The World Needs More Heroes (#2)

From Rod Nordland and Fahim Abed, Nov. 18, 2017:

KABUL, Afghanistan — No one will ever know what went through the mind of Afghan Police Lt. Sayed Basam Pacha in those moments when he came face to face with a man he suspected of being a suicide bomber on Thursday afternoon, but whatever it was, he did not hesitate to act.

At his back was a crowd of civilians, many of them dignitaries, leaving the hall he was guarding. Around him were officers from the police company he commanded. The suspect had just approached their heavily guarded gate, the only way in or out of the compound around the hall.

Broad-shouldered and heavily muscled, Lieutenant Pacha shouted at the suspect to halt, but instead the man started running. The officer stopped him, throwing his arms around him in a bear hug.

A second later the bomber detonated the explosive vest hidden under his coat. Fourteen people, including Lieutenant Pacha and seven other police officers as well as six civilians, were killed; 18 others were wounded, seven police and 11 civilians, said Basir Mujahed, a police spokesman.

There was little doubt the death toll would have been far higher without the lieutenant’s body blunting the blast, Mr. Mujahed said.

“He’s a hero, he saved many lives,” he said. “All seven of those policemen are heroes but especially him. Just think if that suicide attacker got past the gate, what would have happened — you cannot even imagine.”

Lieutenant Pacha’s father, Gen. Sayed Nizam Agha, is also a police commander.

“My son sacrificed himself to save other people,” General Agha said, proud but tearful when reached by telephone. He wept as he recounted his son’s story.

“He had two bachelor degrees, one in political science and another one at the police academy,” the father said. “He studied five years in Turkey. He came back from Turkey a year and a half ago. He was 25 years old and he was single. He has three brothers and one sister. He and I are the only police in our family. He was a very sporty guy.”

Weight lifting was his sport, his friends said.

The general apologized and said he could not keep talking any longer; he was too overcome with emotion. He had one last thing to say though.

“I lost my bodyguard in this incident as well,” the general said.

He had assigned the bodyguard to assist his son at the event, which many high-profile political figures were attending. “He was my bodyguard for the last 15 years, he was like my son,” General Agha said. “His name was Noor Agha, he left three children behind.”

Two journalists for Rah-e-Farda Radio and Television were also caught up in the attack, said an anchorman at the station, Ramazan Abdullahzada. A reporter, Taqi Sadid, was in critical condition and a cameraman, Hussain Nazari, was missing, he said.

“We checked all the private hospitals and public hospitals, but couldn’t find him,” Mr. Abdullahzada said. “Now we are in front of the police hospital. I hope he will be here.”

Although only on police duty in Kabul for a year and a half, Lieutenant Pacha had already received a commendation from his superiors, which he displayed proudly on his Facebook page. His current post was commander of the Second Company, Police District 4 in Kabul, which includes the Khairkhana area where the attack took place.

The lieutenant never expected to die, friends said, although the profession of Afghan police officer has become increasingly perilous. Dozens of officers were killed in five Taliban attacks Monday and Tuesday.

“He was always worried about victims, but he never thought that one day he would get killed,” said his longtime friend, Sayed Najib Asil, a producer at Tolo Television.

If the lieutenant had a chance in the final moments of his life to look back on it, Mr. Asil said what would have stood out was his passion for higher education — he wanted to continue advanced studies in Britain — and his determination to stay in Afghanistan long-term.

“He wanted to make changes here, he had an opportunity to leave and go live abroad, but he rejected it,” Mr. Asil said. “He really hated corruption, and felt bad when people assumed that all policemen are corrupt.”

Lieutenant Pacha was not someone who would have faced death fatalistically, as his friends told it.

“He had very big dreams for himself,” Mr. Asil said. “He wanted to be a general like his father, and maybe one day a high ministry official.”

The characteristic his friends most noted, though, was his cheerfulness. Every week or two he and his friends had a party together. “He was always the cheeriest guy in the party, making everyone else happy,” Mr. Asil said.

The Islamic State in Afghanistan claimed responsibility for the attack, according to a post on Twitter by the Terror Monitor organization. It was the latest in a series of suicide attacks by the group in Kabul. A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabihullah Mujahid, said his group did not carry it out.

Eye on Hill Country News

This is simply a tracking of the editorial selections (guest columnist or syndicated or copied with permission, selected by the paper's staff) published by Hill Country News of Williamson County, Texas, that exhibit an obvious critique of citizens of the opposing ideology.  A severe imbalance in political presentation would provide evidence that the paper's decision making staff is composed exclusively of supporters of one political party (i.e. that the paper has become a left-wing or democrat media outlet unworthy of advertising by republican or conservative or libertarian business owners).  I sincerely hope this is not the case and the evidence will speak for itself.  Editorials and cartoons are only considered if there is an obvious ideological presentation, not simple satire.  Some days the editorials have no obvious bias and notable critique of ideology and policy.

Current count: (December 2013 through August 2019)

Notable Democrat / Leftist editorials: 60
Notable Democrat candidate promotion articles: 11
Notable Republican / Conservative editorials: 15
Notable Republican candidate promotion articles: 2
Notable Democrat / Leftist favorable cartoons (critical of the right): 12
Notable Republican / Conservative favorable cartoons (critical of the left): 25

HillCountryNews switched to a paid model (pay to read online and for paper) so i stopped tracking (not giving them a dime) at the end of 2019.

Dec. 12, 2013: Jim Hightower (D) editorial
Jan. 2, 2014: Chuck Robison (D) and Jim Hightower (D) editorials
Jan. 29, 2014: Jim Hightower (D) editorial
Feb. 13, 2014: Emily S. Greco (D) editorial
March 6, 2014: Chuck Robison (D) editorial.
Mar. 13, 2014: John Carter (R) editorial
Mar. 13, 2014: Cartoon of Obama postponing enforcement/implementation of Obamacare law without the constitutional authority to do so.
April 10, 2014: Marge Baker (D) of the leftist / democrat "People for American Way" PAC; article refers to supreme court members as "arch-conservatives" and "right-wing" instead of focusing on details of court cases and the merits of arguments.
Apr. 17, 2014: Cartoon displaying hypocrisy of wealthy democrat politicians collecting campaign contributions from the wealthy, while being critical of the wealthy having too much influence in politics.
Apr. 24, 2014: Jim Hightower (D) editorial.
Apr. 24, 2014: Cartoon mocking Pres. Obama's passive foreign policy toward Russia.
May 1, 2014: Jim Hightower (D) editorial disparaging sitting republican governor.
May 1, 2014: Cartoon differentiating between perception of a typical NRA voter and the reality.
May 8, 2014: Cartoon mocking republicans maintaining focus on economy, problems with obamacare, and Benghazi scandal as "reruns".
May 22, 2014: Cartoon presents president Obama concerned about climate change affecting future generations but ignoring flood of national debt that is a more immediate and certain concern for future generations.
June 19, 2014: Cartoon mocking Hillary Clinton's disingenuous presentation of not being wealthy, when in reality the Clinton's net worth is around $80,000,000.
June 26, 2014: State Representative Tony Dale editorial; critical of [democrat controlled] federal government and the Obama administration's weak border control enforcement (failure to enforce) and illegal immigration policies, some instigated by executive orders and not legislation.
July 3, 2014: Chuck Robison (D) editorial critical of keystone pipeline proposal, shutting off of water utility to non-paying users, fracking methods of natural gas extraction, and privatization of water utilities.
July 10, 2014: Cartoon mocking leftist outcry for an incorrectly perceived "Right to affordable birth control" while a customer buys a one month supply for $9 from a local retail pharmacy.
July 17, 2014: Chuck Robison (D) editorial mocking citizens who support true border security and prevention of illegal immigration.
Aug. 7, 2014: Cartoon implying Governor Rick Perry (R) action to secure the border with state agencies is for "votes" (although Governor Perry is not running for an election to any office).  The cartoon depicts an illegal alien child as a "pinata full of votes" to the Governor.
Sept. 4, 2014: Jim Hightower (D) chastises republicans and calls them "pigheaded critters" over minimum wage policy positions.
Sept. 18, 2014: Matt Barber defends freedom of speech on issues such as discouraging the promotion of marriage by any other definition than a man and a woman, opposing abortion on demand (i.e. of healthy fetuses), and discouraging the promotion of abnormal sexual behavior.
Oct. 30, 2014: Marc Morial (D) disparaging voter ID concepts and attempts at developing voter ID laws.
Nov. 6, 2014: Cartoon mocking Hillary Clinton's gaffes and the party's attempt to "reset" her image.
Dec. 4, 2014: Roger Williams (R) congressman on leadership potential of new republican majority in Congress starting in 2015.
Feb. 12, 2015: Cartoon critical of President Obama for his proposed unfunded liability $60,000,000,000 program for free community college.
Feb. 19, 2015: Editorial by Donald Kaul (D) critical of Mitt Romney, Christians, and American foreign policy.
Apr. 16, 2015: Chuck Robison (D) syndicated column is a diatribe against Christians who are also fiscal policy and open-market capitalist conservatives and pro-life (i.e. Republicans).
Apr. 23, 2015: Texas Public Policy Foundation editorial (Republican policy think tank).
May 21, 2015: Cartoon acknowledging George Stephanopoulos is a democrat activist puppet of the Clintons posing as an ABC "reporter" or anchor, which is supposed to be an objective non-judgmental or editorializing position (at least is used to be, now there is no more objectivity).
June 11, 2015: Cartoon mocking President Obama's poor (passive) foreign policy (foreign leaders all laughing at Obama statement of "restoring US as the most respected country in the world".
June 18, 2015: Cartoon mocking President Obama for not recognizing "islamic terrorism" and instead using terms "workplace violence" and "armed insurgency".
Aug. 27, 2015: Cartoon showing drip drip drip of FBI and congressional investigations of Hillary Clinton unethical practices and State Dept decisions as rated to Benghazi scandal, and showing Mrs. Clinton using the excuse of it is all "politics" to shield herself from the scandals (metaphor using umbrella).
Nov. 12, 2015: Editorial by William Eckardt (R).
Dec. 3, 2015: Comic depicting Obama as espousing moping attitude ("Mope", not hope) due to apparent apathy towards foreign policy concerns and conflicts (spread of fundamentalist islam via ISIS; advancing Russian intervention; advancing Chinese intervention) and toward domestic policy failures (Obamacare costs).
Feb. 4: Editorial by Mike Eddleman (D) critical of republicans for speaking about the status of mental health care in this country and reminding voters that democrats control the executive departments of the federal government.
Feb. 11, 2016: Mike Eddleman editorial chastising republican voters and political leaders for supporting enforcement of federal law (i.e. no sanctuary city exclusions from law) and not permitting local municipalities to create a new power to prevent oil and gas exploration deep under city limits.
Feb. 11: Sarcastic editorial by William Eckardt criticizing President Obama for lack of leadership and instigation of poorer race relations in this country, for relationships with race baiters like Al Sharpton, for lying about Benghazi and the effects of Obamacare, and for focusing more on climate change issues than on the threats and attacks by islamic fundamentalism.
Feb. 18: Cartoon of another slow speed chase with FBI pursuing Hillary Clinton.  Cartoon of Trump with humble pie in face.
March 3, 2016: Mike Eddleman (D) (and publisher of the paper) uses legal case between Texas Child Protective Services (under Texas Dept. of Family and Prot. Services) and class action litigants to criticize republican Texas citizens who speak of fighting federal judicial takeover of a state program.
March 10: Cartoon depicting Hillary Clinton with a Pinocchio nose for all the lies associated with the Benghazi affairs, the improper handling of State Dept affairs emails and classified information, and with certain affairs while serving as First Lady during the Bill Clinton presidency.
March 10: Anonymous editorial by Hill Country News staff criticizing republican opinion that supreme court justices should not be considered during presidential election years, a position supported previously by democrat leaders such as Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and exhibited in the 1987 blocking by democrats of 2 Reagan appointees,
May 19, 2016: Anonymous editorial criticizing republicans in Congress for pursuing investigations into the Benghazi deaths and Planned Parenthood marketing of baby parts, and for pursuing efforts to stop legal actions against Exxon-Mobil for company policy decisions.
May 19, 2016: Editorial by Mr. Eddleman (D) criticizing republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
May 19, 2016: Cartoon showing the democrat candidate Hillary Clinton reaching out to West Virginia voters after telling them the democrat party would put alot of coal miners and their businesses "out of business".
June 2, 2016: Editorial by Mike Eddleman (D) criticizing Texas repulibcans' concerns related to removing restrictions to restroom access by federal government decree (i.e. allowing men to enter womens restrooms under guise of being transgender).  The concerns were based on the safety of young girls and women in general.
June 23, 2016: Editorial by M. Eddleman (D) promoting the normalization of homosexual "marriage", without discussing consequences as related to polygamy, insurance costs to cover new types of spouses, costs to businesses, etc.
July 7, 2016: Cartoon mocking Hillary Clinton as corrupt politician wealthy from unethical Clinton Foundation funding.
July 14, 2016: Editorial by Mike E. (D) conceptualizing "white perspective" and "white privilege" and making generalizations about "black" America (a very offensive editorial, displaying the elitist attitude of the writer and the contempt for free-thinking Americans).
7/14/16: Editorial (anonymous but obviously by Mike E.) promoting a ban on rifles ("assault rifles" but the leftists never define that term, it is supposed to mean full auto but those are already illegal).
July 21, 2016: Cartoon noting Hillary Clinton's "extremely careless" leadership for America, and one cartoon noting Donald Trump's VP pick having to clean up after him.
7/28/16: Weekly anonymous editorial (i.e. Mike E.) complaining about efforts for voter ID laws.
7/28/16: Cartoon showing Mrs. Clinton at a job interview (with the USA) and stating "but i have never been indicted" while the interviewer observes notes about all of her scandals (Whitewater, Filegate, Chinagate, Benghazi, Cattle Futures, Email Server).
8/04/16: Cartoon showing Hillary Clinton podium roped off by FBI (i.e. FBI staff protecting her from prosecution for violating US statute associated with classified information protection).
8/04/16: Editorial by Mr. Eddleman (D) celebrating and encouraging the election of Mrs. Clinton because the candidate is a woman (regardless of all the unredeaming qualities of her character and policy positions, or lack thereof).
9/01/16: Cartoon showing HIllary Clinton currency for the Clinton Foundation, mocking her corruption associated with the Clinton Foundation and access to her for high dollar donors while she served as Secretary of the US State Department.
10/13/16: Editorial by Mr. Eddleman (D) making harsh criticisms of Mr. Trump based on flippant comments of negative perceptions.
Dec. 8, 2016: Cartoon showing Mr. Trump in blue-collar uniform notifying Mr. Obama that he fixed his Carrier air-conditioning, while Mr. Obama is putting golf balls in his office, absent-minded leader that he has been.
Dec. 8, 2016: Editorial by Mr. Eddleman chastising the Lt. Gov. for property tax reduction efforts in the legislature.
Dec. 15: Editorial by Mr. Eddleman (D), chastising Mr. Trump for insensitive comments (but the characterizations are grossly over dramatized by Mr. Eddleman).
Dec. 22: Cartoon mocking Bill Clinton for suggesting Obamacare, although a financially unsustainable sinking ship, provides coverage for more people.
Dec. 22: Cartoon exhibiting false promises of Mr. Obama as "fake news".
Feb. 2, 2017: Cartoon mocking White House Press Secretary for comments about inauguration crowd sizes.
June 15, 2017: Paper profiles (promotes) democrat candidate Christine Mann for US Congress House seat.
June 22, 2017: Paper profiles (promotes) democrat candidate Mike Collier for Lt. Governor.
June 22, 2017: Cartoon informing reader of Vice President Pence hiring an attorney, but illustrated as at least 1 job created.
June 29, 2017: Editors promote/profile Democrat candidates vying for primary nomination for US House of Representatives seat.
July 6, 2017: Editorial chastising Governor Abbott for vetoing a rather innocuous bill concerning attorneys being able to collect fees for pursuing information from government entities using freedom-of-information act requests, and other bills associated with forcing government entities to broadcast information for public view without request.
July 6: Front page profile or promotion of Democrat candidate Mary Hegar for US Congress.
July 27, 2017: Democrat candidate Eady Mann is again profiled positively in front page story.
July 27, 2017: Democrat candidate Mary Hegar is again profiled and promoted.
Aug. 3, 2017: Guest columnist Glen Mollette writes a piece explaining why President Trump should not resign and should continue his policy initiatives.
Oct. 12, 2017: Paper profiles Cynthia Long (R).
March 8, 2018: Jim Hightower (D) editorial maligning food box proposal in USDA food stamp program.
May 17, 2018: Graham West (D) editorial chastising the decision by President Trump to no longer certify the continuation of the recent agreement with Iran.  The editorial is completely one sided, ignoring any reference to arguments in support of removing the USA from the agreement.
May 17, 2018: Chuck Robison (D) editorial insulting the President of the United States without engaging in any intelligent policy discussion.
July 26, 2018: Editorical by Democrat Peter Funt chastising President Donald Trump's disparagement of biased media coverage and criticizing an RNC email survey for the types of questions it posed.  Mr. Funt neglects to show or critique similar examples of DNC surveys and ignores examples of leftist media coverage and leftist "fake news" stories, countless examples of which are recorded at The Federalist website.
8/23/18: Column by Michael Reagan defending President Trump's decisions to remove security clearances from former federal employees.
8/30/18: Editorial by Peter Funt (D) critical of President Trump and his legal team.
9/06/18: Beto O'Rourke (D) visit to Cedar Park is promoted on the front page above the fold.
9/20/18: Editorial by Yolanda Parker (D) criticizing President Trump's supreme court judge nomination.
9/27/18: Cartoon indicating Trump-supported trade tariffs will require consumers to pay for the impact; (but conveniently ignores the impact on the foreign nation that will likely suffer much greater consequences, hence gaining a better negotiating position in new trade talks.)
9/27/18: Editorial by Will Durst (D) criticizing President Trump.
10/04/18: Editorial by Christine Flowers criticizing the treatment of Judge Kavanaugh.
10/11/18: Editorial by Eric Zorn (D) criticizing Judge Kavanugh.
10/11/18: Editorial by Steve Palumbi and Mary Roberts (D) promoting parents to vote leftist like their kids (for Beto O'Rourke and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).
10/18/18: Paper-authored editorial criticizing budget cut requests by President Trump for NIH funding.
10/18/18: David Winston editorial promoting positive economic impact of Republican (and Trump) economic policies.
10/25/18: Editorial by Michael Reagan (R) warning voters not to go down the path of leftist Democrat California.
11/01/18: Editorial by Joe Guzzardi critical of our weak asylum claim system allowing illegal aliens to enter the country and disappear into the population (related to oncoming caravan of foreign nationals).
11/15/18: Editorial by Erwin Chemerinsky (D) critical of President Trump and Jeff Sessions.
1/17/19: Cartoon mocking Trump administration considering FEMA funds for border barrier instead of Puerto Rico and States.
1/17/19: Editorial by John Micek (D) critical of President Trump border policy.
1/31/19: Editorial by Adam Green (D) making negative comments about Republicans and positive comments about Democrats.
2/21/19: Editorial by Scott Martelle (Democrat) critical of US Supreme Court even hearing challenge to lower court ruling denying the federal government the ability to ask on the 10-year census if a respondent or household members are citizens or not.  Mr. Martelle wants illegal aliens to be counted, even though it negatively impacts tax dollar allocations from citizens to non-citizens.
2/28/19: Editorial by Will Durst (D) chastising the President of the USA over policy to improve border control fencing.
2/28/19: Editorial by Rekha Basu (D), critical of the current president's administration for characterizing the crisis at the border as a crisis.
3/07/19: Paper's internal editorial commending President Trump for his handling of the most recent negotiations with North Korea.  Although not an opinion piece on political ideology, it was classified as supportive of a Republican politician.
4/18/19: Reprinting of a Los Angeles Times editorial chastising Texas republican healthcare policy efforts to protect pre-existing conditions customers (essentially stating it is not enough) (The Protect Act).
4/25/19: Editorial by Jonah Goldberg mocking the informal proposal by President Trump to transport processed illegal aliens to sanctuary cities.
5/09/19: Editorial by Dick Polman (D) mocking republicans who support additional research/study and caution concerning negative impacts of certain immunizations, calling them "anti-science" (but ignorantly forgetting what the definition of science is......knowledge gained by systematic study).
5/30/19: Editorial by leftist Ann McFeatters (D) describing efforts to duly impeach President Trump.
6/13/19: Editorial by Vicky Hausman (D) bemoaning gerrymandering efforts by Republicans but ignoring gerrymandering efforts by Democrats in states such as Maryland.
6/20/19: Editorial by paper staff bemoaning attempts to ask if a resident is a US Citizen or not in the 10-year Census, which is perfectly reasonable information for the government to know.
6/20/19: Editorial by Chuck Robison (D) defending the legality of killing babies in the womb.
6/27/19: Profile of Democrat candidate Christine Mann.
7/11/19: Profile of Democrat John Bucy.
7/25/19: Editorial by Trudy Rubin (D) bemoaning President Trump for criticizing "the press", ignoring the basis or rationale for justified criticism or presuming "the press" should be free from criticism even when engaged in biased reporting, political hit piece interviews, false reporting (fake news comprised of incomplete information or made up information or assumptions not stated as assumptions or without validation of sources, etc).
8/01/19: Cartoon making fun of Bernie Sanders for not paying his staff at least $15 per hour, even though he continuously pushes for a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour.
8/08/19: Editorial by unnamed Houston Chronicle staff chastising Governor Abbott concerning lack of new gun control state legislation and bemoaning social isolation, mental illness, and white supremacist movement "fan the flames of hate" and influencing "young white men who kill", bemoaning 3 mass shootings in 2 years, but completely ignoring the 279 murders in Houston alone in 2018, 1693 across Texas in 2017, perpetrated by all manner of men and women of various ethnicity (black, latino, white, asian).  The bias reporting exhibits a racial undertone by singling out one shooter in El Paso who was white, but ignores the larger problem of murders in Texas.
8/15/19: Cartoon mocking some of the cultural reasons gun violence is more common (mental illness; excessive violence in video games and movies permeating the culture, etc), even though such reasons are valid.
8/29/19: Article discussing Mike Guevara running for Texas House seat.
9/05/19: Cartoon showing NRA president and the President of the USA ignoring mass shooting gun violence problem.
9/12/19: Disgusting article claiming there is anti-latino racism problem in Texas.
9/12/19: Democrat crank Ross  Ramsey bemoans Texas republican politicians for various things such as efforts at improving gun control laws and in-fighting among House members.
10/24/19: Democrat Ross Ramsey again allowed to complain in an editorial about Republican House member infighting.
11/21/19: Democrat Dick Polman editorial concerning the alleged "whistleblower" in the US House impeachment inquiry hearings.
12/05/19: Cartoon mocking voters who cast vote for Trump in 2016.
12/12/19: Cartoon antagonizing those who perceive the climate change policy movement as a hoax to justify taking more money from taxpayers.
12/19, 2019: Editorial promoting MJ Hegar (Democrat) for the US House representative seat.
1/23/20: Editorial by Michael Reagan (R) discussing the ridiculous impeachment attempt over a phone call related to our relationship with the Ukraine and our taxpayer dollars (aide package).
1/30/20: Article promoting Democrat candidates forum.
1/30/20: Editorial by Dick Polman (Democrat) encouraging impeachment of President Trump over expressions made associated with our relationship with the Ukraine.
3/12/20: Article discussing local Democrat politicians "flexing muscles" in primary.

Advice on Life, by Neal Boortz

This is the speech that radio talk show host Neal Boortz says he would give if he was asked to give a commencement speech at a college/university (Kennnesaw State College actually invited him to give this speech on campus as a guest speaker and he was allowed to don a commencement gown for chuckles):

I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration. 

You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees. 

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach. 

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun. 

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know. 

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. 

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual. 

Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses. 

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now. 

If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job! You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, just your earnings. 

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor aging hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist ... but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market. 

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills; for every person who ignored all offered educational opportunities, dreaming of nothing more than a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit. 

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive Imperial Federal Government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, will have or should have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force, to accomplish its goals. 

You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla with a gun. It will sleep anywhere it wants to. 

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease it's share of your income. That power rests with him, not you. 

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Oh yes, I know it's a necessary evil, but it is dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal. 

Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world. 

First that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia: Diversity! 

You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes it's that liberal group identity thing again. 

Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications. 

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. 

From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess. 

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses. 

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so. 

Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to whatever wealth you are able to produce with your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another. 

You may think, for instance, that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof. 

You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? I can't wait for you to point that one out for me in our Constitution. I sure would like to be a fly on the wall when some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money. 

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly. 

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why. 

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility. 

If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren't we? 

This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky; all they did was buy the right lottery ticket. What an insult this is to the man or woman who works that 60 hour week to provide for a family. 

It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice." 

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S.O.B.! You did this to me!" 

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms. 

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car. 

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich. 

Quite a few people have followed that tragic path. 

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich. 

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich. 

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.' 

The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair." 

You have heard, no doubt, that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ... there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor. 

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in America. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1 million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news. 

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty." 

This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? 

Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics. 

And please remember this: The average person in this country described as "poor" has a higher standard of living than the average European. Not the average "poor" European, the average European. 

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion,that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder. 

Well, it looks like I'm about to be given the hook. The faculty looks a little angry. I'll bet they've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get.That's OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth. So, get over it. 

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts. 

You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again. To the welfare class I say that we're taking care of you we would appreciate if if you would just stay out of our way so we can get the job done.

When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.

Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the United States. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.

Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What your earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.

Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

2. Use wisely your power of choice.

3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.



Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back. 

The Electoral College

In many school districts and private schools across the country United States history is not adequately covered, although there is some general exposure to the format and design of the U.S. government.  I am surprised when i hear a young person unaware that our country (The United States of America) is not a raw democracy, is it a democratic republic, or a republican form of democracy.  A republic, by definition, is a representative form of government where the people elect other people to represent them (i.e. no monarch (king), no dictator, no military junta, no anarchy, no tribalism).  In a raw democracy the majority vote would dictate everything and the minority would suffer.  But in a representative form of democracy there are more checks and balances that help protect individual rights and rights of minority interests.

The U.S. Constitution requires:

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.

Our founding fathers created a constitutional republic, not a raw democracy. A raw democracy could lead to the irresponsible rule by a majority interest. The brilliant electoral college system allows all states and areas of the country to be fairly represented and not allow a heavily populated city or one large state with selfish interests to dominate and decide the election. In essence the electoral college prevents "regionalism" where a candidate could just win a super-majority of votes in a region of the country that could carry them to the Oval Office.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton obtained 65.8 million votes while Donald Trump obtained 63.0 million votes. However, Mr. Trump won 30 states and over 300 electoral college votes, a resounding victory in terms of presidential elections. But note that the genius of the electoral college worked. In California, Mrs. Clinton won 8.75 million votes and Mr. Trump 4.48 million, a difference of 4.27 million, much more than the margin of popular vote difference overall. Remove California, and Mr. Trump won the popular vote among the 49 states by 1.4 million voters. And within California, the entire state margin of victory could be claimed by just four counties (with 4 big cities): Alameda: 418,000 more for Clinton, Santa Clara: 367,000, San Francisco: 308,000, and Los Angeles: 1.69 million extra for Clinton, for a total of 2.8 million votes more than trump in just 4 counties in one state, the margin of Mrs. Clinton's popular vote victory. The electoral college prevented California Democrats (leftists) from unfairly overwhelmingly influencing the selection of the president. The United States of America is supposed to be conglomeration of 50 semi-autonomous states, but instead over the last 2 centuries the central federal government has become more powerful while the states have been weakened. This trend must stop and be reversed, otherwise states will simply be provinces to a statist form of government where quasi socialist and communist policies can be pursued and instituted. The electoral college helps keep the selection of a temporary national executive branch leader in the hands of quasi independent states as each state makes a selection based on a statewide popular vote, and honors that selection with its electors. So each state casts a vote and the votes are tallied to determine the president, although states' voting power is proportional to its population. You have to win a majority of the states to win a presidential election, not the majority of the overall popular vote. And that is the way it should be for a 50-state democracy.

The founding fathers, the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787, considered a popular vote for President but then rejected the proposal because they recognized the inherent unfairness that would occur in a system that is supposed to consist of semi-independent states. The electoral college decentralizes the process, forcing candidates to campaign to most states and not ignore them. The electoral college also minimizes the impact of fraud in one state from impacting the election and requiring recounts. Fraud in one state might not change the outcome in that particular state if it maintains the constitutional requirement of a winner take all elector representation (e.g. when fraud was identified in Florida in 2000, it did not change the outcome of that state's awarding of its electors to President Bush because the final tally within the state was still in favor of President Bush). If the state by state electoral college system were abolished, fraud would have a direct consequence (no longer minimized or contained by an elector system) and trust in the overall result would be changed to suspicion and distrust among states when they no longer trust the vote counts from some other states.

In 1876 Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden, even though Tilden won the popular vote, Hayes won the electoral college. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost the electoral college but won the popular vote because of "southern" regionalism (super-majorities in the south). In 1892 Grover Cleveland won both the popular vote and the electoral college because he campaigned for his policies in the coasts and the north in addition to the south. In 1992 Bill Clinton won the electoral college even though he only obtained 43% of the popular vote (strong 3rd party candidate that year).

The Electoral College, as Trent England stated for National Review's Imprimis journal: "continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions."

In summary, the benefits of the Electoral College include: (1) forcing candidates and political parties to build broad coalitions across the entire country and across all states, (2) minimizing the impact of fraudulent voting in any one state, (3) encouraging moderate tones and policies and minimizing extremist positions that would bitterly divide populations by alienating large groups of people, and (4) preventing smaller states from being ignored by national politics and policies.