So, you’re still a liberal after seven years of Bill Clinton
and decades of liberal activists making your life miserable from the
bully pulpits of the bureaucratic agencies? That’s too bad; maybe
this story
will finally change your mind.

According to the Associated Press, the San Francisco Unified School
District is ready to embark on another nonsensical policy to further
integrate and “diversify” their public schools.

The concept is called a “diversity index,” and it is designed to make
sure that an equal number of ethnic groups are represented at each
school. Students are screened upon — among other things — their
ethnicity, income, test scores and English proficiency.

“A student whose ‘individual profile will contribute to increasing
the diversity of (a) school will have priority for assignment/admission
to that school,’ according to the plan, worked out over the summer by a
27-member committee of district employees,” wrote AP. Now, a federal
judge (no, not a state judge) will consider this proposal at a
Nov. 5 hearing.

This plan will replace earlier school integration policies, which
barred schools “from having more than 45 percent of students from any
one ethnic group and required (schools) to have at least four ethnic
groups represented.”

That policy, according to AP, was initially created because the NAACP
— sensing that blacks weren’t afforded equal opportunities to go to
certain public schools — sued the school district and won.

But that suit “also prompted another lawsuit, filed in 1994, in which
several Chinese-American families claimed their children were being
unfairly excluded from some schools — including one of the city’s most
prestigious,” the report said. “School officials, the NAACP and lawyers
for Chinese-American students and parents agreed to a settlement in
February which said, in part, that ‘race or ethnicity may not be the
primary or predominant consideration in determining … admissions

And yet, the new rules — if ordained by a High and un-Holy Federal
Judge — will force the school district to do precisely what these group
leaders have said they wouldn’t do, which is admit students based on a
racial and ethnic set of realities.

“Ethnicity, English proficiency, test scores, and income.” Oh, heck
no — there’s not going to be any bias in determining those
factors, unless you’re white or you speak English well.

Flaming liberals have infested our government schools at every level
of leadership. But that wasn’t good enough because now some of their
own are still challenging every damned thing they do. If
it weren’t so sad, it’d be funny.

Liberalism in this country has fostered lawsuits like this one
— mostly from other liberals — and has created an environment where
the insanity of pure democracy (everyone has an equal say) has been
fully implemented. Such circumstances turn very simple concepts (like
attending school) into legal quagmires and public relations nightmares
because the reality is you simply cannot accommodate everyone all the

Getting an education in this country shouldn’t be a political issue,
nor should it be an issue driven by a selfishly grandiose agenda or
statistical data. It’s no wonder Americans are getting their kids out of
public schools when they can.

All of this serves the liberals right — they created this
mess. But unfortunately all kids involved in the incubus of
today’s public education system are suffering from the stupidity of
liberal parents and adult education peers. This is yet another example
of how socialistic liberals create more problems than they ever
solve — especially when they upset the natural order of things.

Has Kofi Annan lost his mind?

Being Secretary General of the United Nations must be a really tough
job, because I think Kofi Annan has lost his mind.

In a story
published yesterday, the U.N. leader pronounced that he foresees
increasing international intervention in trouble spots like East Timor
as the world moves “from a culture of reaction to a culture of

Stupid me; I still believed the world was mostly filled with nations
who’d rather take care of their own problems — just like the hypocrite
western nations who champion this lunacy called “globalism” and who
would never allow, say, China, to deploy their
“peacekeepers” in our streets.

In a speech delivered to the U.N. body on Monday, Annan said state
sovereignty is being redefined by the forces of globalization and
international cooperation and declared, “The state is now widely
understood to be the servant of the people, and not vice versa.” In his

Traditional considerations of national sovereignty will no longer be
taken into account, Annan said, and governments “must not allow
divisions within the Security Council to derail legitimate intervention
in places such as Rwanda and Kosovo,” according to the Washington Times.

“Legitimate intervention?” Who decides what this is?

President Clinton — the ever consummate “compassionate” man and
globalist — agreed, telling U.N. delegates, “Regional groups of nations
should have the right to launch collective military action to stop mass
killings in their part of the world.”

There are several things wrong with this mental illness.

First, who in Sam Hill is Kofi Annan to elevate himself to the level
of global arbiter? If he personally believes it is appropriate to
“intervene when necessary” in another nation’s sovereign business, then
he ought to be outfitted with the latest military uniform and gear,
provided with a weapon and a few magazines full of ammunition, and sent
on his way. He can take Clinton the draft dodger with him, but I won’t
wait up for them.

Secondly, who gave the U.N. — or the U.S. government, for that
matter — permission to send my son and your son to Rwanda, Kosovo, or
East Timor on behalf of a global organization that was established to
work out solutions through diplomacy, not weaponry? Our leaders
are supposed to decide when it is in this country’s best interest to
fight, not the United Nations’ king. We don’t always agree with our
leaders, but it is their job — not Kofi Annan’s job or fat cat
bureaucrats sitting around some globalistic “security council” table.
To heck with that.

Can you believe the kind of arrogance it must take to make such
proclamations about the fate of billions of people over whom you were
never elected to serve? What kind of “brass” does it take to tell
billions of people you have the “right” to sentence their sons
and daughters to death fighting on your behalf for a cause that doesn’t
affect you or your country (our own politicians do this enough
already)? What kind of hubris must a man have to assume that he has a
“right” to order an attack on your country if the leadership doesn’t
follow his beliefs or fit into his personal agenda?

Yes, there is horror in this world. Yes, there is pain
and suffering. Yes, there should be people speaking out against

But there are other ways to deal with despots who use their own
people for selfish gain and power. Trade sanctions (no, real
ones), arming the enemy, or just plain ignoring them are all better
alternatives than filling American body bags.

As I see it, Annan is behaving no differently than other notable
despots, like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, or Joe Stalin.
Anyone who is arrogant enough to believe he or she has “The
Right” to attack and kill other people because he/she doesn’t like what
they’re doing is, in my book, a despotic lunatic.

Granted, there is a difference between saying you want more
international intervention and actually intervening. But let’s
get real: The record — especially under this administration and
congressional “leadership” — clearly demonstrates that we have
globalists, not nationalists, in office who love to send our troops into
quagmires overseas, for “humanitarian” reasons.

But the record also shows that none — zip, nada, not one —
of the U.N.’s multi-year “interventions” have been successful. All the
U.N. has succeeded in doing is costing contributing governments lots of
money, lots of lives, lots of equipment, and lots of anguish. Korea,
Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo — and likely E. Timor — are anything but
smashing successes.

I support the U.N. financially because the IRS and the federal
government force me to. I do not, however, support the mission of the
U.N. nor what the concept of the U.N. has morphed into over the years.
At one time it was a good thing; not anymore.

The U.N., like the IMF, the WHO, the World Bank and the U.S.
government — succeed only in wasting breath, money, resources and time
— all contributed by people other than those who make these crazy
decisions. Like these other entities, the U.N. is prone to corruption
and cronyism, patronism, incompetence, and power perpetuation.
Governments like China actually have the right idea — they largely
ignore the U.N. for the impotent mass of bureaucracy it has become.
Ironically, China — a communist country — is more concerned about
national sovereignty than the U.S., even though America had to fight to
throw off dictatorial chains just to be born.

Annan may be mentally ill, but I’m not. Arrogant interventionism is
nothing more than an excuse for power mongering and empire building.
And I want no part of it. No American truly concerned about protecting
his freedom should.

I say Annan is free to speak his mind, but he sure as blazes better
stay out of my yard.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.