their homeland is not what they did or why they did it.

Why did they do it? What did it mean?

Maybe it'll help by looking at it from the perspective of the Oath which led them into the military life which put their own lives at risk for yours,

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That is what they risked and lost their lives for, was it worth it? Do you grant their lost lives a value in yours? And that is the heart of it isn't it? Does the life they lost have value in yours?

Well, if you can say the words "your life", as something you live, something which you value and have some measure of control over, then yes, their lives were lost in service of your being able to think of your life as yours, and that - that is something which should cause you a spasmed breath, one abruptly caught in your chest in reverence and awe... that another's last breath was let go as 'darkness veiled his eyes' not just so that you could draw your previous, current and next breath as you wish, but so you could do so in a state of liberty.

Now I think we're getting closer to re-membering them and memorializing their life, through yours. Let's chase that a little further.

What does it take to say 'your life'? What does it take to live your life? What must you do, absent simply having others take care of you, what must you do to live? First off, you must use your head, you must think... but just thinking isn't enough to continue living, after all, you could very well choose to think that by imagining very clearly and distinctly that your shoe would become a salmon if you declare it so, but such thinking would do nothing to advance your life. For your thinking to benefit your life, it must be productive, and to do that it must reflect reality... your life will continue on only if at least some of your ideas help you to transform the reality you face on a daily basis into those materials and conditions which benefit your life... food, shelter, etc, IOW 'nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed'.

For your life, to be lived, you must be free to think, for your thoughts to benefit your life you must see to it that they respect reality - cherish truth -  for your freedom of thought to be anything other than a mockery, you must be free to put them into action, and again, for your thoughts and your actions to be a benefit to you, rather than a mockery, you must be free to retain and use that which your thoughts and actions have produced, and what they produce is called property.

Today, for the lives we remember having been lost, to have meaning and value to us, your life must be able to be lived in the spirit which they gave their own lives up for, that of liberty; the liberty to live your life in the pursuit of happiness in your life.

Those we memorialize today gave their last full measure of devotion in service of the document which makes that possible, the Constitution of the United States of America, a document which outlines the ideas necessary for ensuring your ability to live your life, in liberty and pursuing happiness. They gave their life for the ideas which best reflect the reality of life and the requirements of man living in liberty so that in his life, if he applies his thoughts to actions which serve to produce the materials he needs, that will enable you to live your life and pursue the happiness you seek in life, secure in that property which you expend the actions of your life in producing.

The Constitution was designed to do just that. It was worth fighting and risking death for, because it was seen as the means to securing a life worth living for, for themselves, their families, and their posterity - you.

The Constitution, was designed with a profound understanding of human nature in mind, and was structured in such a way as to give voice to the major perspectives of life so that:

• - the people at large, concerned in the issues of the moment, shall have a voice in the House of Representatives
• - the states shall have a voice through those people who have lived successful will have a perspective favorable for preserving everyones property through their voice in the Senate
• - these two perspectives shall be combined to use create legislation operating for the benefit of the people, within certain enumerated powers
• - when both houses agree upon laws, the nation has a voice in the President as chief executive, to reject or sign legislation into law and see to it that the laws of the land are faithfully executed
• - the law itself has a voice in the Judicial branch which is concerned that laws are applied justly to the people in whose name they were written

These branches are structured in such a way, utilizing the famous checks and balances, so as to have just enough interest in the other branches as to wish to see them function well, as well as to wish to preserve their own branches from becoming slighted and unbalanced.

The founders knew well that most states fall into ruin not under promises of harm but under promises to better the conditions of one group or another for the betterment of all. And so our system is designed to keep each branches desires to 'do good' in check, by the other branches benefit as well, and that none gains power over the others - each must see 'their point' of the other and work together, securing a state that enables you to live your life in pursuit of happiness.

But the people who ratified the constitution didn't think that the original document, which united government into balanced cooperation, was enough to secure the liberty and freedom of the governed, and so they insisted that it also specifically uphold and defend a few key rights, Rights which long experience as Englishmen... and then as Americans deprived of those rights, knew would be required to prevent a new tyrant from turning their government against their liberty 'for their own good'. They demanded the Constitution be amended to secure the peoples liberty to live their own lives, secure in their property and associations and activities which seemed to them to best hold the promise of pursuing happiness through, and that produced the Bill of Rights.

This foundation of government was and is an ordering of ideas, designed to enable each persons actions the liberty to act and secure their property without violating others rights in pursuit of the same, so that each person can have the incredible gift of being able to live their own lives as they see fit.

This is the Constitution which was, and still is, worth fighting for, and risking dying for, because it makes possible the kind of life worth living, lives in which each person might choose to pursue; and the idea of living in service to that, of making not only your own, but others lives livable... is a glorious pursuit, and those in the military who offered up their life in service of it... they are truly worth our pausing on at least one day a year, in solemn remembrance of the life they offered up to make your life a possibility.

Remember them, thank them, and with them in mind demand the liberty to live your life secured under, and securing, those laws which they gave up their life defending, do that, and you will truly be memorializing their lives and making their sacrifice worthwhile.

In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields, Moina Michael replied with her own poem for Memorial Day:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
 That grows on fields where valor led,
 It seems to signal to the skies
 That blood of heroes never dies.


In Flanders Fields John McCrae, 1915.
 In Flanders fields the poppies blow
 Between the crosses, row on row
 That mark our place; and in the sky
 The larks, still bravely singing, fly
 Scarce heard amid the guns below.
 We are the Dead. Short days ago
 We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
 Loved and were loved, and now we lie
 In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw
 The torch; be yours to hold it high.
 If ye break faith with us who die
 We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
 In Flanders fields.

Glover, Loesch, Gateway Pundit And The Good People Of Missouri vs the evil fred phelps’ westboro cult and the Tornados

Good vs. Evil
This Memorial Day weekend, you are probably going to hear that the evil inbred fred phelps westboro cult, the ones who regularly try to disrupt the funerals of veterans, are going to Joplin MO this weekend to spout off about how their vile twisted vision of gawd is pleased that over 120 people lost their lives in the tornado there earlier this week.

But.

Nothing semi about how
these trucks were filled up so fast

Dave Glover Show live

Before you give those human vermin a second thought, I want you to take a look at these pictures:

These pictures to the right, are from today at one of the drop off locations which our (evil) Fox affiliate radio station, 97.1 FM, promoted this week, this one from the Dave Glover Show. They hoped to do a remote and fill up an 18 wheeler semi-truck with food and necessities for the people of Joplin MO.

Well... they did that. Before the first hour was up.

By the time I got there with my couple bags of goods, they’d filled up a 2nd semi, were working on a 3rd, and were very likely going to have enough left over to fill up a 4th truck. Before the end of the broadcast they were directing people to other locations, Churches, etc. for further pickups tomorrow - they couldn't handle any more generosity at the moment. This in addition to the multiple drop off locations promoted by Dana Loesch's The Dana Show, the Gateway Pundit and numerous other personalities, blogs, churches, Boy Scouts and so many others have been organizing and working hard for all week long.

Another 4 semi trucks full of household goods, diapers,
sheets, cleaners, water, etc. filled earlier in the week

Boy Scout Troop 62 from
the St. Joan of Arc Parish

So if those evil inbred SOB’s of fred phelps manage to cop a moment of your attention this Memorial Day weekend, flush 'em out, and focus on these scenes as cars, lined up around the block in three directions, several police cars directing traffic, as car after car after car patiently waited to be able to drop off their donation, or parked and got out to help the other volunteers to collect, load and organize what they and their fellows gave to help their fellow man in need, in any way they could.


Hats off to the Glover Show, and the Dana Show, Hansens Tree Service (for donating the Semi's) and everyone else involved from the other radio & T.V. stations, churches, blogs, who’ve been doing the very same thing all week long. For every evil SOB who manages to get some publicity, just remember, there are thousands of good decent people just itching to help their fellow man in need.

Truly, We Surround Them.

Remember that.

UMSL & UMKC: Does Academic Liberty Mean The Freedom To Conceal A Lie?

Over a month ago, some videos came to light that showed that a socialist and a communist professor were not only expressing their socialist and communist thoughts, but had brought in a communist agitator and recruiter in to proselytize to their classes, unchallenged.

Among the standard socialistic and communistic beliefs they declined to keep private, were advice on how to gain an edge in labor negotiations by using actual sabotage and the threat of physical force against a business and it's personnel... or by reaping the benefit of violence by effectively causing them to fear that there would be damage to their property or person. Class time was also used to give a communist agitator a platform to denounce America, assert it's flag was a banner of racism, and call for the overthrow of property rights.

The professor's said that this was all taken out of context.

The release of additional video's and information about them seemed to demonstrate, in their own words, that these were indeed the full meaning of the full context.

UMSL encouraged commie professor Giljum to resign. For awhile.

After Don Giljum assaulted videographer Adam Sharp of SharpElbows, destroyed his camera, lied about his attack and encouraged students to do the same, and subsequent back up video proved his lie... he was rehired. And UMSL & UMKC said that what the prof's said was all taken out of context.
Frustrated, the student who first brought the video evidence to light, Philip Christofanelli, came out and verified that having sat through the entire class, these videos were in fact portrayed the factual and contextual content of the class.

UMSL & UMKC came out and says that after reviewing the full tapes... they think nothing improper happened in their labor relations class and that all is well.

St. Louis Tea Party co-founder, radio talk show host and editor of Big Journalism, Dana Loesch, after personally sitting through the entire 30 hours of class videos, has stated that in her estimation Christofanelli's characterization, and that of the videos that have been release, do indeed give an accurate depiction of the content and character of these classes.

Numerous bloggers, myself included, have dug into the history of Don Giljum, Judy Ancel, and the commie agitator, and the uses they put to their unions, and have found a long history of actions and often detailed statements which show that these video clips are entirely consistent with their past actions and statements.

So.

Well, here's a thought, seeing as how:

• UMSL & UMKC are publicly chartered and funded universities,
• operating in the name of the citizens of the state of Missouri,
• Missouri's state constitution makes some very clear statements about the meaning and importance of property rights,
• a student, backed by video evidence, claims two of it's professors have at the very least violated that trust, if not in fact the law as well,
• reams of evidence exists which is consistent with the videos and students accusations assert,

, with all of that in mind, how's about that we the taxpayers of Missouri are given something more substantive than the word of those who are not only colleagues in fact and spirit with these professors, but who themselves might face consequences if these videos are in fact true, how about We The People are given something more than their say-so that this student, and the videos, lied?

Why has the Press, which is supposed to look out for the interests of the people and keep a close eye on the abuse of power, why are they allowing this to go unquestioned? Why are they accepting the word of these people who are operating in positions of power, to go unverified, when the means to verifying the charges so are readily available?

Seeing as though the entire course content is on video, and that video is what was used by the Provost and Chancellors of UMSL & UMKC to not only supposedly refute and repudiate the claims of Christofanelli, but to accuse him and Breitbart of dropping context in order to lie and slander our state funded university classes, how's about UMSL & UMKC release the full transcripts of these classes and point out to us just where the full context exonerates character and judgment of our university system?

Show us where the full context of these classes content not only refutes these claims - which I would consider heinous if false - but somehow establishes a context where it was perfectly wackademically fair and balanced to give an unchallenged platform for a communist agitator to preach the overthrow of property rights in Missouri and America?

Because if they can't do that, or can but won't, if UMSL & UMKC are not willing to exonerate our university system with the facts they claim to have, which is nothing more than the word for word transcript of what was actually said in our publicly funded classrooms, if UMSL & UMKC aren't willing to do that, then it leaves the much more than just the appearance that UMSL & UMKC are using the cover of wackademic liberty to conceal a lie.

Remember, this is not just a lie, but lying about what amounts to criminal and even semi-treasonous statements and calls to action from the position of our university system, to our students entrusted to the state, under loco-parentis, to show due diligence and care for.

For me? That' a problem. How about you?

UMSL & UMKC release the transcripts of the tapes!

Israel has a Right not only to exist, but to define its existence. Period.

The courtyard of the Supreme Court of Israel,
intended as a physical representation of the
verse from Psalm 85:11: “Truth springs from the earth,
And righteousness looks down from heaven”

A couple points regarding the region now known as Israel
The 'ancestral homeland' of any people is of little interest to me, or of relevance to the issue... but since that's not the case with most people, a couple points are in order.

First, no political entity from ancient times has persisted in any real form into modernity... with the partial exception, if give extremely generous leeway and multiple exceptions, of Egypt. If we look beyond mere genetic attributes, the reliance upon which amounts to the very definition of racism, only the Jews have any meaningful connection with the people who lived in that area in ancient times, their connection of course being that of the Jewish religion and through which they had a political presence in the area up through the time of the Romans.

The peoples populating the Arab and Persian peoples (with the exception of a few pockets of highly persecuted peoples, Zoroastrians, etc, who have no significant political presence or influence today), have absolutely no connection to those inhabiting the middle eastern region today. The political affiliations which existed during those times were wiped out well over a thousand years ago. The religious beliefs of the peoples who live there in ancient times, were thoroughly assaulted and stamped out by those bearing the beliefs of those who live there today, during the brutal expansion of the Islamic crusades (tweak) which followed the founding of Islam in 7th century, which includes what historian Will Durant described as the 'bloodiest period in all of human history', when the Islamic crusaders invaded and took possession of India and that portion of it that is known today as Pakistan (sorry, Pock-eess-stahn...not).

In fact, for those who'd like to make an issue of 'ancestral homelands', the dominant political and religious views of those who had centuries worth of established history in the area with political states having unbroken links stretching back to the time of the Romans, were those of the kingdoms and states which were avowedly Christian in their religious affiliation, and the defense of which the original European Crusaders sought to protect from the Islamic invaders.

In fact, if you insist on making a case for returning lands to the 'ancestral owners' of the region, then by your own views, the Islamic invaders who currently occupy the regions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Byzantium (now Turkey), should be expelled immediately, and a 'right of return' instantly extended to the persecuted Christians and Armenians who still endure living under their oppressive control today, throughout the area.

I'll assume that dispenses with any argument for ancestral rights.

Modern Middle East
Fast forward to modern times, the relevant political considerations of the area today stem from the period following WWI, when the victors, primarily meaning Britain and France, created the current states out of the territories once controlled by the defeated Turks. The political states we know of today as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, came into being from the decisions of the Western powers, which after some juggling of other assorted regional conflicts, also included Arab Transjordan and Egypt. There was serious discussions in the early years of creating a Jewish state (of much more sensible borders than those decided upon in 1948), but for reasons of one political maneuver or another, it wasn't followed through on.

Any discussion of Palestinian lands, on the other hand, as a supposed political entity, has no equivalent basis in fact; they were given no such status in any serious considerations on the part of the Western powers who were responsible for creating the modern middle east. The Palestinians were nothing more than an ethnic subset of Arabs, predominantly living in the area of Transjordan, and even prior to WWI, had no political standing there, no such place as a 'Palestinian State' (a name first given the region by the Romans in 200 a.d., redefining the region as punishment to the Jews for one of their revolts against them) as a homeland for ethnic Palestinian Arabs has ever existed in the area (Wiki has a decent history of the area from ancient times to present).

Those who we call the Palestinians today have no more claim to any parts of the region than do the Jews, who also, and in the same way, had been living in the same general area, in and amongst them, for well over three thousand. Additionally, beginning in the late 19th century, the region saw an influx of European Jews who began migrating to the general area of their legendary homeland, bringing Western political and economically productive ideas and benefits with them, ideas which greatly enhanced the lands and prosperity of both peoples. But in any case, these two ethnic peoples, and others, populated the region with neither of them having had established any political claims to it.

IOW, neither people has any better claim, based upon their ethnic identities or political realities, to any part of the region on the basis of their ethnicity alone.

After WWII, the victorious Western powers, under the auspices of the U.N., and with the severe persecution of the Nazi Holocaust in mind, and some distressingly guilty thoughts of what might have been had they followed through with their proposals for a Jewish state after WWI, the Western powers felt it was time to redraw the political lines of the middle east, lines which of course were originally drawn by them, to include a political state surrounding the areas which currently (then), and historically, had a large population of Jews.

The new design wasn't a particularly generous allotment of land, it included none of the oil producing wealth of the region - wealth discovered and produced by Western interests alone btw, - it wasn't even a contiguous allotment of land; it consisted of three odd splinters of desert along the Mediterranean and Sinai, as well as control of a portion of the Jewish holy city of Jerusalem.

It was an odd, I'd say almost ridiculous token of acknowledgment, a way to soothe guilt without costing too much to the powers that be, but the fact of the matter is that it was undertaken by those who had the power to do it, those who had created all of the other states in the region as well, drawn from an area consisting of Arabs and Jews. The population numbers vary depending upon who you talk to, but saying that they were roughly equal population densities isn't far from the mark. Even so, in the agreements which created Israel, there was actually a prohibition against Jews inserted into it, barring them from settling in parts of the area which we now know of as Jordan.

There was not a similar prohibition against Arabs living in the region to be known as Israel, though. IOW, the Jews living in Jordan, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, were 'legally' forced to vacate that state, while the Palestinian Arabs had no such prohibition against them from remaining in the new state of Israel.

Got that?

Even so, rather than accepting the lines of the new Jewish state, which were drawn in such a way as to greatly benefit the regional Arabs, at more than a little discomfort to, as well as mandated expulsion of Jews, the Arab states did what Arab states have long established a propensity for doing: they worked themselves into an hysterical lather, and the five neighboring states not only declared war upon the new state of Israel - which was just as much a product of Western political design as their own states - but declared their intent to slaughter and/or drive into the sea, the area's entire population of Jews.

The amassed Arab states (nearly a half century old) invaded the tiny, splintered, non contiguous lands of the newly created, one day old, state of Israel.

How's that for fair dealings?

The darkly laughable result of their tribal hostility, was that, though created by the West, and benefiting from Western productions in oil, etc,, they had none of the abilities inherent in those who have adopted Western ideas of political, industrial and economic ideas (Japan, for instance) - they thought and fought under the leading of their tribal traditions, and though supplied with the fruits of Western materials - tanks, guns, etc - they were embarrassingly beaten by the tiny enclave of Jews, who were deeply infused with (not surprisingly, since the West is typically described as being a Greco-Roman/Judeo Christian culture) Western ideas of political, economic and military organization.

In short, the Jewish David kicked the ass of the amassed Arab Goliath, all across the desert sands.

The unreasoning Arab bluster resulted in a lopsided beating which still pains them today, as it should. They looked ridiculous. Better still, they should have learned from it. Fat chance. They wouldn't even admit to being beaten, and asserted that they were still in a state of war with Israel.

Fine. They made their choice, and have had to live with the shame of it ever since.

Some other choices were made that bear heavily on the situation today. The ethnic Palestinians who, under their own free will, chose not to stand in and with Israel, but to leave in order to join with the invaders in expectations of slaughtering and annihilating the Jewish state, found themselves, of their own free will, and as a result of a stupid choice, homeless.

Having abandoned the lands they could have remained in, they had only the other areas where they had a ethnic association with, to move to. Did that happen? No.

While hundreds of thousands of ethnic Jews were forced to flee the lands they'd long lived in within the Arab holdings, and with the still standing state of Israel being the only choice open to them, they settled there.

The Palestinians, could have, and should have done the same. Problem was, their Arab brothers didn't want them and wouldn't allow them to settle in their lands. The Palestinians, arguably a sizable ethnic population, didn't even follow the lead of the Jews, and petition for a state of their own, to be drawn around their greatest area of population density, and neither would their Arab brothers have allowed them to if they had.

Jordan, with no more standing than having helped to launch a war which they humiliatingly lost, annexed what is known as the West Bank, for themselves, though not for the Palestinians.

Israel, from the position of having been invaded by every one of their Arab neighbors, and having victoriously and resoundingly beat them back, took possession of the lands between their bizarre original boundaries, and made themselves a contiguous state.

West vs. Mid-East.
By any reading of history and the rules of war, the Arab states overplayed their hand, blundered in a military venture, and lost, and their intended victim, having beaten them back, understandably and completely justifiably, solidified and secured their state. Having attempted to live by the rule of force, they can not now lay claim to benefits through the rule of reason. There is no justifiable claim on the part of the Arab states in general, or of the ethnic Palestinian Arabs in particular, to even one square inch of Israeli lands.

They attacked, they lost, they need to deal with it, as best as their primitive tribal beliefs will allow. Sadly... the intervening history is a demonstration of how well their culture enables them to do so.

Israel, is a product of Western actions, not only in the creation of their political boundaries, as are the existing Arab states, but in their philosophical and religious understandings, they are a solid member of, and outpost of , the West, in a hostile middle east.

To be sure, especially in their original political ideals, the Israeli state was a product of some of the worst of Western ideals, having originally chosen a socialistic political structure, but Western they were and remain. Ideas such as the rule of law live in Israel, as they are nowhere else (meaningfully) to be found in the entire region.

And being Western to their core, when faced with the reality of the inherent failure of socialistic ideals, Israel has moved more and more towards a market based society and greater and greater respect for the property rights of its citizens, Jew and Arab, and have enjoyed the prosperity such choices typically bring. They have a long way to go, IMHO, but even so they are markedly and thoroughly Western to their core.

That is what I stand with. That is what every Western nation should see first and foremost in regards to any political considerations between Arabs states and Israel, and of course any self aware citizen of the West should do the same, not out of loyalty to those of like mind, but out of regard to the facts and the ideals of individual rights which so many today only mouth a regard for. In Israel, and only in Israel, freedom and liberty and the rule of law have a home, and that is always, Always, worth defending, anywhere and everywhere such a state may be found.

Today, such a state is found in Israel.

If any remaining defender of multicultural idiocy remains, the unyielding demonstrations of the unreasoning Arab claims against them, their enthusiastic endorsement for terrorist assaults upon civilians, their insistence on ethnic, tribal and religious retribution against a political entity which stands for individual rights, must be denounced and brushed aside with the only merit it deserves: None.

Additional Incidentals
The Arab states, not content with their previous humiliation, continued their 'state of war' against Israel, periodically attempting to put their actions where their rants were, and remarkably losing even more wars against Israel, which, as a result of Arab belligerence, idiocy and incompetence, continued to grow in size, thanks to their losses. Through their primitive tribal designs and military incompetence, in the wars of 1967 and 1973, they enabled the Israeli state to grow well beyond its original, and untenable, boundaries.

Egypt, finally seeing some shred of reason under Anwar Sadat, partially woke up to the futility of their position and agreed on a peace with Israel, and in recognition of which Israel gave back much of the land Egypt had lost to them.

Should any other state or peoples choose to acknowledge the Right of Israel to exist, Israel has made it clear that they would be willing to discuss peaceful terms and even (unwisely, I think) consider yielding some lands back to them. The Arabs have not, and so have no, none, zero, claim to them. Israel has a Right to exist, and not only is that right theirs from the same political sources which their surrounding Arab states derive their political form from, but by recourse to the far greater justification being that they are a state which respects the individual rights of those within its boundaries, a state which is established upon the rule of law and recognition of their citizens political and property rights of everyone, Jew or Arab alike, including the right of representation, which several elected members of the Israeli government demonstrate by dint of being Arabs themselves.

Needless to say there is no such equivalent measures extended to Jews in the Arab states.

As such, any claims, whether of political or ethnic enthusiasms, made against the people and state of Israel, have no legitimate standing and are unworthy of any consideration or claim at all. I dismiss them out of hand, without apology, and with only that amount of respect as they deserve: none.

To stand with Israel, to insist on its right to exist, and its right to dispense with the lands under its control as it deems fit, is the only position open to those who might wish to hold a credible claim to believing in Individual Rights and the rule of law themselves.

Any leader, one of which is unfortunately President of the United States of America, who doesn't see that as the primary consideration at hand, or who seeks to flatter and appease the tribal and savage claims of those opposing Israel at their expense, puts themselves at odds with the interests of Western Culture and in serious opposition to the interests of the United States of America, whose people have longstanding and valuable property interests in the region, and who would reap nothing but harm and violence should Israel falter or fall.

That's where I stand, with America, with the West, and with Israel.

How about you?

Echoes of History Repeating Itself, "This is Cassandra calling: will you accept the charges?"

I've just been looking over some notes from books I read some while back, and they seem to have more than a little relevance to us today, one snippet in particular, from a fellow named Woodworth Clum, who tried to sound the alarm about someone who reminds me more than a little bit of our UMSL co-professor, Don Giljum; see if you can see the resemblance,

" I have some of Miss Flynn's books on my desk. Let me quote from her "Sabotage":

"I advocate sabotage. I am not going to attempt to justify sabotage on any moral ground. If the workers consider sabotage is necessary—that in itself makes sabotage moral. Its necessity is its excuse for existence.""

Doesn't that sound like something Giljum and his commie UMKC co-professor, Judy Ancel would say?
How about with this bit that our pamphlet writing friend found particularly alarming, regarding another professor, very similar to our own Ancel,

Ajax abducting Cassandra, as she'd foreseen

"" ...I want no mere puttering reforms," writes Professor Calhoun. "If the radicals will stick for ultimates and confiscation, I'll stay with them. One of the things that will hasten the revolution is to spread the notion that it can come soon."

What do you think of that—you American mothers and fathers who are sending your boys and girls to our American colleges ?
How does it impress you business men who own property ? I know your first answer.
You say that if Professor Calhoun really wrote such stuff—and really believes it—he should be expelled from the college where he is teaching.
But if you were convinced that other professors, ex-professors and college graduates, representative of leading educational institutions in America, are preaching much the same doctrine, and are members of a society that has assumed leadership in endeavoring to co-ordinate the campaign of the Russian Soviets, the I. W. W.'s, the Communists and practically all the other extreme radicals in this country, what would you do about it?"

Like most good questions, it still applies today... what would YOU do about it? I ask, because as you might have guessed, this pamphlet wasn't written recently, or even back amidst the turbulent days of the 1960's, but during 'the good ol' days' of 1920, and apparently whatever it was that our grand parents did about his warnings, it wasn't enough, was it? When this man wrote his little pamphlet in warning to his fellows of the dangers facing them, he was warning them about the dangers he feared that their grand children - that'd be us - might see realized, if they did nothing about what he so clearly saw looming up around them.

I wonder whether or not your grandchildren will even have the option of doing nothing?

What dangers? You didn't really ask that, did you?

The freedom and liberty they had in 1920, though already reduced from their parents, is almost unimaginable to us. At that time no one dared to tell you that you could be fined $90,000 fine - or $4,000,000, which ever comes last - for your children selling more than $500 dollars worth of bunny rabbits. No one in 1920 would dream of fining Girl Scouts for selling cookies in their front yards. You didn't need a permit to build a shed in your back yard, or to seek permission for painting your home. You didn't need permission, permits and authorizations to start a business, or need to have a fine knowledge of labor law to hire someone to work for you in your business, or seek government clearance for paying them a wage commensurate with the value you judged that their efforts would be worth, or permission from a damn government agency with a name right out of Atlas Shrugged of National Labor Relations Board, to build a factory in whichever state you felt was best.

Neither did they have to worry about two or three times convicted pedophiles, free to roam about looking for a bigger thrill, perhaps at the risk or your child's life. They didn't have to worry about twisted perverts being in positions of power over them and their children's education, didn't have to think about the possibility of teachers instructing their grade school children on the 'simple facts' of how to put on a condom or the ins and outs of homosexual acts. Didn't have to be concerned about their children being taught that America was a racist country or that it didn't deserve to exist.

And the idea that you would have to apply for a permit to own or carry a firearm, let alone wait for the government to approve it... would have drawn howls of fury. And probably a volley of shots.
In short, in the America of 1920, you were still an American, and didn't face the looming threat of being deemed a criminal for choosing not to purchase a government approved health insurance policy (if you don't have enough political pull, that is).

They did however, have to worry about their college age children being exposed to those ideas which would bring those very policies down upon us today, if they went unchallenged in their day... but ...because they didn't worry too much then, we do have to worry about such things, and worse, being visited upon our very much younger children today.

There's a phrase that's grown out of what Edmund Burke tried to warn his generation of, that Britain's abuse of power would bring about revolution and ruin, he said

" When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Through the ages and degradation of language which, that phrase has come down to us altered and paraphrased into variations of,

"Evil requires nothing more than for good men to stand by and do nothing."

or was it from the even more pithy phrase from the narrator of an early movie of "War and Peace", or a mixture of each, who declares

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

In either case, men from our past have sent us warnings, and it matters little who said what or when, but in our failing to heed the meaning of what they had to say, we bring history around for another tragic repetition, lapping us once again. Whatever the case, the truth of that phrase, or the equally apocryphal one attributed to George Washington,

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

, the truth of all of these phrases is right here with us today, just look around you to see them in action.

Our Cassandra, Woodworth Clum continued on for an amazingly brief 26 pages, still though, his warnings fell on mostly deaf ears in his time (how about in our time?),

"And now that some of the names have been identified for you,—read that Calhoun letter over again. Does it not stir something in your very soul? Am I right when I say there is a job ahead for all of us who love America?
However, that Calhoun letter is merely the introduction to this tale of pink professors, and their fellow-workers in the effort to undo America.
Among such thorough American professors who are doing a heroic work at this time are Professor T. N. Carver of the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Professor Laurence LaiTghlin, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor Carver has written a very clear preface to Brasol's "Socialism versus Civilization" published by Seribners and which should be included in every American library. Professor Laughlin has recently published ten pamphlets, exposing not only the fallacy of socialism but also presenting some very excellent suggestions concerning present industrial difficulties.
When we say that parents of boys and girls attending school in America should ascertain what sort of economics their children are being taught, it is in the hope that support and encouragement will be given to those educators who are endeavoring to develop sound American economics,—just as much as to expose the teaching of economic fallacy."

Back then there was still some memory of economics being a sensible science, the socialists hadn't yet transformed it into the 'dismal science' one we have today. In 1920, you could still expect to exchange your bank notes, even the new Federal Reserve notes, for gold or silver - they represented real money, unlike the inflated specie of today. Back then, a twenty dollar bill, and an ounce of gold, were basically interchangeable, and both would buy you something of value, such as a good suit. Whereas today, a twenty dollar bill might buy you a tie (if you don't mind getting a cheap one)... but oddly enough, an ounce of gold can still be exchanged for something of value, such as a good suit.

Ever wonder why that is?

A good economics text, one written prior to 1920, could tell you exactly why, or reading our founders writings could tell you, and warn you, of what could cause such a thing. And a careful reading of them would enable you to see that the principle involved, inflation - retaining something of real substance, while increasing the quantity and ease of attaining materials to exchange for that same amount of substance - would apply as easily to matters of finance, as to matters of knowledge, and such inflation, whether monetary or intellectual, brings disastrous results.

What to do about it? Real, truthful, solutions rarely change... all that usually changes are the extents to which we try to avoid or confuse the issues surrounding them. Our Cassandra calls out to us again from 1920,

"THE REMEDY

We, who love America and believe in her institutions, must do a little studying. We must learn over again the full meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
We must brush up on the basic reasons for our economic system and we must talk these things with our children, so that they will understand.
Those of us who have children in the high schools and colleges must talk with them concerning the doctrines that are advocated by their teachers. We have demonstrated in America throughout a hundred and thirty years that our economic system is the greatest incentive to advancement in civilization, but we must know some of the reasons and be able to convey those reasons to others.
And we must perfect in each state and in each county organizations of right-minded Americans who are willing to devote a little of their thought and time and money to saving America from those who would bring about a social revolution.
The bomb-throwing anarchist and bullet-shooting radical will never retard America. The big job is with the pink variety,—whose poison is injected quietly and where we least suspect it.
What are you going to do about it? Or are you too busy?"

Good question and good advice, what is your answer? Are you willing to accept the charges from your grand children?

What are you going to do about it? Or are you too busy too? Lincoln put it to our grand parent's grand parents this way, that,

"...It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Bullets and bombs are not the most dangerous threat we face - the elimination of the ideas our forefathers fought for, is. Just how much time is it that you think that "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" has left on this earth if you stand around and do nothing?

Driving to the Little Red Schoolhouse in a Big Red Cadillac

Does being an American, mean something? Other than simply stamping your birth certificate with the GPS coordinates of your place of birth I mean. Does being an American mean something? If so, isn't it reasonable to assume that there must be some sets of ideas or actions which should be considered to be pro-American? And if that's true, doesn't it also stand to reason that the converse must be true as well, that there must be some opposing ideas which could and should be considered to be Anti-American? Yeah, I think so too... but several Professors employed right here in Missouri's publicly funded universities, don't seem to think so... how else to explain how they can offer a free, unopposed and unchallenged platform to a members of the Communist Party of America? Not only co-teacher and CPUSA member, union organizer Don Giljum, but also this creature, Tony Pecinovsky, who in a newly released video on Breitbart's Big Government, not only berates the American flag as a symbol of racism, but,

"Pecinovsky mentions how his and the Democrat’s anti-American agenda is closely tied to who holds sway in the White House and Congress. He is not talking revolution, but a taking over of America from within, with what he identifies as a “larger movement.” That’s today’s Left - in practice not theory...."

All of which receives little more than an uncomfortable shrug from university administrators - not because of what was preached in our classrooms, but on it being unexpectedly publicized. And strangely enough, at least to those who have difficulty tracing cause and effect, one of our nations publicly owned nationalized corporations General Motors, doesn't seem to think any of this is such a big deal either, they seem to think that their logo of "An Amerikan Revolution" works just fine with praising the Communist Party of Red China.

It's hard to imagine that any of these people think "American" can actually mean something, or anti-American either. In an article in the Washington Times, GM, which you, me and Uncle Sam have a 33% 'ownership' in, has recently helped to fund and sponsor a film promoting the Communist Party of Red China.

"In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party" is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. "

What had once been known as something very near to being the corporate symbol of America, is now promoting the antithesis to all things American, Communist Red China. Is there any way in which the two are compatible?

How can anyone be expected to know? In light of all this, the question seems doubly worth pursuing, what ideas are, and are not, compatible with the idea of being an American? What was it that was central to the idea of being an American at the beginning of America, what was it that united 13 British colonies into becoming these States united? They united around an idea which they saw as being imperiled, and it was in support of that idea that the people of those colonies came together and brought America into being. That being the case, I'd say that by definition, those who oppose, denounce and refute that idea, the idea which gave birth to America, would be good candidates for describing as Anti-American... wouldn't you?

What was that idea?

John Adams, in answer to a similar question, cited the spark which lit the American Revolution as being that moment when James Otis rose "like a flame of fire!" as he thundered against the Writs of Assistance, "Then and there the child Independence was born", and the central point of his speech was Britain's attack upon that very idea we're looking for, the core of which John Adams later recalled as,,

"When general councils and deliberations commenced, the objects could be no other than the mutual defense and security of every individual for his life, his liberty, and his property. To suppose them to have surrendered these in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose them idiots or madmen whose acts were never binding. To suppose them surprised by fraud or compelled by force into any other compact, such fraud and such force could confer no obligation. Every man had a right to trample it underfoot whenever he pleased. In short, he asserted these rights to be derived only from nature and the Author of nature; that they were inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible by any laws, pacts, contracts, covenants, or stipulations which man could devise. These principles and these rights were wrought into the English constitution as fundamental laws. "

When the colonists perceived there to be an attack upon that idea, that of life, liberty and property, the necessary requirements of man's pursuit of happiness, that was what united the 13 British colonies into becoming the United States of America. That idea formed the central idea of the Declaration of Independence, and the purpose of writing the Constitution of the United States of America, was to create a government best suited to protecting them, powerful enough to secure them, and at the same time restrain that government from abusing them through a carefully contrived system of careful checks and balances establishing a secure foundation for the rule of law in upholding our individual rights and their root in our rights of property.

To attack that idea is to attack the core of what it means to be an American, yet we see it happening around us every day. Professors Ancel and Giljum, and many, many others not only attack, but revile this central principle, out load and every day. Many of them openly now flout their membership in the Communist Party, whose central idea is the abolition of Property Rights, Marx himself said that the whole of his philosophy could be reduced to that very issue,

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

This isn't simply a debate over 'economic' policy, it's not a fiscal policy, but one for fundamental transformation, of either creation or destruction, of America. Or as John Adams said in 'Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States',

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

It really shouldn't take much imagination to see what's coming round the bend when ideas like these are being taught, promoted or chuckled at as being fit for material as T-Shirt logo's - it's like playing tennis with hand grenades, these are truly dangerous ideas that are being batted about. It is not hate mongering or an attack on wackademic freedom for us to point out ,and denounce University Professors - employees of the people of the 24th State - when they are making statements which are fundamentally opposed to the very idea which brought their nation into being! It isn't unreasonable to point out that their positions are fundamentally opposed to the positions which are central to the constitution of the very state they are employed by! See Article 1, Section 2,

"Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. "

The question of what is American, and what is Anti-American are questions that should not be shied away from, but asked, pointedly and often, precisely because we are being told so often that to question anyone's 'patriotism' is to be a hate monger, or that showing your support for Property Rights and Capitalism (originally known as the Free Market) makes you a greedy hater of the poor, or that insisting that our Constitution be respected and followed, insisting that our government not 'do good' by doing what is bad, is to invite being told from all sides that you are depraved, naive or just plain silly.

Doubtless I won't get much agreement on that point, but surely we can all agree, I hope, that book burning is a bad thing, but as bad as it is when books are physically being burned, it seems to me that to figuratively burn people in public, to ridicule and vilify them for questioning what the lords of political correctness have asserted as being unquestionable... might be nearly as bad... I mean seriously... where would those books come from if the people who wrote them were never allowed to ask the questions which led to potentially offensive books being written?

Isn't that sort of like an intellectual pre-emptive strike? It seems as if such strident remarks as "anti-academic freedom" or "anti-labor rights" are being used to silence anyone who dares show signs of being angered over professors promoting violence and Communist platforms in our classrooms... while counting on the very rights our system enshrines, to protect them as they attack it.
How else do you square Ancel's statement in class, about property rights,

"…all labor education materials are uncopyrighted, and to be shared. We do not believe, for the most part, in intellectual property rights. That’s one of the principles of labor education. We share."

, with her views and with the views of her defenders in the chancellors office and from others such as those at LaborNotes.org against those who are exposing her communist views,

"YouTube eventually removed Breitbart’s videos, which appeared to violate YouTube guidelines. They were posted without permission of those pictured and apparently are the property of the university."

They are quite willing to use our understanding of Individual Rights, which world wide are only respected in societies which have some degree of free market affiliation, when it suits them, and denounce them when it doesn't. They use and respect rights only in so far as they can be used as weapons against property rights and those who would defend them, just as the likes of the ACLU continually uses 'defences' of our Bill of Rights as weapons against our society, using free speech against free speech (limiting free speech supposedly in favor of free speech), the right to self defence used to limit our ability to defend ourselves (attacks on the 2nd amendment), freedom of association against freedom of association (affirmative action, card check union membership, etc) and so on.

Now, in one of the unkindest cuts of them all, the nationalized corporation General Motors... which is bankrolled by you and me to the tune of 33% ownership (!), has sponsored a propaganda celebration of the Communist Party of Red China...

"It is naive to believe any business would put moral considerations before profits. Even the "don’t be evil" Google enters a "devil’s pact" with Verizon when the price is right. So it comes as no big surprise that GM has made Cadillac the proud "chief business partner" of an upcoming film dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is called "Birth of a Party."
Made by China Film Group as a kind of prequel to last year’s "Birth of a Republic," the film bears a title that can be literally translated as "The Great Achievement of Founding the Party." It will tell the events leading to the birth of the CCP in 1921 after Russia’s October Revolution in 1917. Yet, what the audiences will see is not only politics, but a lot of stars; for instance, Tang, Wei, who played the leading female role in the award-winning "Lust, Caution," will play young Mao, Zedong’s lover in the film."

There is nothing naive about this, it is cynical, corrosive, and seeing as though it is in support of a political system which explicitly seeks the destruction of property rights (and which has killed millions of its own people because of that) in general and of the United States of America in particular, we are being chauffeur driven in a big red Cadillac to a life of servitude in the little red schoolhouse - this is a direct threat to your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness.

Don't back down on this. These are attacks on the very nature and core of what it means to be an American, and I can think of little else that could be more properly called Anti-American, than that. Being an American requires more than just being born here, in fact that is among the least of the terms attributes. It is among the oldest, and truest of truisms, that America is made up of immigrants, there is no race or creed that makes you an American, and traditionally people who choose to (legally) become Americans, not only can become an American, but typically become even more American than many or most of those who were born here.
Becoming, and being, an American, is a matter of holding those ideals that are fundamentally American, those being the ideas that transformed this section of the North American continent into the place where people from around the world have come to in order to live under those ideals. America has been a place that is known the world round as a beacon of liberty and prosperity because of those ideas, not because of it's GPS co-ordinates or because of some genetic marker found amongst the people born here. This is America, not because of our locale, but because these ideas have been given a home here, and it is where people come to have the opportunity to live under these American ideals.

Conversely, to be anti-American requires nothing more than that you oppose those same ideals which makes one an American, and if you are a supporter of socialism or communism... while you may very well be a swell person (and I include several of my friends and relatives in this, who are no less friends and relatives because of it), you are holding ideas that are fundamentally anti-American.

Are you really ok with that?

Karl Marx:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

John Adams:,

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

You decide.

'Supply and Demand' Predicts a Bust for the College Market Bubble

There is a video by the NIA (Nat'l Inflation Assoc), reported on here as "The "College Conspiracy" Video, Or Why The College Bubble Is Next To Pop", which seems to have the inside scoop on something I've been warning about for some while. While they approach it on a more practical nuts and bolts level rather than concern for the substance of what is being taught, the result is the same:

"It's a racket... college has become a racket"

And they seem to have the information to back it up.. though I'll admit to disliking the messenger a bit. The video isn't without flaws... the tone is a bit too preeningly cynical for my tastes, it plays up the sympathetic victim status of those who 'were forced' into their student loans, and pushes a thick populist line, nearly anti-intellectual in tone, as if those who do the work of the mind contribute nothing to the economy... which, frankly, is dangerously compatible with any one of the variants of Marxism I presume they are against. Annnd they aren't so much questioning what is being taught - my particular complaint - but the expense of it. It also phrases several of it's future doom and gloom statistics in a way that brings the phrase 'lies, damn lies and statistics' to mind....

But.

But, in it's essentials, this video nails a critical issue, critical to your pocketbook and to our nation, that the inflationary practices of our modern system of higher education, financially, and intellectually, are hastening the bankruptcy of both.

This is an hour long video that is well worth your time, especially if you, or a child of yours, or that of a friend or relative is considering going into debt to get a college education, not because they have a passion for a particular profession, but as something they think is a 'sure thing' for prosperity - you need to have them watch this video.

Listen to the first 10 minutes in particular; do you want your child to become one of these whiny, herd mentality people? These are people who have found themselves having gone into deep long term debt in order to get a college education which, like most peoples mortgages today, is ‘under water’, their diploma's are a burden to them, not a source of wealth. You hear them continually moaning about "Now I HAVE to ..." do this and "I have no choice but to..." do that, but no matter their excuses, these are people who sought an 'education' because they bought the modern message that it would be their key to financial success, but instead, they find themselves buried deep in debt to pay back their student loans, loans they took out, with the expectation of being able to demand a high paying position in one storied 'easy money' profession or another.

While it's hard to get away from the fact that they sound like a bunch of whiners, complaining about being tricked into the 'wage slave' economy - and don’t you just love hearing that Marxist phrase popping up among college graduates? - we need to recognize that our best and brightest are being turned into the bitterest and most envious. Do you really need college to make you into one of these people? Take a close look at them, shell shocked awake college grads under financial water for probably decades to come, and more than likely NOT earning the means to pay their loans back with the 'skills' they sunk themselves into debt in order to attain.

It is a scam, financially, as this video so clearly shows, and intellectually, as intellectuals are beginning to become aware of as well, such as Pulitzer prize winning playwright David Mamet, who had this to say about higher education, to a group of academics at Stanford University, who came to hear themselves praised... and heard something quite the contrary,

"... the unease that began to ripple through the audience had less to do with the speaker’s delivery than with his speech’s content. Mamet was delivering a frontal assault on American higher education, the provider of the livelihood of nearly everyone in his audience.
Higher ed, he said, was an elaborate scheme to deprive young people of their freedom of thought. He compared four years of college to a lab experiment in which a rat is trained to pull a lever for a pellet of food. A student recites some bit of received and unexamined wisdom—“Thomas Jefferson: slave owner, adulterer, pull the lever”—and is rewarded with his pellet: a grade, a degree, and ultimately a lifelong membership in a tribe of people educated to see the world in the same way.
“If we identify every interaction as having a victim and an oppressor, and we get a pellet when we find the victims, we’re training ourselves not to see cause and effect,” he said.”

And a prime example of our willfully refusing to see cause and effect, is that of the effect such empty ideas, sold at outrageous, and unsupported, prices, are bringing upon us. Another market bubble is coming, and it will likely dwarf the bubbles in housing and other areas which have recently preceded it.

Quality out of control
At about the 13:49 mark it gets to the one of the core nuggets of information that should raise your red flags of warning, Govt has been busily supporting ever more easily attainable student loans, injecting the market with a massive supply of college graduates who are being led to expect that their skills are in demand for the professions which colleges are busily churning them out for. Such easy money for the colleges is a clear cut cause for tuition prices to rise, but without an accompanying increase in the value of their educational product, or in demand for those positions in the job market... well... for anyone who studied economics somewhere other than at college, you should be able to tell that that is far from a recipe for financial prosperity.

If you've been sold on going into debt with the understanding that a high paying position awaits you - and that high paying position doesn't exist, and that hundreds like you have been rolled off of the college grad production line for every position there is a job for - then you, and millions of your fellow graduates - are in for a very harsh education on the actual value of wearing rose colored glasses.

Add to that, that what they are producing is not only less in demand, but the factory model of education is producing a product of declining value as well as of declining quality, while all the while its price is continually rising. For instance, as they point out in the video, it used to be a rarity for a student to achieve a 4.0, one school he cites had one plaque which held all the 4.0 students who had graduated over years and years... but in the last year a plaque was filled with 4.0 students from just that year. 4.0 GPA's, are now unbelievably common - not because people have gotten smarter, or because they've been found a better way of helping students retain useful knowledge and skills, but because the standards have fallen so far.

At the 17:50 min mark, they point out another effect of these causes - colleges are producing substandard materials which are unable to hold up under stressful situations. The declining standards in intellectual depth and ability, along with the multi-cultural deficit in ethical comprehension and regard which students are equipped with by their colleges, are widely expected to cast their ethically substandard eyes upon the widespread govt bailouts we've seen, and conclude that it'll be ok for them to default on their loans as well, confident that they too will be bailed out by the govt.

Such 'two wrongs make a decent excuse' thinking, which is a direct result of what is, and isn't taught in our colleges, is going to pass on it's effect to burden the govt, who will simply pass it on to the taxpayers, further burdening the system, further reducing the available jobs, further crushing the economy and vaporizing those few jobs these college grads have thrown away four to six years of their lives to attain.

And for the opportunity of becoming a part of this Ponzi system, students are now paying yearly tuition's of an average of $24k, converting them to long term life leaching debt; and they are now getting this debt even easier, straight from the govt.

At 20:30, NIA points out another effect of govt interference in the once (long ago) free market of college education, that while most established products in a free market go up in value and down in price (think CD Players and Plasma TV’s), that has not been the case with the educational market, because unlike a free market, the educational racket is subsidized by the govt, providing easy funding for what otherwise would have been much more closely examined and held up for standards of quality - but with their interference the quality control is out the window, and pricing is severed from real market forces. This is illustrated in part by something they identify as the 90/10 rule, which forces private for profit colleges to raise tuition every time govt raises financial aid to students. Why? Because federal regulations mandate that at least 10% of these 'private' colleges incomes come from non govt sources... which means that every time govt expands the services they provide students, these colleges must raise their tuition's too in order to stay within that 90/10 rule - not because they have a real need to raise their tuition costs - but only because of a federal regulation which has the unintended effect of requiring them to.

The result of this is that prices continue to skyrocket without any increase in value purchased... and the bubble grows and grows and grows, reflecting less and less the reality of the market.

What is the goal of a college education to become Educated... or Marketable?
And as with any other market bubble – which are ultimately the result of govt interference in those markets - the rising rates, increasing costs and interest rates coupled with inflation, the needle of reality is coming closer and closer to popping that college market bubble. NIA predicts that of the 4,168 public and private 2 and 4 yr colleges in America, as the economy and dollar continue in their current collapse, and as Americans find that they must spend upwards of 30% of their income on food alone, NIA predicts that,

“conservatively, 20% of all U.S. colleges will close by 2020, as well as remaining enrollments being reduced by 15-30%, with the American percentages of those enrollments declining by 50%, then we’ll find that the stronger Chinese Yuan will continue filling up the remaining open slots, pricing American students out of the market..."

That’s if those college educations retain enough of their value to make them worthwhile to the Chinese. It’s becoming more and more of a losing proposition all around, and one which the typical prospective college student would be wise to stay out of all together.

This is especially true if their own personal goal for attending college was the promise which colleges use to tempt potential students in the first place - not to become Educated, but to become marketable. NIA points out that,

"...the simple truth is that any American high school student that has any savings put away that they are planning to put towards college would be much better off simply investing this money into physical silver. A senior in high school with $30k in savings who buys silver today, would likely have the money to buy the median U.S. home, four years from now. While all of his friends will be graduating college with no job, or money to buy a house, but will be stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and a worthless piece of paper, called a college degree.”

As fast as costs are rising, the value of the college products are declining even faster. A simple rule of economics is that there's little or no special value to something when its something which nearly everyone has. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2009, 70.1% of high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, up from 68% in 2008. And if that's been a secret, NIA is working hard to let everyone know that there is no longer a marked advantage to getting a college education.
As Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona makes clear,

"At this point, in this late era in the industrial economy, I wouldn't encourage anybody to go to college. It hasn't been a very good deal for quite a while, and it certainly is a very bad deal now."

One statistic that should be shocking for students who are considering sinking four to six years of their lives, and decades of burdensome debt, in order to pursue a college degree so that they can get ahead in life, become more marketable... since 1992, 60% of college graduates were in low skill positions which did not require even a HIGH school education for the work they were doing. 20% of restaurant waiter positions since 1992 have been filled by college graduates.

While on the other 'un-educated' hand, of the 29.9% of recent High School graduates NOT in college, 70% were employed and building long term work force experience. Only 42.1% of recent HS grads in college have a job, and most of these are in part time jobs of little or no long term work force value.

NIA points out that the greatest myth of all is that a college degree is worth a higher income in the long run, that college graduates will earn 'a million dollars' more than non graduates can be expected to earn in the same span of time. But when you total up the costs of college, the accumulating interest on loans, and the lost income over the 4 to 6 years of college life, the true result is that seeming plus of 'a million dollars',actually reflects an overall loss, or at best breaking even, with their non-college going fellows who stayed behind and... got a job.

What is the actual value of a substandard, over priced college education? Where's the beef?!
Gerald Celente, Trends Research Institute makes an eye opening point at 27:40,

"... if we were doing such a wonderful job, and producing such geniuses coming out of universities, do ya think that we'd be in the problems that we're in now? Do ya think that we would be among the most unhealthy nation of people in all of developed nations? Do ya think that if we would be gobbling down junk food? Do ya think that if we would be prescription drug addicts as a society? Do ya think that we would be in the greatest recession, that's heading towards the greatest depression? Do you think that we would be in Iraq and wasting trillions of dollars fighting losing wars in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan? Do you think that we would have presidents and senators and congressmen and legislators of such low mentality that we have now, do you think that we would have the rampant greed of the white shoe boys on wall street, if the universities were turning out anything of quality, considering the trillions that are spent and the tens of millions that are educated? By their deeds you shall know them, look at what American universities have produced."

Simply put, we have the society which our educational system has directly produced. Whether or not this is the society they intended is as irrelevant as whether or not a drunk driver intended to maim or kill the nice family he plowed head on into - we are the society which our proregressive educational ideals have produced - we are at that place where the path of good intentions leads to!

It's ironic that the modern growth in college education began in agricultural studies 150 years ago with the Morrill Land Grant colleges act for agricultural studies. 75 years ago, Agriculture made up 28% of the nations GDP, providing a firm basis for the rest of the economy to grow upon; but today while the service sector makes up 76.9%, the agricultural system makes up only 1.2% of our nation's GDP. An economy becomes strong as a result of producing materials of value to others, but our production and manufacturing jobs have been forced overseas by our own burdensome regulatory system and entitlements and the tax structure required to support them, leaving most positions here in America, simply servicing what we no longer create here.

Today we are producing little of real tangible value, and instead produce mostly people who are looking to supply even more products of such little value to the economy - lawyers, financial mgmt and other service sector or bureaucratic jobs. Of the other professions which do have real value, more and more people are realizing that traditional colleges are no longer the most worthwhile places to receive that sort of education that can provide real wealth producing skills that will be in demand to what remains of our economy. 500,000 Indian's have recently earned engineering degrees online, overseas, while we've produced just 150,000.

Today, the agricultural business amounts to only a little over 1% of our business, but most agricultural commodities, corn, wealth, oranges, have inflated from 40% to over 100% of their recent value; conversely, the NIA is predicting that Lawyers & financial degree positions will see mirror declines in demand and in in their real incomes, of 90% or more.

What is valuable and rare, becomes far and away more valuable than what is of relatively less value and is plentifully common in nature.

Lawyers and managers haven't had a history of being highly paid simply because of their suits... but because they once represented a rare 'commodity', that of the highly informed and skilled manager. Now they are representative of unremarkable traits and skills, and farmers and manufacturers provide very uncommon and difficult to attain knowledge and skills.

The times, they are a changing.

If our economic wizards on Wall Street were as intelligent as they think they are, they should have grasped this: Fewer people have been becoming farmers, and fewer are going into mfg, mining or drilling or into other areas which are capable of producing real wealth. But more and more people are getting 'educated' in order to fill positions which cannot profitably exist without being able to ride upon the backs of those wealth producing positions. We have college degrees flooding the market for positions, which we have little or no real wealth producing industries being created here with which to support them.

That's not a viable and sustainable scenario.

The hard fact is that what is common and plentiful, is of the least economic value. What is rare, is of the most economic value. We are facing a worldwide shortage in farming and agricultural commodity prices... in just the last year or two corn has risen 75%, wheat 65%, Orange Juice 58%, coffee 78%, cotton 124%.
Supply and demand should tell our college grad financial experts that their value on the market is headed for a rapid decline... but what of the farmers and other 'blue collar' manufacturing positions? The people with dirt under their nails? THEY are very likely going to be the new rich.

And the service sector people - lawyers, managers, are going to service them... if they are lucky, but not in positions they are going into debt to attain, instead, they will find themselves having to conform to the needs of the market - and that is unlikely to show much concern for the degrees upon their walls.

Add to that that colleges have more and more been producing anti-business attitudes (UMSL & UMKC anybody?)... who do you suppose really wants to hire them? If you were a businessmen, why would you hire someone who thinks you are depraved and evil? Our armies of lawyers and other graduates have gone into govt adding more and more regulations and rules on every productive sector of our economy, hampering our ability to compete... with ourselves. It's not China that's taking our jobs, we are! We burden the market with armies of worthless rule making and busy work and chains of penalties and fees.

But if the NIA is correct, the market in college graduates, in some ways a modern day plague of locusts, is about to go bust. The world is changing, college, and what our college grads have made of it, is of less and less value. Get a job. Produce something. Convert your dollars into commodities that will retain value, gold, silver, etc.

Prepare.

Look at the housing market, the health care market, the college degree market... they are all coming to the same fate.