Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

White chicks can’t wear braids

I’ve always thought that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but did you know that it is considered by many politically correct snowflake morons as extremely offensive and bad form for members of one ethnic group to “appropriate” the cultural aspects and practices of a different ethnic group?

Yes, it’s difficult to for me to imagine why someone in her right mind might become violently offended enough to physically assault another person simply because a hairstyle, for instance, was supposedly “culturally appropriated.”

But now it happens all the time.

Hampshire College student, Carmen Figueroa,  for example, recently assaulted a member of the Central Maine Community College girls’ basketball team over concerns that one of their players had “culturally appropriated” a hairstyle.

Cultural appropriation is defined as the “taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another. It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of nonWestern or nonwhite forms, and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance.”

Figueroa had the nerve to order white members of the Central Maine Community College girls’ basketball team to remove braids from their hair, claiming that their use of the hairstyle is black “cultural appropriation.” When they refused to comply with her ridiculous demands she reportedly assaulted one of them.

So you see, in today’s convoluted insane politically correct society, white folks can’t eat soul food; white folks can’t listen to blues music; white chicks can’t wear dreadlocks, because it might offend black folks; because that is offensive and exploitative; and, yes…


White chicks can’t wear braids. 

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Liberty criminalized in Michigan

Statist lawmakers in the state of Michigan have once again criminalized the fundamental constitutional right to liberty. That’s right. In Michigan it is unlawful to use your own property as you like on your own property when the statist government goons deem it so.

What would you think of a law that prohibited persons from leaving their own lawn furniture or any other personal property unattended outside on their own patio? How about a law that prohibits people from leaving their doors unlocked?  Or what would you say about a law that prohibits turning the lights inside your home off at night?

That’s ridiculous, you would say. It’s unconstitutional!

They can’t criminalize our liberty like that, can they?

Of course we can reason the statists. If you leave personal property unattended outside on your patio, thieves might be inclined steal it. If you leave your doors unlocked, you might be burglarized. If you If you turn off your lights inside at night, that might encourage criminals to enter your home and victimize you. The government has an obligation to prevent such crimes. So it can criminalize you for furnishing criminals with opportunities to victimize you.

That’s statist reasoning for you and the Constitution may be damned.

Nick Taylor, (no relation), committed a “crime” in Roseville Michigan by leaving his own car unlocked and idling unattended to warm up in his girlfriend’s driveway on a bitterly cold winter morning. "Every person warms up their car," he explains. "We live in Michigan!" Not that it should matter, but he didn't want his girlfriend's son, who has cerebral palsy, to get into a cold car on a freezing day.

Never-mind flimsy excuses croaked the Roseville cop who slapped Taylor with a $128 ticket for violating a city ordinance. "This is purely a public safety issue," claims Police Chief James Berlin. "You see it all the time, people hop in a running car and steal them. Something bad happens when that occurs."

Yes, we see it all the time; people walking outside on a public sidewalk with their own wallet in their back pants pocket enticing pickpocket’s to steal it. Yes, something bad happens when that occurs. So let’s pass a law to criminalize a pedestrian for carrying his own wallet in public. Let’s criminalize the victims of crimes for causing lazy police goons to have to do their jobs.

Let’s criminalize liberty in Michigan. 


Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Offensive speech makes snowflakes feel unsafe

The current trend among leftist snowflakes these days is to demand censorship of any ideas that “offend” them. Snowflakes are offended by any expression of ideas they don’t agree with. So they seek to shut down free speech rights by force on the grounds that offensive speech makes them feel “unsafe.

Can you imagine that? They’re sentiments are so delicate. They’re offended so easily. They irrationally melt with the slightest rise in ideological temperature. That’s why they’re called snowflakes.

Snowflake fascist protesters actually claim the right to muzzle any expression they don’t agree with because it makes them feel unsafe. They did it recently with violence in the city of Berkley California, for example, to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopolos preventing him from giving a public speech. His expression was canceled because it made the snowflakes feel unsafe.  

Everything President Trump says offends them and makes them feel unsafe. They’re calling for his impeachment because his ideas make them feel unsafe. They simply cannot stand to hear any ideas they don’t agree with. They melt into apoplectic rage.

Now the snowflakes are in another escalating uproar complaining bitterly over the fact that former Indiana governor and currant Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, is scheduled to deliver a commencement speech in South Bend, Indiana at the University of Notre Dame. The poor pitiful students claim that his mere presence on campus will make them feel unsafe.

The poor little snowflakes are walking around protesting with signs containing quotations attributed to Pence which they deem “racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic.” Pence makes them feel so unsafe. “For me personally, [Pence] represents the larger Trump administration,” whined one student.

“His administration represents something, and for many people on our campus, it makes them feel unsafe to have someone who openly is offensive but also demeaning of their humanity and of their life and of their identity…  I know that during his time as governor of Indiana and also during his campaign trail, along with Trump, he has made offensive statements towards minority groups that affect me, like women and African-Americans,” he explained plaintively.

Pence’s ideas contradict with the school’s Catholic mission complains the snowflake. “I feel that is offensive to such a large population here at Notre Dame, and I also believe it goes against certain Catholic Social Teaching, which is something the University likes to broadcast that it stands behind, but it picks and chooses when it wants to stand behind them,”


You see, offensive speech that they don’t agree with makes snowflakes feel unsafe.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Was this wicked witchy woman cursed with ineffective assistance of counsel?

A nasty old lady was convicted in Oklahoma recently on a plea of guilty to multiple counts of felony child abuse for terrorizing her 7-year-old granddaughter while dressed as a witch. Few would argue, least of all me, that this wicked witchy woman deserved to be dealt with severely, but where was her lawyer when the judge cursed her with a sentence of three life terms in prison?

The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights which guarantees to even the worst wicked and depraved of criminals the right to a lawyer for her defense, and that right has been interpreted to include the “effective assistance of counsel.” In short, the accused is entitled to a competent attorney to provide an effective defense.

Geneva Robinson, 51, admitted that she dressed up in a mask as "Nelda" the witch with her hands painted green to scare her granddaughter. She scratched the child’s neck, struck her face, hit her hand with a rolling pin, and cut her hair while she slept according to court records. 

"What she did was horrific and what she did will forever impact this child and her siblings," said the Assistant District Attorney. "She deserves the same amount of mercy that she showed this child, and that's none."

OK, maybe this nasty witch indeed deserves a large dose of the same medicine she administered to her granddaughter, and perhaps even a prison sentence too, but life in prison; Really? Under these circumstances that seems way too harsh to me, especially in view of the fact that granny says she’s receiving treatment and taking medication for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.  

What does her lawyer have to say about all this?

Tanya Jones, Robinson's defense attorney, said Robinson lacked resources to control the child. "She understands she went too far,"

Is that all? Is that the sum and substance of her defense? Is that effective assistance of counsel? Do you think that a plea of insanity or diminished capacity might have been advisable? 

Do you think that counsel might have offered a case for a more reasonable sentence all things considered? I guess not. This lawyer simply advised her client to plead guilty and watched her get hauled off to prison for life. My goodness; many murderers don’t get life sentences.

Joshua Granger, Robinson's boyfriend, was also sentenced after pleading guilty to one count of felony child abuse. He is expected to serve 30 years in prison.

What’s wrong with this picture? 

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Elizabeth Warren’s leftist feminist hypocrisy

Of all the leftist feminist lawmakers in Congress you might think that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the most vociferous champion of equality for women, especially equal pay for women who perform the same work as men. Perhaps she is indeed the most vociferous of them all but that only serves to make her the biggest hypocrite as well.

“I cannot believe I have to give another speech fighting for equal pay for equal work for women,” Warren tweeted in her Senate account. Apparently the Senator likes to talk the talk but she doesn’t exactly walk the walk.

According to a recent report Warren’s female staffers made more than $20,000 less than their male counterparts last year. In fact, the pay gap between male and female staffers in her office doing the same work is about 10 percent wider than the national average.

So her female staffers will have to wait a good bit longer than most women across the country in order to recognize Equal Pay Day, created two decades ago by the National Committee on Pay Equity. Warren pays them just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men. Her female staffers averaged $52,750 last year while the guys pocketed $73,750 on average according to Senate data.

The top five highest paid staffers in Warren’s office were all men who earned between $113,750 and $156,000, while only one woman earned a salary of more than $100,000 in 2016. Among employees employed the entire year, only one woman, Warren's director of scheduling, earned a six-figure salary, at $100,624.88.

Five men -- Warren's director of oversight and investigations ($156,000), legislative director ($149,458), deputy chief of staff ($119,375), Massachusetts state director ($152,310), and deputy state director ($113,750) -- earned more than Warren's highest paid woman staffer in 2016.

This is the same Sen. Warren who said on last year's Equal Pay Day that the American workplace was "rigged against women" and called it a "national day of embarrassment" for the nation. 

"Today is Equal Pay Day, and by the sound of it, you would think it's some sort of historic holiday commemorating the anniversary of a landmark day that our country guaranteed equal pay for women,” said Warren. "But that's not what this is about. Not even close."

Of course, Warren is not the only leftist feminist politician who talks equal pay for women and then pays women less than men. Guess who one of them is. Yes, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton paid women about $15,000 less than men as a senator, then paid women $16,000 less than men as secretary of state, and paid women $7,000 less as presidential candidate. Women working at the Obama White House also regularly earned less than men.


How’s that for leftist feminist hypocrisy? 

Sunday, April 9, 2017

You get what you pay for

The ultra-left-wing socialists in Congress, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, are introducing the so-called “College for All Act” this week intending to make a college education free for all U.S. citizens, regardless of income or demographic. It’s another proposed government sponsored give-away-free-for-all.

And as we all know so well, when you get government stuff for free, you get what you pay for. The value of higher education in America will swiftly drop to the lowest common denominator. If everyone gets a free education, how much do you think it will be worth?

More to the point, do you really think that everyone should seek a college education? Should house maids, garbage collectors, street sweepers, gardeners, and burger flippers and welfare queens all have college educations?

What is the progressive socialist statist motive to make college education free? Will it actually be valuable higher education or just more post public school indoctrination? "Education should be a right, not a privilege," Sanders said on the campaign trail. "We need a revolution in the way that the United States funds higher education."

Free stuff is a right.

Let’s have a revolution and declare that everything shall be free.

New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley thinks so. He says it may be time to consider making college tuition free because of the impact of student debt on the economy. Student debt has negative impact on household spending power. Well, yeah, that sound about right.

You see, if students have to borrow money to buy a higher education, they’ll have less money to buy other stuff, so maybe we should just make all stuff free. “To the extent that student-loan growth inhibits homeownership, this could obviously have significant consequences for the economy, because when someone buys a home, that can lead to more home construction, which has a pretty high multiplier,” says Dudley. 

Studies have indicated student debt holders are less likely to buy homes even though college graduates have a higher probability of buying a home than those without a college degree. Well, perhaps the obvious answer to that problem is to simply make both college and home ownership free, right?


Yes, and studies have also shown than when stuff is free you get what you pay for. 

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

$10 Trillion: Where are you?

$10 Trillion in taxpayer dollars is gone? Disappeared? No one knows where it is? WTF? Are you kidding me?

Apparently, during just the last twenty years, our Pentagon military brass have lost track of $10 Trillion dollars, and no one, not even the Department of Defense, knows where it has gone or on what it was spent.  

Yes, for more than twenty years, since all federal departments were ordered to submit to financial audits, the DOD has never complied, and now $10 trillion is missing.

Auditing us would take too long and cost too much insist DOD officials. Meanwhile, the DOD budget allocated by Congress has more than doubled, and President Trump is proposing another $54 billion be added to the mix. Is it any wonder that our national debt is now at $20 trillion? It looks like the DOD alone is responsible for half of it.

What are you going to do about this, Mad Dog?

What are you going to do about this, Donald?

Do you think that there might be a bit of corruption going on here?

Do you think that the pockets of a few slimy swamp creature military industrial complex contractor parasites have been lined with some cash here?

It seems to me that some heads should roll; some prison cells should find new occupants; and a few $trillion in restitution should be paid.

How about it? We the people want our money back.

$10 Trillion: Where are you?


Monday, April 3, 2017

Michael Moore claims Trump is killing us all

Michael Moore, that ugly scruffy face of our American ultra-left wing loony toons fringe brigade, hates our new President so much, and is so completely deluded,  that he’s willing to claim in all seriousness that Donald Trump, in only 70 days as President, has already caused the total “extinction of Human life on earth.” 

It’s only a matter of time. 

I’m not making this up.  

Michael Moore claims that Trump is killing us all.

 “Historians in the near future (because that may be the only future we have) will mark today, March 28, 2017, as the day the extinction of human life on earth began,” Moore predicts.  

Oh my goodness, what the Hell did Trump do last Tuesday to cause the extinction of mankind on Earth? Is he starting World War III? Is he about to shoot off America’s total nuclear arsenal at thousands of targets all around the globe? Is he going to sterilize all our women?

No! 

In Michael Moor’s crazy mind it’s much worse than any of those things.“President Trump has signed executive orders ending all efforts to stop and reverse climate change.”  Moor explains. 

That’s it, folks!

Trump’s executive orders are causing the extinction of mankind. “He is rescinding President Obama's six climate change orders. He is instructing the Environmental Protection Agency to cease its climate change efforts and do no environmental regulations that get in the way of profits or ‘jobs.’ The EPA is to only concern itself with ‘clean air and clean water’ - while Trump orders a massive increase in the use of coal.”

“This is a defining moment in the history of mankind,” Moore warns.

How about that? Trump has already created a defining moment in the entire 2.5 million years or so history of human beings on Earth just by signing his name to a few executive orders. 

“By signing these executive orders today, Trump is declaring an act of war on the planet and its inhabitants.”  It’s an unholy act of war on Planet Earth.

Thankfully there is a silver lining, Moore claims: “The one silver lining here is that Trump can't kill the planet; the planet wants to live and has a long history of wiping out any real or perceived threats. With the actions Trump is taking today, the planet is paying attention -- and the planet will make sure it dispenses with a species hell-bent on destroying Earth.

Oh, I see. Earth is going to get mad at the Donald for signing those nasty executive orders. Earth is paying attention to the Donald. And Earth is going to punish the Donald by dispensing with all humans because our entire species is guilty of trying to destroy mother Earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, you see here the pathetic ravings of a mad man. Michael Moore should voluntarily commit himself to an institution for the certifiably mentally insane. Climate change hysteria and his silly obsession with Donald Trump have caused him to go crazy. He could benefit from a strait jacket and a padded cell.

Even if the most dire of all predicted consequences of global warming posited by the hysterical climate alarmists come true, (they won’t) it will surely not cause the extinction of mankind. Mankind has already endured the worst of possible climate changes from hellishly hot to excruciatingly cold during our relatively short history on Earth yet continues to thrive exceedingly well.  

It’s going to be OK.


Trump is not killing us all. 

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Chuck Schumer goes unhinged

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is on a partisan mission to find fault with, criticize, malign, and obstruct absolutely everything that President Donald Trump says and does no matter what. The man is unhinged.

If Trump came up with an inexpensive cure for every type of cancer and initiated a program to distribute it to every person on the planet free for the benefit of mankind, Chuck Schumer would stand up on the senate floor to block it just like he plans to filibuster Trump’s appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS.

Since Schumer whines and objects without exception to everything Trump says and does; since he is always invariably negative, he has lost all credibility to opine on any matter involving the President. Everyone knows that he goes way beyond partisan party politics; he does it just for the fun of it.

Now Schumer, according to numerous witnesses, is even causing ugly scenes with people in public for simply minding their own business. He recently totally lost his cool and went off on a loud yelling tirade directed toward the wife of a prominent former democrat at a posh Upper East Side Manhattan restaurant for the “crime,” as he sees it, of having voted for Trump.

Schumer was dining there with friends when he encountered prominent Democrat, Joseph A. Califano Jr., the former U.S. secretary of health, education and welfare under President Jimmy Carter and domestic policy adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson, and his wife, Hilary, who were having a quiet dinner.

Witnesses said that Schumer became incensed with Hilary because she voted for Trump. The Califanos left the restaurant but Schumer followed them outside screaming, yelling and ranting repeatedly, “How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar! ”

Ms. Califano confirmed the confrontation: “Sen. Schumer was really rude…. He’s our senator, and I don’t really like him. Yes, I voted for Trump. Schumer joined us outside and he told me Trump was a liar. I should have told him that Hillary Clinton was a liar, but I was so surprised I didn’t say anything.”

I don’t like him either. What reasonable human being does?

Chuck Schumer has cried wolf far too often.


He has a disturbing tendency to go unhinged. 

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Order in the court: Let us pray

There is no end to the number of government officials in America who think they have authority from God Almighty to ignore the First Amendment Establishment Clause and use their public positions to promote their religious beliefs. I have the obligation to call them out time and time again. Dealing with these sanctimonious morons is like playing the game of whack-a-mole with a ping pong paddle.

Now in Texas we have Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack, who has installed his own tradition of beginning each session of his court with Christian prayers. But don’t say he didn’t warn us. He campaigned for his government job vowing it instill "religious values” in his office and promised to implement a "chaplaincy program."

The judge, at the start of each session, tells all the people in his courtroom, onlookers, lawyers and litigants alike, that if they are offended by the prayer, "you can leave into the hallway and your case will not be affected." Then a minister of the Christian gospel stands up and reads from the Bible to the congregation. After this sermon, with Judge Mack looking on, the preacher asks everyone to bow their heads in prayer.

Naturally, all the litigants and their lawyers in the courtroom feel coerced to participate in the religious rituals as they believe that the outcome of their personal court case will be affected by how Judge Mack sees them react.

Will the judge look favorably upon them if they bow their heads in prayer?

Will he punish them if they don’t?

Proponents of Judge Mack’s “tradition” claim that it is a “settled issue.” "Judge Mack's program is an excellent idea and a great way to serve the community… It has already been upheld by both The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Texas Attorney General."

Well, isn’t that precious? It serves the community? Good luck on that idea with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, Judge Mack. Your religious “tradition” goes way too far, is unconstitutional, and the federal courts will strike it down.

Suppose, for example, that another Texas judge installed a “tradition” of starting each session of his court with a little missive about why God and Jesus are imaginary. Do you think that The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Texas Attorney General would uphold that “tradition”?

I don’t thinks so.


Order in the court: Let us not pray. 

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Hillary Clinton & her rotten Brazile nuts

Remember during the 2016 Democratic election primaries when WikiLeaks published hacked DNC emails showing that chairwoman, Donna Brazile, used her CNN contributor position to help Hillary Clinton cheat on rival Bernie Sanders during their debates?

Remember how Brazile over and over again vehemently denied that she passed town hall debate questions on to Hillary that would be asked during the debates so that Clinton would have a heads up advantage against Sanders? “I did not receive any questions from CNN,” she lied. “As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not stand here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.”

Remember how Hillary Clinton kept her mouth shut and lips zipped tight about the allegations against Brazile and her campaign cheating Sanders and rigging the primary process against him? We surely didn’t see her come forward to admit that she and her campaign were systematically perverting the primary election to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair chance to compete, did we?

Well now, at long last, Brazile admits that she did in fact use her CNN position several times to pass debate questions to Clinton before the debate. “[A]mong the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and DNC vice chair prior to assuming the interim DNC chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” she writes.

Now she apologizes calling it "a mistake I will forever regret" “My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”

Brazile was a paid commentator at CNN then. She violated basic ethics and betrayed her employer's trust by sharing the information with Clinton. That got her fired after the emails were released. Now she candidly admits the cheating scheme but Hillary Clinton will never admit her part in it.

That’s because Hillary Clinton is a fundamentally dishonest human being. Obviously, she didn’t alert CNN and insist that different debate questions be asked. That would have been the decent and honest thing to do but sadly Hillary Clinton has never been decent and honest. Neither she nor any of her campaign officials have ever expressed any regret or remorse for cheating Bernie Sanders, deceiving the public, CNN and subverting democracy.


That’s just one more of many examples proving the permanently flawed character of Hillary Clinton and her rotten Brazile nuts. 

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Cut it out!

The goofy leftists are screaming bloody murder over President Trump’s proposed budget cuts, which even if passed by Congress (doubtful), would actually cut only a minuscule percentage of the overall bloated, unnecessary out of control give-away government largess. Thank you, Mr. President for your bold and aggressive proposals, but your priorities are skewed and it’s not nearly enough. 

The leftists cry like spoiled babies over the potential loss of boondoggles like Big Bird, Meals on Wheels, and National Endowment for the Arts. How can America possibly survive the demise of Public Broadcasting, they whine? 

Right-wingers wring their greedy hands over potential cuts to the massive and unnecessary national security and military industrial complex programs. How can America possibly survive with a leaner, meaner and more cost effective national security and defense system, they whine?

But the real question is how can America possibly survive a national debt that is fast approaching $20trillion and still growing exponentially? We simply don’t need stupid government give-away schemes, and we must recognize that our national security is not presently in any serious danger. So shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars stupidly for just one fighter jet is a monumentally ridiculous proposition.

Completely ignored is the plain fact that interest payments alone on that debt presently total over $6oobillion annually at rates which have stayed ridiculously low for too many years now.  If interest rates as projected simply return to the national average it’s going to start costing us more than a $trillion dollars every year just to service that debt.

Interest payments will amount to more than any single category of spending, including defense and all national security allocations combined. America cannot sustain that burden. Something’s got to give. Drastic cuts will be necessary well beyond what President Trump is proposing.

Cut it out!

Of course, the government could keep printing more and more money to stave off the impending disaster. But that would only lead to a massive increase in inflation. Imagine a loaf of bread that costs you $100. Imagine an economy and annual inflation rate like the people in Venezuela are suffering.  There aren’t nearly enough taxpayers in our country to bail us out of a mess like that. The only reasonable solution is to cut spending drastically.

Or, maybe the government could eventually run out of funds and be forced to default on the debt. Do you think that would be a good thing; stiffing all those creditors, including China, of all the trillions we owe? If so, think again. That debt cannot simply be canceled. The money would still be owed. The consequences to ordinary Americans like you and me would be catastrophic. The resulting global depression would make the great depression of the 1930’s seem like a Sunday picnic.

Worst of all, America would not be able to borrow money anymore, anywhere anytime. Who would lend money to America if it won’t pay it back? Say goodbye to your Social Security, your Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government social program. If you think that the leftists are whining too much now, just wait until the government runs out of cash and can’t borrow any more.

Again, the only reasonable responsible solution is to stop spending money that we don’t have and drastically cut spending for anything that is not absolutely necessary. That means cutting every category of government spending until in hurts, including the bloated budgets of all three branches of government, the military, homeland security, every cabinet department and agency, all entitlements, social programs, all discretionary and non-discretionary spending.  

Just the outrageous spending on the office of POTUS alone, for example, which includes two massively expensive Air force One jumbo jets, huge fleets of helicopters and limousine's and all the other unnecessary presidential perks and prerogatives, is shamefully obscene. You can start with your own office, Mr. President. 

I know it’s asking way too much of our present day parasite politicians on both the left and the right to do what must be done.

All unnecessary government spending, please: cut it out! 

Thursday, March 16, 2017

School choice hypocrisy

Few things are more personal and private to individuals in a free society than what they think and what they believe.  That includes speech, association, religion and education – the right to seek information in pursuit of your own life, liberty and happiness.

That’s why government compulsory education schemes which require children and parents to participate in forced indoctrination programs are fundamentally unconstitutional. Education is not a proper function of government. Your education and that of your children is none of the governments business.

All education provisions and programs should therefore be private. Taxpayers should not be burdened with the obligation to pay for any education programs to individuals beyond the basic teaching of reading, writing and reckoning. Once individuals learn how to read, write and reckon, they are fully equipped to pursue their own personal and private educational goals.

In short, all education should be private; all schools should be private schools. There should be no public taxpayer supported schools. All education programs should be voluntary. There should be no government compulsory education schemes.  All education should be a matter of choice. And taxpayers should not be obligated to pay for those choices.

But some education statists want to make the choices for their own children while denying education choice for others. They seek to force most children to attend public schools where they’ll be indoctrinated with the government agenda, while they send their own children to private schools of their choice.

They practice school choice hypocrisy.

Sen. Al Franken, a statist Democrat from Minnesota, is one of them.  

This guy was highly critical of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos during her confirmation hearing because she never attended or sent her children to a public school. But he never attended public school as a kid either, and now sends his own kids to exclusive private schools. They go to the Dalton School in New York City, “known for educating celebrities and children of royalty,” where tuition is $44,640 per year per kid.  

But DeVos is “fundamentally unqualified to lead the Education Department,” says Franken as he opposed her appointment. “She has never attended a public school; she has never sent a child to a public school.”

The problem with DeVose is that she wants the taxpayers to pay for all individuals personal and private education choices. She wants you and I to pay to send children to private schools, including religious schools, where they can receive a religious education courtesy of the government at taxpayer expense. She wants the public schools to teach all the children about Jesus. “People deserve choices and options,” she explains.

Well, of course they do, but we shouldn’t be obligated to pay for it.

Both DeVos and Franken are guilty of school choice hypocrisy.