Fresh Conservative

Jamie Hope (aka Conservative Chloe) just e-mailed me about an exciting new website that Brett Tatman, Jamie and a number of colleagues have set up and that I've linked to my blog roll. It is called "Fresh Conservative".

Jamie has already written several excellent blogs. In "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" Jamie discusses rather frightening proposals of State Senator Irma Clark-Coleman (D-MI) for Michigan to follow the totalitarian pattern of Spartan education (also advocated by Plato in the Republic) of brainwashing, er, educating children in state-run schools starting from early childhood. Coleman has recently proposed to reduce the starting age for kindergarten by one year. With a totalitarian, would-be "philosopher-king" like Barack Obama in the White House*, we can rest assured that the the crackpot idea of universal 0-5 education stands a good chance of passage at the national level as well. Little children must be taught to goose step and give Democrat Party, palm up salutes as young as possible. Moreover, the program would end day care and related small businesses. Jamie notes that:

"Birth-to-grave education is contrived by the global elite as an underhanded attempt to grab our children at birth, and indoctrinate them into their “global citizenship” idealism. It is an affront to America to allow not only the destruction of our small businesses, who care for children in a loving environment, but to force our children into government controlled indoctrination camps, where they will be taught international philosophies, instead of American values. The elitists know that if they can teach our children their ideologies from birth, undermining their parent’s morals and religious beliefs, they will backdoor their way into the minds of our youngest, indoctrinating them with their global idealism."

The fact is, the public schools have failed as institutions. They have failed for the following reasons:

(1) The education theories used in public schools have too often depended on distortions of John Dewey's ideas on progressive education. They do not work. When the "creativity first" approach is used in math and writing, and the "look say" method is used in reading, students fail to learn. The worst victims of the failed "creativity first" theory are inner city children, large numbers of whom have been crippled for life by the education system.

(2) America's school teachers are greedy, selfish and incompetent. They have failed in what should be their mission, educating the young, and replaced that mission with "ME FIRST"; "PAY ME MORE"; and "I SHOULDN'T BE EVALUATED". Their teachers' unions have used every specious argument in the book to deflect the harm that they have done to education.

(3) The schools have too often engaged in ideological brainwashing, left wing propaganda and politically correct double talk and have failed to provide a common culture or a competent education to children.

(4) The schools are run by teachers and administrators who are themselves poorly educated and, even if (2) were not the case, lack the education needed to educate others, including children.

0-5 education would be a disaster for several reasons. First, it would give the ideologically motivated bigots who dominate our school system five additional, formative years to convert American children's minds to their left wing ideology. Second, it would deny children the additional time with their parents crucial to withstand the prejudices and incompetent education to which they are currently subjected in grades k-12. Third, as bad as the current crop of schoolteachers are, and as unqualified, there is no doubt that expanding the base of selfish, bureaucratic slime that works in education would reduce the quality of the teaching staff well below its current dismal level.

Rather than add five destructive years to the time children spend in public schools, a voucher system should be established and all schools should be privatized.

But Jamies doesn't stop with education! In a post on gay marriage entitled "We Are Not Homophobic" Jamie points out that:

"In response to Maine rejecting gay marriage, once again, many in the homosexual community have deliberately, or ignorantly, labeled those who oppose this measure as homophobic. Being a Christian, allow me to clarify this psychological diagnosis for the gay community. We are not afraid of you."

Jamie points out that she disagrees with gay marriage on religious grounds, not because of homophobia. In my view, there is a greater degree of Christophobia on the part of New York Times-style left wing extremists as there is homophobia among mainstream and moderate Americans who believe in God.

Fresh Conservative is an impressive website and I am looking forward to reading more of their stuff.

*Hope writes that Obama has already backed 0-5 education: "In a White House press release dated March 10, 2009, 'President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated ‘Zero to Five’ systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children.'"

Gold Investors in Tutus: Chuck, Crum Confront Gay Fascism at Kitco

I am a Chicago fan, not of the Cubs or White Sox but of the city. I was last there in '05 and enjoyed it tremendously. Now, two sons of Chicago, Chuck and Jim Crum, have stood up in favor of freedom and against Kitco's, Daniela Cambone's and Bart Kitner's support for gay fascism and suppression of heterosexuals and freedom.

Chuck's and then Jim's e-mails follow:

"Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean

Chuck writes:

I called her, but she kept saying "no comment." I asked her if she was aware that most gold investors are morally conservative and oppose gay marriage, but she would not answer that either.

FYI: The CEO of KITCO is:

Mr. Bart D. Kitner
Kitco Inc
620 Cathcart Suite 900
Montreal, Quebec H3B 1M1
Canada
Website: www.kitco.com
Phone: (514) 875-4820
Fax: (514) 875-6484

Jim Crum writes:

From: jamesjcrum@aol.com
To: dcambone@kitco.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean

Ms. Cambone:

Just a point of clarification, and I will go.

You state: "Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers." Just exactly what is that to be taken as? Offensive to who? Offensive to homosexuals? Offensive to Jews? Christians? People under 18? Offensive to people who feel that Millard Fillmore was our best President?

I will not question your motivation, whatever it might be. You also do have the right to do this, I understand that quite well. But even if permissible, I can judge the behavior, and this does not look right. Frankly, it smells, and Mitchell Langbert has a point here.

I will leave you with a highlight you might wish to well remember:

"The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hesitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma."
& nbsp; - Mitchell Langbert

Have a good evening.

JJC.

Just Say No to Perez Hilton

I have written the following e-mail to the Miss USA Beauty Pageant. I have been subjected to the kind of harassment in academia that now raises its head in Miss USA and Kitco. It is critical that Americans voice their opposition to the offensive harrassment of heterosexuals in which the left is engaging.

I am personally offended by Perez Hilton's question to Carrie Prejean, Miss California. I firmly believe in beauty pageants, as most supporters of gay marriage probably do not. But I oppose ideological litmus tests, which most supporters of gay marriage seem to support. Perez Hilton saw fit to impose an ideology on contestants: the ideology of homosexual marriage. This is offensive. If everything offensive is a form of discrimination, then Hilton discriminated against Prejean and your pageant is unfair. The leftists in Hollywood might think themselves clever, but their ugly discrimination against conservatives puts them on the same level as those who formulated blacklists in the 1950s. Perez Hilton is an ugly thug, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing a bigot to be one of your judges. I have stopped paying to watch movies because of Hollywood's moronic, left-wing views. The thought that anyone who disagrees with the moronic, left-wing ideas of Spielberg and Hilton cannot find work disgusts me. You need to clean house.

Kitco Bans Gay Marriage Opponents

What does gold investment advisor Howard S. Katz have to do with Miss California? Recently, Perez Hilton, a gay judge in the Miss USA contest, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she believes in gay marriage. Prejean suggested that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. There has been speculation that Prejean lost Miss USA as a result. Suppressive intolerance against all who disagree with extremist dogma is reminiscent of the the Fascist trial of Antonio Gramsci. The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hestitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma.

Howard S. Katz has been working on gold investing since the 1960s. He has successfully navigated gold, lumber and other commodities markets for 40 years, and frequently publishes on Gold Eagle, Goldseek, and other gold websites. Recently, on his personal blog that he had linked to a Kitco article, Katz mentioned that he opposes gay marriage. He did not write this in the Kitco article. He simply voiced the view that he opposed gay marriage in his blog, which was linked to the article.

Because Katz failed the Code of Gay Fascism, Ms. Cambone wrote Katz the e-mail below. It saddens me that the gay community and Kitco have taken to witch-hunting and McCarthyite tactics, such as attacking people's livelihoods because they merely store and do not lubricate their gold bars.

Does this mean that all current writers on Kitco support gay marriage? I will inquire. Please stay tuned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: commentary
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:35:50 -0400
From: dcambone@kitco.com
To: howardkatz@hotmail.com

Dear Mr. Katz,

We have run into quite a few complaints with your latest article. It seems that when our readers clicked the link to your website, they found a blog against homosexual marriages. This has insulted many people. We at Kitco realize that your commentary did not make reference to this fact but we cannot be associated with individuals who share these viewpoints.

You are a longtime contributor to Kitco and we appreciate your commentaries. Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers.

If you would like to discuss this matter in further detail, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

Daniela Cambone
Content Specialist
Marketing Department

Kitco Metals Inc.
Direct Line: (514) 670-1317
Cell: (514) 928-5820
Fax: (514) 875-2579
dcambone@Kitco.com
www.kitco.com

Kitco Bounces Katz Over Gay Marriage

I just sent the following e-mail to Kitco. One of the several alternative gold sites where Howard publishes his articles is Goldseek.


Dear Friends: I am a blogger with an interest in gold and I occasionally submit op ed pieces to newspapers. Howard S. Katz told me that you have told him that he cannot publish in your website because he said that he opposes gay marriage in his blog. I find this interesting and would be interested in learning about your position on this topic and why you felt it was appropriate to ban him (assuming that is the case). I would be interested in setting up a telephone interview in the near future.

Best wishes,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Rather Than Gay Marriage, Abolish Civil Marriage

Holly Baird has an interesting post on gay marriage. Personally, I think that gays are crazy to want to get married. Insurance companies could permit domestic partner coverage without marriage.

I do not think that the government should be involved in regulating marriage. Marriage is a religiously derived sacrament. The Catholic Church or any other religion should not be obligated to recognize what it considers to be a sin. However, there is no reason why a gay religion might not recognize marriage among gays. I don't believe the strong arm of the state should interfere with private choices unless the choices cause harm.

The abolition of state regulation of marriage need not modify divorce laws. The contractual nature of marriage need not change if all marriage is religious rather than civil. On the other hand, I think I can be convinced that divorce court should be abolished, and all divorce law should be religious in nature. I'm not convinced that marriage is a civil issue. It is religious.

I also disagree, incidentally, with the illegalization of polygamy, or for that matter polyandry, which feminists might prefer. The Bible has alot of polygamy, and there is no reason why the Mormons should have had to give it up. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in victimless crime questions. Child abuse is another story, of course. It is not victimless.

There is a long standing debate among people I know as to whether homosexuality is learned or inherited. The "liberal" view is that it is inherited, which contrasts with the "liberal" view on IQ scores--that they are environmentally acquired. That poses an interesting question: why do "liberals" send their children to elite private universities if the criteria to get in (SAT scores) are mere environmental artifacts and not inherited? Do they really believe that students learn more in expensive colleges?

It is kind of interesting: "liberals" say homosexuality is inherited but IQ is acquired, while "conservatives" say that IQ is inherited but homosexuality is learned. Whether one prefers the chicken or the egg seems to be a temperamental trait. I wonder if that trait is inherited, or environmentally determined!

I do not believe in gay marriage. First of all, marriage is a religious sacrament and/or state-derived relationship. I do not believe the state should play a role, so all marriage should be religious. If someone wants to get married, they should not have the right to ask the taxpayers to subsidize their folly. Go to church or sign a contract. I don't see how City Hall can sanctify a marriage. If gays want to start their own religion, then more power to them. The state should not be involved one way or the other.

Social Conservatism Not a Decisive Issue in This Election

The Wall Street Journal and CBS News report that Proposition 8, mandating that marriage between a man and a woman, won 52-48%. In contrast, President-elect Obama won in the Golden State by 61% to 37%. A bill restricting abortion rights for minors (requiring parental notification) lost by 52-48%. It is true that, as Paul Rogers points out in a Mercury News blog:

"Two of the main anti-abortion ballot measures in the nation failed. Voters in South Dakota rejected by a margin of 55-45 percent Initiative 11, which would have banned abortion except in cases of rape, incest or serious health risk to the mother. And in Colorado, they trounced Amendment 48, which would have defined life at the moment of conception. It failed by 73-27 percent."

Despite the failure of anti-abortion proposals, it would seem that the economy and the Iraqi War rather than social issues received voters' attention. Although restrictions on abortion failed, elimination of gay marriage succeeded in California, which someone once called "the land of fruit and nuts". It would also seem that advocates of abortion rights might begin to feel more comfortable with state-by-state determination of the extent to which abortion will be permitted rather than a sweeping Supreme Court decision.