Musings By Me

On Herman Cain... Again

2011-11-07T13:27:00.003-05:00

I've been watching the Herman Cain fiasco. Fascinating... truly. For a while I was not quite sure what to think. I know that he habitually says stupid things, so I didn't think it impossible for him to have said something stupid to a woman somewhere along the line. Stupid and offensive? Sure, I can see that. Easily.

Woman after woman "coming forward" supposedly with claims that Herman Cain sexually harassed them... (insert big sigh here). But nobody willing to put their name out there? Nobody willing to actually say what the man did? Hmmm... somewhat suspicious, but possible. Given my cynical nature, I have to assume that it's possible that Herman Cain did something terrible to multiple women. Of course, given the same cynicism, I also have to believe it perfectly possible that Herman Cain said something stupid to one woman and Cain's opposition is feeding the "story" with false accusations to take him down.

To be honest, I had been considering both scenarios to be equally probable. But now here comes woman number 4. Ah... yes. Sharon Bialek. I had to watch the press conference. Of course I had to see it. I heard that she was "represented" by attorney Gloria Allred. (Her website describes her as "Gloria Allred - Discrimination Attorney/Feminist Lawyer" on Google.) Ms. Allred has sued the Boy Scouts for excluding girls (huh?), and she sued a drugstore chain for having toy sections labeled "boys" and "girls." She litigated a lawsuit against Arnold Schwarzenegger for... wait for it... sexual harassment while he was running for governor. This lawsuit was later dismissed. She has represented numerous famous people in various predicaments (child custody disagreements, sexual harassment cases, she was part of the OJ Simpson mess, Tiger Woods' mistresses, ad nauseam...)

So... this I gotta see.

So... I saw.

And I don't believe.

The story is just... too much. Allred starts out the press conference by establishing that Bialek is a "registered Republican." She goes on to give a general report of Bialek's credentials and lifestyle. According to Allred, Bialek is a college graduate, has hosted a cooking show, and has spent the last two years as a full-time, stay-at-home single mom. (Again, HUH?) The "evidence" presented by Allred at the press conference consists of two pieces of paper she waved around of which she would not release any copies (supposedly of affidavits signed by "pediatrician" and "businessman."), and a copy of Sharon Bialek's business card from the time she was supposedly vigorously harassed (copies released of this, of course). "Pediatrician" and "businessman" are the only names we have for the evidentiary corroborative statement makers.

Bialek then took the stage and read a statement. She was smiley and perky throughout most of her statement. She accuses Cain of upgrading her hotel room, taking her to the "offices" of the NRA, and then (perkiness suddenly gone, slightly choked up) "he suddenly reached over, he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch. I was very very surprised and very shocked. I said, 'What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn't what I came here for.' Mr Cain said, 'You want a job, right?' I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel, which he did. Right away." She said she didn't file a complaint since she wasn't employed by the Association when the harassment occurred. (Conveniently mentioned in her statement is her supposed tea party activism as well.)

Sharon Bialek has shot to instant morning-show fame. She supposedly wants Cain to "admit what he did and move forward." I do not believe her story. Certainly not in its entirety.

But here's the rub. The press has a lot of power. Far more power than is healthy, actually. Because while I do not buy the story, I do suffer from Cain fatigue. There is a part of me, and I must admit it's a rather large part, that just wants the entire thing to go away, including Cain. As I've said previously, there are some things about Cain that gave me pause (his enormous lack of tact being one of them). So now I'd like to just see him go away. And that's sad. Even believing Cain to be the victim of dirty politics and lynching by the press I still don't have any fight in me. Just... just go away.

Perhaps this, too, is the result of an ever-increasing cynicism within me. I should probably be troubled by this, but I'm afraid I'm too cynical for that as well.

Edge of Insanity

2011-10-28T08:51:00.002-04:00

I spoke with a friend yesterday regarding our country's social and political structure. I must admit, I am left with some serious concerns.

My friend describes himself as a "social democrat." I had posed a question to him a year and a half ago regarding socialism... my question being a relatively simple one: What to do about human nature? Under a socialist system, human nature being what it is, there will always be more takers than workers. Thus, the system quickly will run out of either workers or freedom.

He went on a gentle rant last night about the inequities in our system. The disparity between the rich and the poor, the ever-widening gap... the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are unable to rise out of their station, etc. Are the rich getting super rich while the poor are not rising at all? Well, no... not really. The poor in this country have better lifestyles than poor people ever have. Is it true that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor? I honestly don't know, and I really don't care. If one person is getting far richer than another, how does this hurt? Is it true that a poor person cannot work hard and pull themselves out of being poor? NO. Is it true that many poor people have a mentality that gets in their way? YES. But there are examples of people who did not hold onto that same mentality, and they managed to work their way out of poverty.

When he finished his rant, I pointed out that he still had not really answered my question regarding human nature. His answer? He doesn't want a perception that human nature is flawed to get in the way of change. Also, he doesn't believe that human nature IS inherently flawed. My friend is a humanities teacher -- I pointed to history and asked him to show me a time when we were able to clearly see that humans, at some point, operated without flaw. I then went on to say that one cannot rationally argue that human nature is not flawed. "Ah...," he says. "I am not a rationalist." I asked him, "So what does that make you - a wishful thinker?" He laughed and said that he prefers "dreamer."

My concern: There is a group of people who are wanting to change the entire social and political structure of the world. These people appear to wish to deny reality in order to hold on to their dream of a utopian society. To eschew rationalism in favor of dreaming is the height of foolishness. To see reality and refuse to admit it's real because it doesn't fit with what you would like to be real is folly.

An even greater concern is his assertion that the fix to the world's problems is "literacy." He specified that he meant real literacy -- not just the ability to read and write, but the ability to digest and think about information, drawing conclusions and coming up with real results. Yes, yes, YES! But... but... how can one claim to be literate in such a fashion if one is rejecting rationalism? Can a person be a literate thinker while living in a dream reality that denies the existence of what is really real? It seems to me the person who believes such a thing is possible is tip-toeing to the edge of insanity.

The stakes get higher and higher all the time.

Herman Cain

2011-10-22T07:59:00.003-04:00

I like him... Herman Cain. I do. I'd vote for him - and gladly. Are there some things about him that give me pause? Sure. There would be about anybody, I suppose. But generally speaking, I like him and I trust him. Trusting a candidate is a rare commodity these days.

The WaPo had an interesting article on him in today's paper. Fascinating stuff they write in the press!! As if I needed something to destroy the last vestige of faith I had in the media, they come out with a new genre -- let's call it "political fiction." In the beginning of the article (written by Sandhya Somashekhar), it is stated, "Four years after Barack Obama campaigned for president, steering clear of provocative statements about race, Cain has floated to the top of presidential polls doing just the opposite." Either Sandhya Somashekhar was sleeping through Obama's election bid or she is being disingenuous or the color of her own skin has colored her vision. Obama did not steer clear of provocative statements about race.

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes comes out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society.

-Barack Obama, March 2008

But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

-Barack Obama, March 2008

Michelle Obama, in January of 2008, said in an interview that race is an important issue in this country -- and went on to say that a disproportionate number of African American women are dying of breast cancer because of "health disparities."

In my view, these are provocative statements.

The difference between the Obamas and Herman Cain is that the Obamas see race as an issue that holds back black people. They take skin color very seriously... and the fact that Barack Obama sees a "typical white person" as somebody who is naturally afraid of any black men they don't know is telling. Herman Cain has a sense of humor about race, he calls out the black community for mindlessly voting Democrat, and refers to himself as a "black walnut."

Cain doesn't believe that racism is something that holds people back. Black people don't care to hear this, according to Edward DuBose of the NAACP. Edward accuses Cain of "engaging in very dangerous, irresponsible...rhetoric" and goes on to say that Cain is doing this in order to be accepted by white people. But why would Cain think that a person's skin color holds them back?? He's a black man who has been a successful businessman, a preacher, and now a presidential candidate. I think his life is a testimony to the accuracy of his point of view.

Herman Cain is not perfect - nobody is. He is not the "ideal candidate." He has his folksy 9-9-9 plan. While I support a fair tax (i.e., a tax in which all citizens would participate), it seems that his 9-9-9 plan would leave in place a tax on income as well as instituting a tax on purchases, which would leave the door open for extreme taxation in the future.

I have a natural aversion to a "progressive" tax code. I don't think that success should be punished with higher tax rates. I don't think that any particular class of people should be allowed to pay no taxes, and I certainly don't think that there should be a government check coming to you if you didn't make "enough money." I just don't know that the 9-9-9 deal is the best answer to a real problem.

Another count against Cain is his lack of diplomacy. Some of his statements have caused me to wonder what he would say while dealing with foreign dignitaries.

I left that Democrat plantation a long time ago, and I ain't goin' back.

- Herman Cain

The liberal mainstream media... they are doubly scared that a real black man might run against Barack Obama.

-Herman Cain

By the way, it's OK to call me black... I am an American black conservative. An ABC. OK. It's OK. It's OK. I'm not hyphenated.

-Herman Cain

I'm ready for the "gotcha" questions and they're already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say, you know. I don't know. Do you know?

-Herman Cain

Yeah... not so sure about that.

But here are my choices... do I want someone in office who might offend some foreign dignitary, but will stick to our Constitution? Or do I want someone in office who will bend over backwards NOT to offend, but will inflict damage of all kinds on our country? Do I trust Mitt Romney? NO. I'd have to be a complete fool to trust that slick son-of-a-gun. He's an opportunistic politician. Do I trust Rick Perry? NO. He's a step up from Romney, but still playing politics rather than trying to solve problems. And when he does "try" to "solve a problem" I don't think I care much for his methods. (Forced immunization against sexually transmitted diseases for tweens anyone?)

No, Herman Cain is not the perfect candidate. But, so far, he's the one I like the best.

The American Dream

2010-10-11T08:52:00.004-04:00

The Washington Post has a story today titled "Beyond the Tea Party: What Americans Really Think of Government." That's kind of a big subject to attack in a single news article... the truth is that American opinion ranges far and wide. Frankly, that's part of the beauty of being in America. We have the freedom to speak, write and in any way proclaim whatever opinion suits our fancy.

I am a true, red-blooded American. I find it difficult to understand how someone can admire Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, etc... But, clearly - there are those who do. In fact, there are many in charge today who admire these people.

There are also people who are true, red-blooded Americans who cannot understand how I admire people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, etc... for some, these people are simply dead, white men who hungered for power and encouraged the blight of slavery.

When you get down to the heart of the matter, however, things get a little more complicated. I don't admire our founding fathers because I think they were perfect men - or even that they set up our government exactly perfectly. They were, in all likelihood, like other men... flawed in many ways. I'm certain they all had things about them that, were I to know them today, I would find less than admirable. But the idea of freedom is something I cling to. And our founding fathers did give us that.

For centuries, the American dream has been one of freedom... people living in oppressed countries would travel far - and yes, sometimes even risk their lives - in order to participate in the great freedom experiment that is the United States of America. In 1931, James Truslow Adams defined the American dream as: that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

That dream, as defined, is one to which I subscribe. Freedom to be. Freedom to live... and to work to attain the lifestyle I choose. This is why I admire our founding fathers... this is why I value freedom over comfort and security. Without the freedom to live, to be ourselves, to achieve and realize our dreams, life becomes less meaningful.

Granted, our dreams must have meaning in order for their fulfillment to give our lives meaning... but this, too, is a personal choice. A cursory glance at the rich and famous shows us that fame and fortune do not a fulfilled life make. If we don't dream meaningful, we cannot be meaningful.

Freedom. Independence. Liberty. Self-government. Self-rule.

There are people who would argue that freedom is dangerous. People need to be protected from themselves. I've heard it said that "the masses are asses." And, okay, even the Bible says that people are like sheep - which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Human nature being what it is, I'm certain that there will always be people who make poor choices and have horrible natural consequences while living in freedom.

But if we're going to truly consider this line of thinking... that people are not smart enough to rule themselves... then how smart is it for us to let people rule over us? Don't they succumb to the same human pitfalls?

Living in freedom, people exercise poor judgment and pay the price on an individual and family level. This is a horrible circumstance and cannot be ignored within the scope of this discussion. BUT... living without freedom is worse. The consequences are felt on a national level... as a whole collective.

Captivity. Confinement. Dependence. Vulnerability. Defenseless. Tyranny. Slavery.

Antonyms of freedom, all of them. If we no longer value freedom, this is what we have left. I'm not a fan of being vulnerable and defenseless... I refuse to be dependent on my government. I do not wish to be a slave to the state.

There are two sides to every coin. Heads... or tails.

The American dream isn't owning your own home. It's not a BMW or Mercedes Benz. It's not indulging your every whim on a moments notice. The American dream is freedom. If we've lost that, we've lost the very heart of America.

Class, Culture, and Word Wars

2010-09-26T07:49:00.003-04:00

I am so sick of the tired arguments I am hearing and reading. Really. Really sick. There are folks who are beating the drums for government growth in the name of economic prosperity and it makes me want to tear out my hair...

Argument number one: Extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" across the board is like giving a "present" to "rich people," and why should we do that? Here's the problem with that... the government is incapable of "giving a present" through a legitimate tax cut. Meanwhile, nobody is calling the misnamed Earned Income Tax Credit a gift - even though it very clearly is. See, when the government decides to allow someone to keep their own money, this is NOT a gift. This is what would happen with extending the tax cuts or making them permanent. The Earned Income Tax Credit, though, is when the government sees that someone didn't make very much money on their own and so, instead of them paying taxes the government gives them extra money. THAT is a gift.

Argument number two: The economy is better stimulated by giving out money to the poor because the poor spend all their money while the rich save theirs. Hoo-boy. This is a really annoying one for me. First of all, the "rich" don't "save" their money by cutting a hole in their mattress and sleeping on the stuff. In fact, I would argue that the rich don't really "save" their money at all - at least not in the sense that "poor" people might be tempted to. See, people with money don't want to put it in a jar and stare at it. The sorry fact is that money won't grow there. And rich people like to get richer. So... their method of "saving" is actually "investing." This means that they take their money and decide where it is most likely to grow... and they invest it in these things. This actually creates growth in the private sector of the economy... creating jobs and allowing more people to get to work and spend their own darned money. If you take that same money and simply hand it to poor folks, they spend it - but it hasn't created a job for them. So, essentially, they need another handout next week.

Argument number three: There are many different ways to grow the economy. A tax cut is only one of them. Building public infrastructure is another. Adding government jobs is another. This one kills me. Government jobs are a part of the economy, much the same way that a drain is part of the overall plumbing system of a house. The government doesn't produce anything, doesn't retain a profit... it's an endless sinkhole into oblivion. So, to "create jobs" through the government they must first take money from the private sector to pay that person - and, likely, to put them in some beautiful brick building since we also just created a job through "public infrastructure." This ensures that the new government employee also gets a corner office with a view and plants in the lobby. But all that money to build the building, pay the employees and maintain both has to first get pulled out of the private sector where legitimate job creation through profit and supply and demand could be taking place. So where that money in the private sector could be invested in new innovative technologies... in new products... and yes, in new sales pitches to get the American public buying the product... it is now sucked into the vortex that is government spending. But HEY. Someone has a job.

Argument number four: What we're really worried about is growing income inequality. We just want to make life fair. Well, buck up, little camper. Life isn't fair. And income inequality, to some degree, makes sense. If you want to make more money, get out there and better yourself. Use your creativity... use your gray matter to figure out what needs doing and get it done. Charge for it. This is the way capitalism works. Frankly, if you're sitting around complaining because someone else makes more money than you do -- and holding out your hand to the federal government, expecting them to "even things up," you're sitting in a mess of your own making. This is the land of opportunity... but nobody promised opportunity was going to beat down your door, drag you out of bed, light the way for you, and make you drink from its fountain. You actually have to find opportunity for yourself.

If our country chooses to continue listening to these four arguments, we will no longer be the beacon of freedom and opportunity we once were. And we will all be sitting together in a mess of our own making.

Flotilla Fiasco

2010-06-07T15:51:00.005-04:00

The news coverage regarding Israel recently has been, in a word, horrible.

Yes, I'm biased. I have written blog posts before about my love for Israel. My viewpoint includes compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people - but it does not lay the blame for their situation at the feet of the Israelis.

I have been watching the news reports regarding the flotilla incident... regarding the recent deaths of the four divers... regarding the next "aid" convoy being offered Iranian escort... and I am troubled. Seriously, Israel has always gotten a bum rap from some. International expectations of them as a nation are completely unrealistic. But the anti-Israel rhetoric has been ratcheted up to new levels.

Sure, Helen Thomas spewed some vitriol their way... anybody seriously surprised by this hasn't been paying attention to her viewpoints. And she's well known for asking "tough questions" of certain people -- and cozying up with others. She's not a serious journalist... she's kind of the Sean Hannity of the left... with less drama and scarier looks.

And honestly, the fact that Obama refused to stand with Israel in the face of international condemnation isn't a huge surprise, either. I don't think anybody truly expects him to stand with Israel when push comes to shove regardless of what's going on. He tried to cloak his refusal to stand with them behind a wishy-washy, "We need to wait until we know the facts," but we pretty much knew what had happened already. It was all on film, after all.

The news organizations, in general, insist on reporting the flotilla incident as if Israel had "attacked" some peaceful ships with humanitarian aid. The language used continues to give this impression, regardless of any facts that surface to the contrary. Now there is some lip service paid to the fact that the people aboard the ship attacked the soldiers, but we are meant to believe that this is only because the mean, nasty Israelis scared them into doing so. One publishing made it sound as if these people were afraid for their lives and so they quickly sawed off pieces of the ship in order to protect themselves. What a joke!

Now the NYT has an article out there titled, "Washington Asks: What To Do About Israel?" According to this article, Israel has recently "ignored the national security concerns of its biggest benefactor, the United States, and instead have taken steps that damage American interests abroad." A Mr. Cordesman (with the Center for Strategic and International Studies) states, "It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews."

... Seriously? The United States, while supporting Israel militarily and monetarily, has also consistently pushed Israel to make ridiculous concessions with their enemies - endangering her people and putting them in more and more awkward positions. Frankly, I think it's high time she stood up for herself and said, "No more!"

The very next paragraph of the article reads as:

The list of recent moves by the Netanyahu government that potentially threaten American interests has grown steadily, many foreign policy experts argue. The violence that broke out when Israeli commandos stormed aboard a Gaza flotilla last week chilled American relations with a key Muslim ally, Turkey.

Ummm... wait a minute. America's relations with Turkey should be chilled by the fact that Turkey played a key role in trying to break the blockade that has been in place for Israel's security for the last three years. I realize that this isn't the case... that our current administration is more intent on fostering cozy relationships with radical muslims (like Iran) than it is on continuing a long-standing friendship with the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East. But I think that trying to befriend the countries who are interested in seeing the West destroyed - at the expense of our friendship with Israel - is stupid.

The article goes on:

The Gaza fight also makes it more difficult for America to rally a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim states against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Netanyahu's refusal to stop Jewish housing construction in Arab East Jerusalem also strains American ties with Arab allies. It also makes reaching an eventual peace deal, which many administration officials believe is critical to America's broader interests in the Muslim world, even more difficult.

So wait a minute. The fact that Israel is protecting itself from Hamas is what is making it difficult to get other Arab states to join the West in its concern about a nuclear Iran? If only Israel would give in and allow Hamas to bomb its citizens, then the Arab world would be okay with the United States? Really? Two things... one, if this is true, then that tells us huge things about the Muslim world. And two, it's not true. If there's one thing we know, it's that the Muslim world - in general - despises the United States. Please understand that I'm not saying all Muslims despise the United States. But, in general, countries governed by Sharia law are not going to be on our side - even if we bomb Israel ourselves. They don't like us.

The article continues to talk about a statement made by General Petraeus in which he said that if progress toward peace wasn't made, it gives the extremists a "stick to beat us with." No word from Petraeus in the article on how one is to go about achieving "progress toward peace" with an entity that will not be satisfied until you are "wiped off the map."

Israeli officials are becoming alarmed at our current administration's lack of support - as well as people within our own national politics, both Republican and Democrat. Representative Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, has spent hours with the President trying to impart his concerns.

Things are lining up in such a way that I believe the United States is going to desert Israel in her time of greatest need. I'm sorry to see it - I love Israel and I think that the United States can only be benefitted by befriending her, regardless of how the rest of the world sees it. However, due to various other beliefs I hold, I don't worry for Israel simply because the United States won't stand behind her. After all, with the God of the universe on one's side, who really needs the measly United States government for protection?

A Democrat Reaction

2010-01-21T08:28:00.003-05:00

Oh, my word. Where to begin?

Scott Brown won in Massachusetts -- in MASSACHUSETTS, of all places. Conservatives everywhere are jubilant. I logged on to my facebook page to see posts of HE WON, HE WON, HE WON everywhere. (Yes, I have a lot of conservative friends.) It was a good piece of news in my day... I'll say that much.

And what of the democrat reaction? Well... that's more interesting even than the news that Brown won. Gail Collins of the NYT writes, "Looking on the bright side, having 60 votes in the Senate could have been more trouble than it was worth. With one less vote, expectations might be more modest." Uh-huh. People were just expecting too much of those sixty votes... that was the problem. What the Democrats really need is a way to blame problems on the Republican party again.

The NYT editorial board writes that the Dems "had an exceptionally weak candidate, but the result calls into question the party's tactical political competence." AH!! It doesn't call into question the president's radical agenda, only the competence of the party's political tactics to get it done. Hmmm... I suppose there's truth to that, to a certain degree. With the super-majority that they had, they should have been able to get the president's stuff completed before the election took place. In that respect, their tactics were nonexistent.

But the icing on the cake comes from Barack Obama's response to the election:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country - the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

"If there's one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And I do think that is a mistake of mine."

So... it's largely George W. Bush's fault... but to the extent that it's Obama's fault, it's because he has not been effective in telling the American people what their core values are... and how he needs to change institutions to more closely match what the American people's core values are supposed to be. Sheesh. Some nerve.

I know what my values are... and I know that what Obama and Congress are pushing don't match up to my values. I don't need an administration to be more effective in telling me what my values should be. And if they want to ramp that up in an effort to make sure the next election cycle doesn't include a bunch of Scott Brown upsets, I say go for it. No better way to tick off the voting public than to tell them all what they're supposed to think and believe now, too.

I'm almost back to loving politics again!

The Newest New Deal

2009-12-16T06:41:00.003-05:00

Never waste a crisis. Isn't that the first rule? I don't know who the first person was to put that rule into words -- most recently, however, it was Rahm Emanuel from the Obama administration who voiced the creed.

Historically speaking, leaders have always put this idea to use - some more than others. With every crisis comes opportunity. Some people have the vision to see what can be gained from a seemingly negative situation... this is what makes them leaders. Of course, a person's worldview will dictate what kind of "gain" they find in the crisis. Adolf Hitler had that quality of leadership - he simply put it to use for evil rather than for good.

Franklin D. Roosevelt also saw opportunity in the crisis of the Great Depression. He ushered in the New Deal which brought sweeping changes to the way our nation operates. Many of these changes are still in existence today... and some of them arguably could have contributed to the "crisis" we find ourselves in today. (Federal Housing Administration, Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Fannie Mae...) To this day, the federal government pays farmers NOT to grow food - another bright idea brought forward as part of the New Deal.

There's another New Deal arising from the crisis of "global warming," now being referred to as "climate change" since the globe is no longer "warming." You would have to be living under a rock to not know about what's going on in Copenhagen these days... a bunch of weasels representing politicians negotiating "programs."

One of the programs under negotiation involves financial compensation for countries preserving forests... and sometimes compensating for the preservation of peat soils, swamps and fields. The program is being touted as a boon for poor countries because it's a total cash cow for them. They can sit back and collect money -- for doing nothing. It's kind of like your local government coming to you and telling you they'll give you $100 a month to NOT mow your grass.

Of course, the news is reporting this program as a good thing - after all, not ONLY the poor countries will benefit. More wealthy nations will not be benefited by an influx of cash, but they will obtain carbon credits which can be used to reduce their carbon footprint under a global "carbon trading system." According to Peg Putt from the Wilderness Society, "Forests have become a pot of money or a get out of jail free card. Either way, there's the prospect of financial benefit now, as opposed to just being told, 'Do the right thing,' like it was two years ago."

Sweet! Everybody gets to financially benefit from this Newest of the New Deals. That is SO COOL. Apparently, in this case, money does grow on trees. Who knew? ...what? It doesn't? So then, from where will this money appear?? Oh!!!! From companies. Yes, the big, bad companies which exceed their greenhouse gas pollution limit will be required to "buy" extra permits by "investing" in --- ah, never mind. They're going to have to pay off the people sitting around doing nothing.

Fred Krupp, who is the head of the Environmental Defense Fund, says that the forest program "offers the opportunities for U.S. companies to reduce emissions at lower cost." All this talk of investing and offering opportunities certainly sounds nice, but it's really closer to the neighborhood hoodlums offering you the opportunity to pay them a weekly fee to not burn your place down. Not to put too fine a point on it -- or to keep beating the same tired drum -- but it's extortion.

So now environmentalists the world over are looking for ways to collect. Dan Lafolley is - get this - the "marine vice chairman for the World Commission on Protected Areas of the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature." I certainly hope that man won't need to look for a new job anytime soon -- you'd need to cut down a forest just to write his title out on a résumé... Anyway, good ole' Dan wants to know why everybody is just focused on forest and peat land... what about the oceans?? Who is gonna pay for the oceans? Actually, his words were, "It would be a travesty if Copenhagen addressed forests but not other carbon stocks." Translation: It would be a travesty if the marine vice chairman were not able to make a profit for the marine department of the WCPA of the SIU for the CN.

Professional tree huggers have even begun fighting amongst themselves in a "my forest is more important than your forest" way.

Goofballs from all over the world are flocking to Copenhagen to ensure that their issues are deemed legitimate money-makers. For example, did you know that there is such a thing as the Global Crop Diversity Trust? They're there! (Wangari Maathai of the Global Crop Diversity Trust was inducted as a Messenger of Peace at a ceremony in Copenhagen on December 15th. No, I'm not kidding. A Messenger of Peace. With capital letters.) According to their website, you can't fight hunger without them... and silly me, I would think a good start to "fighting hunger" would be to stop paying people not to grow food. But apparently my simplistic thinking just won't work... we need the people at Crop Diversity to regulate things. They are, after all, a bunch of Nobel Peace Prize and World Food Prize people. (Did you even know there was a Word Food Prize?)

And, of course, former Vice President Al Gore has a dog in this fight. I'm still trying to decide if he's a complete goober who was propelled to the top (or close to the top, anyway) by a powerful Daddy or if he's a smart man who is trying to make a lot of money off this deal. Either way, he has been working up a sweat trying to push negotiators as well as pushing our nation's leaders to pass a climate and energy bill.

For me, this is almost like watching one of those movies where you want to yell at the screen in spite of the fact that you know darned well your action won't change the plot. I don't foresee a happy ending. Part drama, part conspiracy, part tragedy, part comedy... but not a happy ending.

Global Extortion

2009-12-09T15:12:00.003-05:00

From the New York Times today:

If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.

So what's all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades.

Oh, sure... no problem. We've got that. We'll just print some more.

Seriously, does is scare anybody else that there are "negotiators" engaging in "talks" with the consequences including changing how and where people are able to live?? We're going to pay a price not only in dollars, but in freedom as well. Where is the public outrage? Have people so swallowed the bunk that says the polar ice caps are melting that they're willing to give up everything?

The International Energy Agency (it kills me that there IS such a thing) estimates that it's going to cost more than $10 trillion from 2010 to 2030 to pay for the energy infrastructure alone. That's an estimate. And we all know how well governmental agencies estimate... they're habitually on the low side. But they follow that up by saying that we shouldn't worry... the costs are going to ramp up slowly and be "largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies..." not to mention the peace of mind that will come from knowing the polar ice caps are now secure. OH - and not to worry. Most of the investment is going to come from private funds, not public funds. Whew!! I'm so glad to hear... wait. What? What does that even mean? Which private funds? How do they know that they're going to get this money invested privately? OR -- are they considering the new market in "pollution credits" to be private funding? YES!! At least half of the "fund" that's supposed to be set up to help developing countries is supposed to come from the carbon emissions credits in cap-and-trade. So... "private funding" is actually extortion.

But it's good to know that we have reasonable people working on this. I mean, Kevin Parker is the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management and is responsible for tracking climate policy for the bank, and he says, "People often ask about the costs. But the figures people tend to cite don't take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don't look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period." So... the sky is falling, you say?

We can rest assured that Obama intends to sell us out. After all, Obama assured folks that the United States will pay "its fair share." I believe that "fair share" can accurately be translated to "lion's share." But that's okay, because - see - it's an investment. Don't you love the magic in that word? As long as you use the word investment, nobody can get upset at what you're doing. According to the White House, "Providing this assistance is not only a humanitarian imperative - it's an investment in our common security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help all countries reduce their emissions."

I'm beginning to see how the Obama worldview infects ever facet of his thinking. Truly, the United States as a nation cannot succeed until everybody's wealth has been spread out evenly, like soft butter... and it only makes sense then that the world as a whole cannot succeed unless the wealth of the world is spread out in the same way.

Don't worry, though. Our money -- your money -- will be going for a good cause. It will be used to "help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests." Say wha-?? Seriously - we're going to pay some dude in Timbuktu to not burn his place down?? Yes, apparently so. But other funds might be used to relocate people who live in dangerous places. You know, moving folks to higher ground. (And one has to wonder if New Orleans will be first.)

So the big question that is supposed to be answered in Copenhagen is how much money do nations such as the United States have to pay to get the developing countries on board with this lunacy?

Robert Stavins is the director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. Apparently, this particular line of work gives him some high-level status because the New York Times quoted him extensively, and, according to him, the US is setting aside around eight billion dollars per year to assist developing countries by 2030 and that's about our limit. And thus begins the negotiations because the leader of Costa Rica's climate delegation has said that it's important to them to have "early resources and a predictable flow of long-term financing." Apparently, they're looking for for a quick rise to about $150 billion annually by 2020.

Huh. Global extortion via the hoax called "climate change."

Relief...?

2009-12-04T08:30:00.003-05:00

The Democrats out there have grown concerned that Obama isn't focusing on the issue of joblessness enough. We can all feel a measure of relief now, because Obama has finally addressed the issue and has put forth a plan to take care of the problem. His plan is two-fold:

1. He will entertain every good idea for creating jobs while keeping in mind that our resources are limited.

2. He's going to encourage a program of weatherization incentives for homeowners and small businesses modeled on the "cash for clunkers" program. Yes, we're thinking (and I'm not kidding here) of calling this program "cash for caulkers." I'm sorry... did you just eat? You're looking a little green... maybe this should wait for later. No, really... the "plan" would enlist contractors and home-improvement companies to advertise the benefits -- just like the car dealerships had to deal with the cash for clunkers fiasco.

Whew! And we were worried that he didn't have anything up his sleeve to solve the woes of America. But wait... historically speaking, hasn't solving our problems been OUR job? Isn't government's best plan of action to move the heck out of the way so that we can get busy and get something started? When did the American people become a bunch of crib-layers and whiners, just waiting for somebody to bring us a bottle and start up the entertainment?

And another thing... is anybody questioning how weatherizing our homes is going to actually create jobs? Granted, if we make sure the warm air stays in and the cold air stays out, we will have an easier time staying warm this winter... but how that's going to put food on anybody's table sort of escapes my understanding. But maybe this is all just above my pay grade.

The Democrats are beginning to sweat because their jobs are on the line -- and that sort of joblessness really does scare them. However, their solution to the issue of joblessness is to, yet again, extend the expiring federal unemployment benefits to ensure that people will be (at the very least) comfortable enough to go to the polls in 2010 and put them back in office. Then, that crisis averted, they will go on their merry way of standing in the way of job creation some more.

Case in point: Obama acknowledged at the jobs forum that the government doesn't have the ability to create true economic recovery. This is going to need to come from the private sector. He then asked the chief executives in attendance, "What's holding back business investment and how can we increase confidence and spur hiring? And if there are things that we're doing here in Washington that are inhibiting you, then we want to know about it."

When he got an answer from a Mr. Lampropoulos that said, in effect, "your aggressive agenda is killing initiative," Obama acknowledged the "legitimate concern" and said that he and his advisers had actually discussed this concern before he even took office... and disregarded it because "if we keep putting off tough decisions about health care, about energy, about education, we'll never get to the point where there's a lot of appetite for that."

Let's pause here for a lively rendition of "Jimmy Cracked Corn And I Don't Care."

One last thing before I'm finished ranting for today. I've never been accused of being diplomatic. Nobody has ever said to me, "Wow. You're so good at communicating in a non-threatening way... you should go into foreign relations." And I obviously need a lesson or two -- but I'm wondering one thing. How is it "diplomatic" to "listen" to somebody's concern, "acknowledge" that it's "legitimate" and then to say you don't give a hoot?

Basically, what I hear the "great diplomat" saying is that he wants to know if the government is doing anything to stand in the way of economic recovery... that yes, he knows they are, but that his agenda is more important and he wants the private sector to get over it and recover anyway.

Back to Elementary School -- For All of Us

2009-10-13T07:43:00.002-04:00

Do you remember being in your elementary school years? "Susie, if you can't bring enough candy for everyone, please don't bring the candy at all." Do you remember saying to your mom or dad, "How come so-and-so gets that if I didn't get it? That's not FAIR!!!" How we feel about what's going on in health care and our government right now might just depend on what you were told in elementary school at that critical moment. Did someone say, "Life's not fair -- buck up and take it?" Or did they say, "Ohhhh... did so-and-so get some? We'll have to get you some, too... So-and-so, give some of that to your brother!"

The House and the Senate are "working hard" to make sure our health care system gets some reform. The Senate is generally in favor of paying for legislation through a "Cadillac" tax -- where people with really good health insurance have to pay, not only their insurance company, but also the government for the privilege of having it. The supporters of this tax are saying that it's a necessary tax for "tamping down medical spending." I was reading this article and trying to figure out how taxing the wealthy on top of having them already pay for their own health insurance was going to reduce medical spending...

The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance.*

What?!? Let me make sure I get this straight... our illustrious government is wanting to make sure that people don't buy the really good insurance programs? They want people to buy the cheaper programs which won't offer as much coverage in order to reduce how much gets spent in our country on health care? Somebody out there, please explain to me where this insanity is coming from!! It gets better --

Under the Finance Committee bill, the tax would be imposed beginning in 2013 on employer-sponsored health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, regardless of whether the coverage was paid for by the employer, the individual or both. The tax would be paid by insurers, who would be expected to pass along the cost to customers... Supporters say... employers would bargain-hunt or take other steps to avoid the tax, putting pressure on insurers to offer cheaper coverage and slowing the rise in medical costs for everyone.*

Such stupidity running things right now... What about all the garbage being spewed about the poor underinsured folks - just one medical bill away from bankruptcy? These buffoons in charge cannot believe that it's possible for them to impose a tax, intentionally leading employers to choose cheaper coverage, and have that be the solution to poor insurance coverage!

Max Baucus loves the idea of this tax, and:

Mr. Obama embraced it in his speech to Congress on Sept. 9. "This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money," the president said then. "This modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run."*

I do not believe that the president is that stupid. And it angers me that he thinks we are. One does not have to be a professor of economics to know that when the government charges a fee for something, it does not make things cheaper -- unless the product is changed for the worse.

Don't worry, though. Nancy Pelosi is not in favor of this tax because it would affect too many union members (and isn't that just a little bit funny?). Her idea? She wants to tax insurers' "windfall profits" as a supplement to the House's main money grab, which would be "an income tax surcharge on the nation's highest earners." You know, you can only bleed the rich for so long... and then they're not rich anymore. The idea that there's a certain class of people who have an endless supply of money with which to care for the entire country is ludicrous.

I find it interesting, though, that the Democrats' plan for lowering spending on health care is to make sure that people with really good insurance don't keep it. If they think that charging a government "fee" for great health insurance will lead insurance companies to lower the cost for everyone else, they're smokin' something.

*Article quoted - New York Times, "Congress Is Split on Effort to Tax Costly Health Plans" Published Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 and written by David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear.

What A Joke

2009-10-09T09:48:00.006-04:00

Are you freakin' kidding me? No, apparently you're not. Obama really has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. NOT that the Nobel has any real significance anymore, but still. At least up until now people had to do something that the committee deemed worth the effort (even if it was something as stupid as making a movie spreading disinformation about global warming).

Obama's accomplishment? His very existence -- I kid you not.

The Norwegian committee said, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

They might better have awarded him the prize based on his pectorals. After all, the news has written about them as well. And really, considering the picture posted on the White House website titled "hero_weeklyaddress_9-26-09.jpg," I hardly think the man needed another ego boost:

What a joke.

We ALL Need Health Coverage - To Control the Nausea

2009-10-06T08:10:00.003-04:00

That's it. It's official. We're being governed by a bunch of nimrods and morons. It's a sad state of affairs, but there it is.

See, the Democrats are taking up health care legislation on the floor of the Senate and the House - but they're not quite ready because they haven't been able to bring together their "competing priorities." What would those priorities be?? "Affordable prices for insurance policies" and "comprehensive health benefits." I guess the wicked way of it is that you still can't get something for nothing, no matter how long you debate the issue.

Their legislation, no matter which version you're looking at, is going to require insurance companies to "provide coverage more generous than many policies sold in the individual market today." The kicker is that you can't require something like this and then say "and make it cheap!" So the government is going to be saddling itself with a hefty bill to provide insurance coverage for TONS of people.

Here's a way to make the cost of health coverage skyrocket. You ready? First, you insist that insurers have to accept anybody who applies. Then, you tell them they have to provide a specific level of coverage -- you've got to cover everything, basically. What's going to happen? Hmmm... let me think, let me think... I know the answer! Price increases, right? Yet this is what they're putting forward as legislation (and I'm still scouring my copy of the Constitution to find the federal government's role here, but that 10th amendment keeps getting in my way).

The Senate Finance Committee is working on a bill in which "there would be four levels of benefits - bronze, silver, gold and platinum - and all insurers would be required to offer, at a minimum, coverage in the silver and gold categories." I'm scratching my head here, wondering why there would be a bronze category if it's not allowed... but maybe I'm just too dense to understand politics very well.

They say the problem is that even those people who are "being responsible" and purchasing health insurance for themselves and/or their families aren't doing it right. They have purchased insurance, but it's not good enough insurance. According to the NYT, "there are about 17 million people who buy insurance on their own." And even they're not doing it right. I guess it's true - we really do need the government to step in and fix things for these poor stupid people.

Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming is having some trouble with the concept, though. He says, "We are about to tell the nation, every person in the nation, what the minimum insurance is that they can have. And then we will institute a penalty if they don't buy the minimum insurance we say they ought to have. If they want less, we say no."

But the Democrats (and Olympia Snowe, who should be a Democrat) have a concern about people who might be stupid enough to purchase insurance in the bronze category if it's allowed. Snowe says if you choose a plan that requires you to pay a larger percentage of your medical expenses, "you could be consumed by cost sharing unless you were very healthy." Oy - which is why the very healthy choose to purchase this type of insurance.

Trying to bring about a utopia in which everyone is cared for is unreasonable and unsustainable (to use a favorite word of the left). In order to ensure that the very sick can obtain wonderful coverage for all their woes and ills, the government is going to require healthy citizens to purchase plans they don't need. They try to disguise their plans as a way to protect us from our own decisions, but... their meddling is only going to cause more problems. And once those problems come to fruition they will simply claim that it's a free-market issue and they need more regulation.

Closing Gitmo

2009-10-04T07:47:00.002-04:00

One of President Obama's big promises was that he was going to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But, as has been the case with many things, this is not as easy as he thought it would be. 117 Saudis and 197 Afghans have been released from the prison, but the big question has been "What to do with those Yemenis?"

It appears that the government in Yemen isn't too great at its job as 23 terrorism suspects "escaped" in 2006, which "shook confidence in Yemen's counterterrorism capabilities." I'll bet... So our government doesn't want to send the Yemenis back to Yemen. We sure don't want them living here, and Europe isn't exactly salivating to take any of them, either. Well, I take that back. I think the president of France said they would take ONE as a gesture of goodwill many moons ago.

Our government's solution to this Yemeni problem has thus far been to try and get the Saudis to take them into their "rehabilitation program." Saudi officials aren't too interested in taking them because they're worried about more negative publicity to their program (like last February when almost a dozen of their "graduates" turned up on a list of most-wanted terrorists). Apparently they only have faith that their program will work if the people enrolled are not already terrorists, but one has to wonder what they're rehabilitating if that's the case.

The New York Times highlighted these issues and others when writing about the case of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed (also known as Internee Security No. 692 - probably because it was easier to say). He finally left Gitmo last week after being a resident there for seven years. A federal judge ruled that holding him had never been justified and ordered the government to release him back in May.

You wonder what took them so long to follow the judge's orders, right? I mean, these are the people, after all, who were so vocal about how wrong it was that Gitmo was even in existence! Perhaps it was because they couldn't get over the detainee's name? Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed IS quite a mouthful, I'll grant you that. But no - this was not the issue. The Obama administration was worried because "Even if Mr. Ahmed was not dangerous in 2002, Guantanamo itself might have radicalized him, exposing him to militants and embittering him against the United States." (This is code for: if this comes back to bite us in the a**, it's Bush's fault.) Supposedly, if they returned him to his home country of Yemen, he would run the risk of falling into the hands of Al Qaeda there.

See, Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed was simply attending a university in Pakistan, innocently studying religion and science while living in a guesthouse that was being used by terrorist operatives. (It's interesting to note that the NYT was capable of putting "religion and science" together as long as the guy was studying Islam.) Four of his fellow prisoners reported having seen him fighting or undergoing training in Afghanistan, but these accounts were found to be flawed by the judge and thrown out. Our government had a theory on terrorist activists and their patterns... their theory is called a "mosaic theory" in which "the pattern of indications of terrorist ties added up to a strong case." Basically, this is saying that if someone consistently hangs out with terrorists, funds their activities, fights with them, and lives with them, they just might be a terrorist.

**Of course, after this last presidential election, we all know this theory to be completely false because a man can hang out with radicals, train ACORN workers, hire communists, and have as mentors the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and various other communist thinkers -- but this does not make him a radical or mean that he has any ties to ACORN whatsoever.**

So Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed has been sent back to Yemen. He was greeted by his family at the capital and all appears to be... well, what it is. One down, 97 to go. Yes, 97 more Yemenis to put somewhere... somehow.

So now the American government is considering cooperating with the Yemeni government to build a rehabilitation program in Yemen much like the Saudis have. Christopher Boucek is cited in the NYT column as an "expert," and is quoted as saying, "It won't be quick and it will cost some money, but I think it may be the best choice among a bunch of not very good alternatives."

Christopher Boucek is an "expert" on Yemen because that is his job at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I am not altogether unimpressed with his writings and his conclusions, but I must admit I fail to see how his studying and coming to said conclusions will actually help in achieving "International Peace."

What I find fascinating is the fact that the NYT has found this gentleman now -- when Obama is in office -- to explain why it's so difficult to close Gitmo. Because when Bush was in office he kept Gitmo open because he was just a heartless bastard who enjoyed torturing people.

International Success At Last!!

2009-09-24T08:06:00.002-04:00

"Obama Makes Gains at U.N. on Iran and Proliferation" screams the front page headline at the New York Times. Wow... really? He made some gains? He made progress? The United States, after years and decades of not getting along with other countries is finally tasting sweet success? Tell me - does the world love us now? Well, let's just see what they all have to say about this:

President Obama, in his first visit to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, made progress Wednesday on two key issues, wringing a concession from Russia to consider tough new sanctions against Iran and securing support from Moscow and Beijing for a Security Council resolution to curb nuclear weapons.

Okay, I have to admit - that sounds pretty good. One speech to the UN and Obama has all the countries tingling to the point of submission to The One. But wait -

Dmitri A. Medvedev agreed to "consider" the new sanctions after Obama "decided to replace Mr. Bush's missile defense program in Eastern Europe with a version less threatening to Moscow." Poland and the Czech Republic had based a lot of their security policy on this missile defense program from the United States. Their chief concern? Russia. On September 17th, after it was announced that the U.S. would no longer be providing this security, a spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense said, "This is catastrophic for Poland."

One might wonder why we would care so much about Poland... I mean, what are they to us, right? Remember back when we were leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Tensions were high around the world, and then-president Bush was traveling the globe, meeting with leaders and mounting a "coalition of the willing." This coalition referred to any country who was supportive of the United States' efforts, whether their support consisted of just "go get 'em, tiger" or actually adding their troops to ours. There were, when all was said and done, 49 countries willing to add their names to the coalition, but only four decided to join us with their own blood. Those four? The United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark. I would say this action makes them our friend -- and that helping them out might be something we could do.

Of course, now our mainstream press (which is becoming less and less "mainstream" the more of this garbage they pull out of their collective derrieres) is trying to make the case that "Poland and the Czech Republic never really wanted the missile defense installations." For real?

Last February, Obama sent Medvedev a "secret" letter offering the Kremlin a deal. The Obama administration would scrap their plan to deploy antimissile capabilities in Europe in exchange for Russian cooperation on Iran. And now we get to read:

With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, Mr. Medvedev signaled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make progress. "I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision," Mr. Medvedev said, adding that "sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable."

White House officials could barely hide their glee. "I couldn't have said it any better myself," a delighted Michael McFaul, Mr. Obama's senior adviser for democracy and Russia, told reporters after the meeting. He insisted nonetheless that the administration had not tried to buy Russia's cooperation with its decision to scrap the missile shield in Europe in favor of a reconfigured system.

Uh-huh. And the emperor has a beautiful and fine robe... nothing to see here, folks. And really, even if we did sell out Poland in order to gain ground with Russia -- look at what we gained! Their word (whoopee) that they would back sanctions - while saying at the very same time that sanctions don't work. Oh, I'm so glad we got this done!

But that's not all His Excellency Mr. President accomplished, remember. The rest? Well, that stuff had REALLY sounded good, right? I mean, he broke serious ground in strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty!! This means we are well on our way to a nukeless world, right? Can you hear the angels singing? ... no? You can't? Well, maybe that's because this "tougher" treaty is a new "resolution" that "urges" countries to put conditions on their nuclear exports. Ooooo... sounds - well, largely non-effective and irrelevant to me. But what do I know? Apparently it's a "significant step forward," right?

The Obama administration hailed the pending resolution as a significant step forward. But it would not be binding and would become so only if the Security Council required countries to make their nuclear exports subject to such restrictions. Many countries balked at that requirement...

What?

So - basically, the headline screaming "Obama Makes Gains" is disingenuous at best. Downright deceitful at worst. He didn't make any gains -- and instead he has appeared in recent days to take significant steps backwards in supporting our friends and has attempted to make friends with enemies. Or... maybe my enemies are his friends.

One thing Obama did manage to accomplish while speaking at the UN, however, is something he manages to do quite well everywhere he goes. He said things he didn't mean and meant things he didn't say. For example, "if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable."

Sounds strong -- sounds good. Sounds almost great. Until you realize that Obama's advisers are telling him to shoot down Israeli jets if they fly over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

What a bunch of garbage.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

2009-09-14T07:43:00.002-04:00

"ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."

Sounds lovely... sounds - - GOOD. Right? Social justice... stronger communities.

Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online wrote an article detailing much of ACORN's actions and policies. In this article, he states, "Acorn's tactics are famously 'in your face.' Just think of Code Pink's well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you'll get the idea. ACORN protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and ACORN has burst into a closed city council meeting there. ACORN protesters in Baltimore disrupted a bankers' dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protesters against the mayor's home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports ACORN said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line."

ACORN is huge. Actually, huge doesn't even begin to describe them. People think of WalMart as a big business... WalMart is an ant next to ACORN. They have offices in 42 states - which could appear to be a just a large social justice, community organizing foundation. But ACORN is the foundation for numerous other ventures. According to NPR, "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has dozens of affiliated entities, from a home-buying assistance corporation to community radio stations to liberal research and training institutes. The giant web of ACORN organizations, primarily based in Louisiana, has been funded by a mix of labor union money, government grants (which really drive conservatives crazy) and charitable contributions from large foundations."

The Washington Examiner says, "While the organization's complicated structure makes it difficult to determine how many affiliates and subsidiaries are tied in with ACORN's vast apparatus, its connection with organized labor, especially the Service Employees International Union, is well-established, Vadum observed. SEIU Locals 100 and 880 are identified as allied organizations on ACORN's web site. U.S. Department of Labor LM-2's (financial disclosure forms) point to over $600,000 in transactions between these same SEIU locals and other ACORN operations. A 2007 LM-2 form shows SEIU Local 880, which is active in Illinois and Minnesota, donated $60,118 to ACORN for "membership services." Organized labor has kicked it back in the form of gifts and grants to ACORN totaling $2.4 million, the LM-2's reveal."

It becomes impossible for little old me to figure out where ACORN starts and ends... or if it ends at all. But it clearly does NOT end before it hits the White House. One would think we could at least relax a little bit at the news that the U.S. Census Bureau has "cancelled its agreement calling for ACORN to work on the 2010 census." This, of course, "in the wake of devastating video reports revealing corruption at local offices..." But don't relax too soon -- because ACORN has been, for months, working to change their name to COI (Community Organizations International). I would take this to mean not that they are stepping out of the program, but look for them to grow bigger... and be involved even more heavily in our government under an international banner.

In speaking with a friend last night, I realized that there are plenty of people out there who know nothing of what's going on with ACORN. The story is brilliant. It's just... so much fun. And it only keeps getting better. But I'll start at the beginning...

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, two young adults (aged 25 and 20, I believe) have managed to pull off quite the sting operation on ACORN. They went from office to office, posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend -- or pimp, if you will. Their story continued to escalate as they spoke with employees of ACORN to the point where they were not only a pimp and his hooker looking to buy a house, but they were also planning to "ship in" thirteen under-age girls from El Salvador and force them to work the streets as well. Never batting an eye, these ACORN employees assured the couple that at ACORN they don't discriminate... and that the prostitute should be "proud" of what she does.

Every time O'Keefe and Giles stepped up their program, the ACORN employees were right on it. Educating the pimp and prostitute as to how to file her taxes as a "performing artist," how to shelter income, how to avoid paying taxes, how to deal with her incoming shipment of girls, how to avoid an ex-pimp... you name it, they covered it. They ended their time together with hugs all around, and fully expected O'Keefe and Giles to return the next business day with cash for membership into ACORN and a fee for filing the fraudulent tax returns. (Tax returns were necessary to purchase the house to be used as a brothel.) OH - and part of the story was that O'Keefe was in law school and was planning a political career - and the ACORN staffers were more than happy to advise him on how to get ahead politically without being tarnished by his imperfect associations as well.

O'Keefe and Giles released tapes obtained from the Baltimore offices of ACORN. And ACORN responded by saying this was a hatchet job done by their opposition and the offending employees were acting on their own... against ACORN policy. The offenders were canned, it was a one-shot deal, etc... at which point O'keefe and Giles released tape number two from the Washington D.C. offices of ACORN.

Then comes the following release (in part) from ACORN on September 12:

Statement from Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer, ACORN Regarding Recent News Reports

The relentless attacks on ACORN's members, its staff and the policies and positions we promote are unprecedented... if ACORN did not exist, the right-wing would have needed to create us in order to achieve their agenda, their missions, their ideal, retrograde America... This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we've all recently seen... I am appalled and angry; I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video, who have since been terminated. But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was - our lawyers believe a felony - and we will be taking legal action against FOX and their co-conspirators..."

Baaaaad FOX News, to report on a story such as this! None of the other networks have reported it -- with the exception of CNN, but they at least reported the ACORN talking points! And yes, the videos are edited - you can go see for yourself at this location. But they also have posted full audio for your listening pleasure, unedited -- and a full transcript so you can read along.

But it gets better. Because today - after Bertha's indignant response - the co-conspirators of FOX News have released yet another tape... from ACORN's New York office. I guess Bertha was misinformed about a "failed attempt" there, huh? And don't you just want to know if the New York employees butts have been puckered up, waiting for their fall? And don't you wonder how many other offices have people going to work with puckered butts -- wondering when their tape will emerge?

Inquiring minds want to know, though... where is the MSM in all this???

Listen To What They Say...

2009-09-07T09:46:00.002-04:00

Well, Van Jones is no longer the "czar" he once was. (A moment of silence, anyone?) According to his resignation, "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide... I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for our future."

Hmmm... well, it's quite sad that people are able to mount a "vicious smear campaign" against him that requires using only his own words... one would think if there were lies and distortions, those might be directly noted in one's resignation. After accusing the people who simply brought to light Jones' own statements and past of "lies and distortions," one has to wonder if Van Jones is capable of doing anything "in good conscience."

Glenn Beck, on both his radio and television shows, called Van Jones a "communist-anarchist radical." BUT, he didn't simply make the statement and then walk away, he played large segments of speeches made by Jones to back up his label. I think it helped, too, that Van Jones himself said he was a communist.

Of course, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are big supporters of Van. Howard Dean was so unfortunate as to be included in a panel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He chose to weigh in on the issue by saying:

"This guy's a Yale educated lawyer, he's a best selling author about his specialty, I think he was brought down. I think it's too bad. Washington's a tough place, uh, that way, and I think it's a loss to the country." When asked about Jones' signing the 9/11 truther's petition to investigate whether or not the Bush administration had caused 9/11 to occur, Dean's response was, "Well, he was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else, so I think that's too bad. Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign, and he learned the hard way you ought not to do that but I don't think he really thinks the government had anything to do with the cause of 9/11."

I guess this can just go to show that Napoleon was correct in his assessment that "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." How can anyone say, with a straight face, that America has suffered a loss because Van Jones was a Yale educated lawyer on one hand, and then immediately following, suggest that this Yale education didn't even serve Jones so well as to inform him not to sign something he hasn't read? Even I, lacking a Yale education, know better than that! And further, for Dean to suggest that Van Jones ever campaigned for anything is a bit deceptive. Jones was appointed by the president without even a senate hearing...

Given all this, one has to assume one of two things... either Howard Dean is a moron, or he thinks we are.

I guess good riddance to Van Jones, although I, too, think it would have been better had he stayed in his position. It was helping to bring to light some of Obama's greater sympathies. Oh well... the mainstream media wasn't really covering it anyway.

Battle of the Beliefs

2009-09-05T10:14:00.003-04:00

From everything I can gather, I am a rather unique homeschooling parent. I guess that makes sense, considering the fact that I'm unique enough to not fit in pretty much everywhere I go. Finding my "clique," so to speak, has never been something I could do.

I am a homeschooling parent for one reason and one reason only. My children need me to be one at this time. Were our educational choices different in the area in which we live, I would happily send them off each and every day for a well rounded education elsewhere. My passion lies not in cracking the books each and every day, trying to shape and mold everything which enters my children's heads -- but in making sure that they are thriving and learning. A rabid homeschooler I am not.

There is a case in New Hampshire in which the courts have ordered a mother to enroll her daughter in public school. The daughter is ten years old and the mother has been homeschooling her since first grade. The mother appears to be doing a fine job in covering the academics (and even has her enrolled in certain classes at the public school)... but she's divorced, and the father does not share the mother's religious beliefs. The father has requested the court send the daughter to public school and the court agreed. According to the court order, " Education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things. A child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."

In all honesty, I can see why this would be a sticky situation. When two parents have vastly different views on life principles and religious values, who gets to decide? Does common sense dictate that the person with primary custody gets the final say?

Apparently the guardian ad litem had some profound influence on the case. The court order also said, "According to the guardian ad litem's further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda (the ten year old) to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith."

Question for you... how many ten year olds do you know who run to explore different faiths from their parents? How many do you know who voice a different political viewpoint? Not many, I'm sure. They're TEN. They're still trying to figure out how things work, and they often parrot the views of their primary caregiver. Yes, even those children who are in the bowels of the public education system tend to be little parrots.

The interesting thing about this case is the point on which the court focused. Religion. That little girl was ruled "too Christian." The court decided the father was right - the little girl "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting... and different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs." Fascinating reasoning, really, when you consider the fact that one of the girl's own parents is obviously exposing her to a different point of view already.

Apparently, the court system in New Hampshire thinks that the best way to teach a child to think for themselves is to expose them to the biggest "group think" racket ever. Public school.

Insanity... pure insanity

2009-09-02T14:44:00.002-04:00

Van Jones - the Green Jobs guy for the Obama administration - is kind of an interesting dude. For starters, he's kind of "pinko commie." Just a LITTLE (said with dripping sarcasm). Remember when Barack Obama said something about "transforming America?" Yeah... I think that pinko commie is sort of what he had in mind, and Jones is one of his helpers.

Am I over the edge here? Well, I don't know... you tell me...

Jones' job is to create "green jobs." Really, who wants to fight against clean energy and new jobs? I say, if you can create a business that is good for our environment and create jobs right along with it, more power to you! Of course, the fact that the government has to do the job creation leads me to believe that it's a money-losing proposition, but I digress.

Based on some of the things Jones has said, I have to question his mental capacity. And I quote, "You cannot beat global warming unless you understand that 40% of greenhouse gases are nout coming from cars they're coming from buildings and 75% of greenhouse gases are coming from the cities and you cannot green the cities unless you green the ghetto, and you cannot green the ghetto in 2009 without giving Pookie a job. So... that's a new environmental movement... Give Pookie a job! Beat this recession and global warming at the same time. Beat pollution and poverty at the same time. And recognize the true genius of Barack Obama is that the first black president is the first green president. He's not just trying to save you - he's going to save the whole wide world!"

Ooookaaaay. Not sure just who Pookie is, but I'm thinking give him a job if it will shut this guy up. What the --? Anyway, there's more. That first quote was just to get you in a happier mood.

Jones sees his job in a very important light. He's not just some grunt who is going to find clean jobs for Pookie, no siree... He says, "This is deeper than a solar panel. I want you to have a clean energy revolution... but if you stop there, if all you do is have a clean energy revolution, you wouldn't have done anything. I'm going to tell you why. If all we do is take out the dirty power in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system, but we don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we are treating our brother and sister species, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have: you'll have solar powered bulldozers; you'll have solar powered buzz saws; and biofueled bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines. And we'll still have a dead planet! This movement is deeper than the solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! No, we are going to change the whole system! We're going to change the whole thing! We're not going to put a battery in a broken system! We want a new system!"

Huh. A new system, eh? A new system as to how we treat each other, how we treat our "brother and sister species..." What IS that, anyway? Clearly, this is an angry gentleman. He doesn't like our system, that much is certain. He has made comments about how we have the "wrong agricultural system," too. What did he mean by that? Well... here's what he said, "White polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially scaring poison into the people of color." Ah!!!! I see now. It's all about skin color. But don't worry -- he's not ONLY concerned with the black people... He also said, "And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy, well guess what! Renewable energy. Guess what! Solar industry. Guess what! Wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt."

Yes, he likes to repeat himself. But it seems that the "new system" they want is one which redistributes the wealth. Who could have known that this was what Barack Obama had in mind? It would have been impossible to say before the election, right? I mean, of course he SAID he wanted to redistribute the wealth to Joe the plumber, but... who knew he meant it?

On August 31, the New York Times ran an article titled, "Justice Department to Recharge Civil Rights Enforcement." According to the article:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush's appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

So - we have a green jobs dude who who is dedicated to making sure the white folks don't achieve - after all, they're just busy scaring poison into everybody, so they don't deserve to have any wealth. The minorities, though -- and especially those Native Americans -- THEY will finally be getting what they deserve after having been bullied and shoved and pushed... wait. How old ARE these folks? They must be nearing 150! And here I thought that the old people were going to be getting the ax in the new health care system. Guess they're planning to give them all the wealth instead. Who knew?

And then we have Eric Holder, who is going to make sure that people are playing nice -- even when there's no evidence that there was any not nice... I guess it's important to just breathe down people's necks a bit, just for purposes of job creation?

To quote the finest man I know, "Pinko Commie Bastards!!"

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy...

2009-08-30T15:04:00.002-04:00

Enough already!! I've heard it said that we're not to speak ill of the dead (although I must admit that I've never understood why death shrouds one in perpetual protection), but can we at least stop fawning over the death of Ted Kennedy? I logged into my google homepage today and CNN's google politics headlines were ALL about him. Each and every one. I kid you not.

Headline #1, "A nation mourns as Kennedy family says goodbye"

Headline #2, "Kennedy seen as a champion for disability rights"

Headline #3, "Kennedy remembered as an advocate for all" (except for those who love freedom and capitalism, of course...)

And CNN's main headline included him as well with "Commentary: When Ted Kennedy spoke." I'm almost afraid to read that one.

Seriously though... enough is enough. The man has passed away, everybody in the country who follows politics at all knows that his death is going to be used to push health care "reform," his family and friends are very sad, and there's a vacant Senate seat. I suppose it is fair to report on all these things - and even to go into some detail without getting nasty and bringing up ugly history. But can we just be finished now? I'm almost waiting for the notice of a new national holiday in his honor...

Making A Living Out of Nothing At All

2009-08-03T08:14:00.005-04:00

On August 1^st, the NYT published an article titled “Prolonged Aid to Unemployed Is Running Out.” The article begins by saying, “Over the coming months, as many as 1.5 million jobless Americans will exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits, ending what for some has been a last bulwark against foreclosures and destitution.”

These 1.5 million workers are coming up on 79 -- count them, 79 weeks of unemployment benefits. Keeping in mind that there are only 52 weeks in a year, the number 79 is astounding. I refuse, however, to call all the unemployed “job seekers” as the NYT does in their article as I know some who are simply sitting back and enjoying the ride.

According to the article there are now nine million Americans collecting unemployment benefits, at an average of $300/wk. By my calculations, then, when all is said and done - and if benefits are not yet again extended - the outflow of money to unemployment benefits will have been $213,300,000,000. Yes, that’s two hundred thirteen billion, three hundred million dollars.

However, there is talk now of congress passing another extension, adding thirteen more weeks. Don’t worry, though... that only adds another $35,100,000,000 to the tab. No biggie, right?

Maurice Emsellem of the employment law project (whatever that is) is quoted in the article as saying, “If more help is not on the way, by September a huge wave of workers will start running out of their critical extended benefits, and many will have nothing left to get by on even as work keeps getting harder to find.” I am not going to discount that this may be a true statement for some—it’s quite possible that there are a few people out there who have exhausted even their local McDonalds and WalMart for employment and have come up completely dry. However, I highly doubt that situations like that are common. But then get this:

For many desperate job seekers, any extension will seem a blessing. Pamela C. Lampley of Dillon, S.C., said she sat outside the post office last month and cried because “it was the first Wednesday in quite some time that I’ve gone to the mailbox and left without an unemployment check.” The jobless rate in her state is 12.1 percent.

Ms. Lampley, 40, who is married with three children, lost her job as a human resources officer in January 2008 and had been receiving $351 a week, which covered the groceries and gas. Even so, she and her husband, who still has work as a machinist, were sinking into debt. Now, still poorer, she feels devastated because they cannot buy their son a laptop to take to college and she cannot give her 9-year-old son money for the movies.

Somehow I am supposed to feel so bad as to support extending unemployment benefits to a Ms. Lampley because she now cannot purchase a laptop for her son and send her other son to the movies? Oh, by all means... extend that check!! We cannot have a nine year old boy unable to be influenced by Hollywood! And, for crying out loud, I’m 37 years old and I still have never owned a laptop in my life. I’m sure the college son can survive.

But it goes on... Ms. Nixon’s children have had to forgo summer camp and baseball. She’s already fighting foreclosure and when her checks run out she fears that they will be homeless. But, I have to say, going from living in a house with a mortgage to downsizing to an apartment or rental home in a lesser neighborhood makes one uncomfortable, not homeless. And a person who assumes that because their government stipend has run out there is no other option available to them needs a wake-up call.

Raymond Crouse is 72 - yes, 72. He has been receiving $190 a month in unemployment benefits which enable them to keep their house. Social security alone isn’t enough. His past job? Operating heavy construction machinery. Methinks Mr. Crouse is hoping to have his unemployment benefits extended in perpetuity.

Jim McDermott (D) is going to introduce a bill in September to extend benefits again in any state with an unemployment rate of 9% or higher. He knows that the representatives will quickly support the bill when their constituents start calling them, feeling desperate. Yes, he’s probably right. He said that “the cost would be $40 billion to $70 billion, but the expense would be temporary.” Well, duh. The expense would be thirteen weeks long, for each person on the dole. But what happens when that runs out? Because it will.

The article goes on to point out:

Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work.

Upon reading the above statement, I started to hear the Hallelujah Chorus in my head. As I have said, I know some of those people! But, unfortunately, the chorus quickly died out when I read on:

But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard.

For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. “Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can’t find work even if they are hustling to look,” he said.

Funny... according to this dude, we should continue to pay these people for not working as long as jobs remain scarce. Does he not realize that if we do that, most likely jobs will remain scarce for some time to come and people will be happy to continue receiving something for nothing? (And no, I am not accusing everybody on unemployment as being this type of person. Just some of them.)

But back to our earlier examples... Lampley (Remember her? The one who was crying over her inability to purchase a laptop for her college bound son?) has unsuccessfully sought clerical work at $8 an hour, though she used to make $15 an hour. No mention that she has tried to branch into doing something different to pay for that coveted laptop.

Crouse... Mr. 72 year old “said that even if new building projects were planned, construction slows in the winter cold.” Never mind that a 72 year old would be welcomed with open arms at the local Wal Mart. His job would consist of saying hello to people, putting stickers on the items they wished to return to the store, and giving out smiley face stickers to children. I’ll bet a job like that, worked part time, would just bring in more than the required $190 a month, too. Now, I might sound heartless here, seeing as he’s old—but I’m thinking if the man is spry enough to operate heavy construction machinery, he can stand at the entrance of Wal Mart for a bit.

Nixon - the one who cannot afford summer camp for her little sweetums - has interviews for jobs in real estate and office work “endlessly” and has been unable to find employment that way. Well, blow me down! Really? Somebody can’t find work in real estate?? What a shock!! How about looking for something in the industries that are still alive, honey? But she said, “I can’t find a job, and you can’t survive if you don’t work.”

Well, apparently now you can.

Why I Love Israel

2009-07-08T07:55:00.003-04:00

I started to write about Israel and her neighbors... I wrote of statistics in the surrounding countries, including literacy rates, infant mortality rates, etc... all of which point to Israel as a beacon of light in an area that is insufferably dark. Then I realized that it was just too boring to read - and so I start again.

Israel is a tiny country (smaller than the state of New Jersey) surrounded by countries and people who hate her. Israel has normalized relations with only two Arab states, Egypt and Jordan. As of January of this year, those normalized relations with Jordan were under some pretty severe fire.

Syria is a real threat to Israel. They have been spending billions of dollars on weapons - and even while engaging Israel in "peace talks," the "Syrian Defense Minister was in Iran discussing Strengthening military ties." Hassan Turkmani was reported as saying, "Iran and Syria share the same viewpoint regarding regional issues and efforts will be made to strenthen our shared interests and bilateral relations."

Iran's leadership has a hatred for Israel that cannot be overstated. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly made the following statements:

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"No doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Israel is a true democracy. She is a strong supporter of human rights. She is the kind of country that values her people to the point of making concessions with an enemy in order to retrieve the body of a murdered soldier. She is a country which desires peace. She has been attacked from all sides, both militarily and psychologically... and when struck militarily she has proven that she can kick some serious butt. She stands for freedom in a region where the word barely exists.

Israel is surrounded by Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, Libya, Chad, Algeria, Niger, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Somalia - as well as a number of smaller countries in Africa. These are all Muslim countries. Grab a copy of the Koran and see what the Muslim religion has to say about Jews.

And yet - in spite of all this - Israel stands. And that is why I love her.

Israel, Iran, and Biden

2009-07-07T08:09:00.002-04:00

There's been some measure of speculation over Joe Biden's performance on "This Week" with Stephanopoulos. A number of people have said that he gave Israel the "green light" to go ahead and attack Iran. I, not being one to regularly watch "This Week," had to go watch him on the internet, but I have to say I disagree with the general speculation as to his intent.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has, I guess, said that he'll give Iran until the end of the year to work with the United States and eliminate their nuclear program. Generous of him, I think, given the fact that Iran is showing no signs of stopping and our president is publicly saying Iran has every right to be a nuclear nation (while making deals with Russia to eliminate vast amounts of our nuclear weapons). Anyway, when Stephanopoulos brought up Netanyahu's position, Biden responded immediately by saying, "Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."

People heard this and started flapping their arms and running in circles saying, "Biden gave the green light! Biden gave the green light!" But you have to listen to everything Biden said in order to determine whether he was really doing that or not. And I have determined that he was talking out both sides of his mouth. He went on to say, "Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed." Which, to me, says that Israel has the right to attack Iran just as much as Iran has the right to attack Israel and it doesn't matter whether or not we agree -- but that doesn't mean we're going to back them on it.

Biden was also very clear that the administration will continue to engage Iran in talks whenever and if ever possible, and that they don't care what Israel thinks about it.

I'm not an expert on foreign affairs. I'm sure I have no clue as to what all goes on behind the scenes... but from what I can see, the United States has little to no influence in what happens in Iran. Granted, inviting them to come celebrate the birth and independence of The Great Satan might not have been the best way to get them to talk to us, but I don't think there's too much that will convince them we're okay and their ambitions are not.

Is it possible that Israel will go ahead and attack after the year is out? Sure. Is it possible that Iran could develop their weapons before then? Sure. Does Israel really need our help in order to survive and thrive in their region? I think past history would dictate "no." Frankly, though, I love Israel and it makes me sad to see our country's leadership so at odds with them.

Obama is looking for "progress" with his diplomacy by the end of the year. And he has indicated that he will consider "tougher sanctions" if they continue their quest to go nuclear. But, it seems to me, that sanctions say to them, "You're being bad." Oh, NO! What will tougher sanctions say to them? "You're being really bad." That'll get 'em.

Anyway, these next twelve months should be interesting on many fronts.

As If I Needed Another Reason

2009-07-05T09:35:00.003-04:00

It's been said, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." Clearly, this statement is referring to modern liberalism, not classic liberalism. And it's referring to conservatism in the United States, not conservatism in... say, Iran.

I would guess that most people, between their college years and their thirties or forties, have rethought their views to a certain extent. I have met people who were "conservative" in their college years and describe themselves as becoming "enlightened" since then, progressing them to their more liberal view of things today. And I have met people who were "liberals" in their college years and describe themselves as "coming to their senses" and being far more conservative today. I, personally, was raised in a conservative household - complete Reagan fans, my parents were - and in my early twenties I questioned all I had been taught. I went through a phase of wandering, then eventually ended up close to where I started, with a few tweaks here and there.

Today's edition of the NYT has a prominently featured story on Barak Obama (no surprise, that) titled "Obama's Youthful Ideals Shaped the Long Arc of His Nuclear-Free Vision." It's a must-read... As usual, an article which is supposed to be delivering the world news gives us insight both into Barack Obama AND the author of the article.

Back when Obama was a senior in college, he wrote of his vision of a "nuclear free world." His article, titled "Breaking the War Mentality," is indicative of his vision yet today. He writes,

"The more sensitive among us struggle to extrapolate experiences of war from our everyday experience, discussing the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala, sensitizing ourselves to our parents' wartime memories, or incorporating into our framework of reality as depicted by a Mailer or a Coppola... We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experience down into our hearts, and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.

"Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM), work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war."

He goes on to talk about the two groups and how they approach the subject. The ARA leader is quoted as saying "People don't like having their intelligence insulted, so we try to disseminate information and allow the individual to make his or her own decision." A gentleman (Mark Bigelow) who worked closely with the leader of ARA is quoted in the article as saying, "We do focus primarily on catastrophic weapons. Look, we say, here's the worst part, let's work on that. You're not going to get rid of the military in the near future, so let's at least work on this."

One of the students involved in SAM said, "At the heart of our organization is an anti-war focus. From there, a lot of issues shoot forth - nukes, racism, the draft and South Africa." Apparently, the main focus of the group SAM at the time had to do with registration for the draft. There was a new law that required from male students proof of registration in order to receive government aid for schooling. This upset the students who wanted to be educated with public dollars while having no desire to protect and defend the public.

Barack Obama then went on to say,

"Perhaps the essential goodness of humanity is an arguable proposition, but by observing the SAM meeting last Thursday night, with its solid turnout and enthusiasm, one might be persuaded that the manifestations of our better instincts can at least match the bad ones."

And this,

"The Reagan administration's stalling at the Geneva talks on nuclear weapons has thus already caused severe tension and could ultimately bring about a dangerous rift between the United States and Western Europe. By being intransigent, Reagan is playing directly into the Russians' hands."

And this,

"In 1933 the German establishment thought it could use Hitler to restore a modicum of order to the confused and confusing Weimar Republic. In fact, Hitler did strengthen the German establishment, but not exactly in the way the bankers and businessmen had wanted; and now, fifty years later, it is clear who was using whom.

"Nevertheless, the Western World did not complain in 1933 because Hitler, though a fascist and a totalitarian, was seen, like countless American puppet dictators today, as someone who leaves the established order in place."

"If a group [Green Party] of young, anti-establishment pacifists with unusual ideas and uncomfortable answers to hard questions terrifies us more today than Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels did back in 1933, our terror says more about us than it does about the Greens or the Germans. It indicates that we have failed to comprehend the meaning of Nazism and blind obedience to authority in their full horror, and that we, unlike the Greens, have yet ourselves to learn the democratic lesson that we have taught the Germans so well....

"... It is at once a warning to us that the old solutions of more weapons and again more weapons will no longer be accepted in a Europe that is already a powderkeg waiting to go off; and it is an invitation to work towards a peace that is genuine, lasting and non-nuclear."

Bravo, really... for a good piece of writing by a college student. Although infused with personal opinions and not exactly a news piece, he wrote rather well. I'll give him some major kudos for that. Unfortunately, hindsight being 20/20, we can't exactly give him kudos for content. Reagan's ideas paid off, the cold war was won without any nuclear fallout, and it can be reasonably stated that Obama was wrong in his statement about Reagan playing into the Russians' hands. It's also fair to say Obama was a wee bit off in saying Reagan was an "American puppet dictator."

These writings - of a college student - and the views they represent could easily be overlooked and forgiven were the writer to grow up and renounce them, saying that history has proven him wrong. However, the college student grew up to be elected president of the United States and has not renounced his views. Twenty six years later, the college student is "pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world." In Prague, Obama said "I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence." Note to self: if someone feels they need to tell you they're not naive, they just might be naive.

Obama has laid out a step by step plan to reduce the arsenals of the world's nuclear superpowers to 1,500 warheads each, as a beginning. He is reducing arsenals in order to "remake the nuclear world" with a goal of "halting weapons programs in North Korea and Iran." But he's not naive - don't worry. Perhaps his next step will be to halt criminal activity within the borders of the United States by disarming the police officers and the FBI.

What's to learn from all this? What I've learned about our current sitting president:

1. He's a man who appears to have not changed his views between college and today.

2. He despises the military, perhaps even more than Bill Clinton did.

3. He's a man who seems to be incapable of learning even from the history which transpired during his own lifetime.

4. He is determined to weaken the United States through both our economy and our military.

5. His views and actions make no sense to me whatsoever.

As if I needed more reasons not to like him.

Moochers, Looters, and Producers

2009-07-03T08:00:00.002-04:00

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor - your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?" -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I am more an unapologetic capitalist today than I was a week ago... and a week ago, I would have told you I was as staunch a capitalist as they come. What is the difference in me today? I suppose I shall just be louder. Goodness knows, somebody needs to be out there in favor of capitalism... the capitalist crowd appears to be dwindling at a rapid rate. Honestly, I blame this sad fact on a pathetically poor education system.

What is capitalism but the best among imperfect systems? I will admit that capitalism is not without its faults... free markets are not perfect, nor will they ever be. Human nature dictates that life on earth can never be utopian. This is one essential fact of which everyone needs to be constantly aware. This fact needs to inform us first - before we begin thinking of systems and what needs to be done about them. This is my bias and will inform everything I write from here on.

There are states "in crisis" financially - if you were not already aware of this, you've probably been living under a rock somewhere. But as of Thursday, even the rock dwellers will have an inkling that all is not well in the state of California. There, the state's controller started printing "i.o.u.'s" instead of checks to pay those they owe. To quote a line from my favorite movie, "Humiliations galore!" But I have to hand it to Arnold... the pressure has been on for quite some time and he just won't cave. He is calling for "changes in policy as part of any budget deal." What changes is he looking for?

1. He refuses to sign on to anything that is a temporary fix.

2. He refuses to sign on to tax increases for the people of California.

3. He insists on the fingerprinting of recipients for certain state services.

4. He insists on checks on the job status of welfare recipients.

5. He insists on changes to the state pension program.

My personal opinion is that the state should probably stop spending money to save the seals right now, too... but maybe that's just me.

Charges leveled against the governor?

1. "The governor is playing brinksmanship in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since the '30s with possible consequences for the nation's recovery as a whole." I had to look up "brinksmanship." It means, "pursuing dangerous policy to the brink of calamity before stopping." Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in 1-5 above that would qualify as "dangerous policy" except insofar as he doesn't go far enough.

2. "We did everything in our power to avert the i.o.u.'s. This was a strategic move by the governor and the Senate Republicans." This juicy bite was from Darrell Steinberg of the State Senate. He also accused the governor of "stale rhetoric."

Huh. It's interesting, isn't it? The state of California is in a glorious mess -- and states are required to run on a balanced budget. I really wish the federal government had the same requirement! Think of what might change if that were the case... but I digress.

The national mood is somber, at best. The June report of jobs lost was more dismal than that of May. Of course, the fact that the press was out rejoicing in the streets at May's numbers simply because the number of jobs lost was lower than the previous month was a bit pathetic, and one had to expect that the party was going to be over soon.

In June, almost half a million jobs were lost again. It's not looking good for the economic recovery cheerleaders right now... not to mention the fact that it's not looking good for quite a few Americans. But that's okay, because the New York Times has advice for President Obama in their editorial section... wanna hear it? "President Obama and his advisers must start preparing now for what is sure to be a tough legislative fight over more stimulus." No, I'm not kidding.

They also go on to say that the unemployed will need more help. Want to know why? "The jobless rate ticked up to 9.5 percent in June... and it appears headed inexorably higher. For adult men, the rate is already 10 percent. The numbers are even worse for teenagers (24 percent), African-Americans (14.7 percent) and Hispanics (12.2 percent). The most alarming subset, however, is made up of the long-term unemployed. Of the 14.7 million jobless workers, 4.4 million - nearly 30 percent - have been out of work for 27 weeks or more." Naturally, the NYT is calling for another extension of unemployment benefits. But puhleeze tell me that we're not extending unemployment benefits to teenagers?? Please?!? How in the heck and why are we tracking the employment statistics of teenagers?

Not to appear too one-sided, the NYT advised Obama to address a deeper anxiety... and this is where I have to just laugh at these people because they make no sense whatsoever. After telling him to start pushing yet another stimulus, they tell him to address the deeper anxiety of "how will the economy be rebuilt so that growth is not dependent on excessive borrowing, by the government or by households?" They want him to have "a vision - and an agenda - for creating good jobs with good pay."

And for that, I have to circle back to the beginning of this particular piece of writing -- the answer is CAPITALISM.

Government Healthcare = Healthy Economy?

2009-07-02T08:15:00.002-04:00

Joseph Goebbels was born in 1897 and was "Reich Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was an immoral, abhorrent creature who did his job well. He understood how people think. "It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success," he said. Like I said, immoral - abhorrent -- but good at his job.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." -Joseph Goebbels

Hmmm... propaganda, lies... kind of makes me think of the "national debate on healthcare." Fascinating, really, in a sick and twisted sort of way.

Barack Obama took his message to Virginia yesterday, in a "town hall" meeting. He again repeated the obvious lie that a government health care program will save money rather than cost money. But he's now taking things a step further and saying that the national economy isn't going to come back unless we reverse "the crushing cost of health care." Talk about taking a cue from good old German Joe!

But what to do with those pesky little mosquito-like people who keep buzzing the truth in the public's ear?? What do we do with them? EASY! Barack Obama simply says, "So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth." OH!!! So they're not telling the truth -- you are. I suppose the easiest way to deflect attention away from your lie is to accuse your accuser of lying himself. This puts people into a complete fuddle, not knowing which direction is up anymore... and accomplishes one thing: they no longer care to pay attention. And the propagandist can do whatever he pleases.

Obama's "town hall" meeting was hardly a town hall meeting... it was a propaganda moment set up to appear as a town hall meeting. Do you think that I'm being hard on him? Am I going over the top with this one? In your mind, do I now belong with the black helicopter crowd? I suppose it's possible... but it doesn't take a mental giant to spot out a bit of propaganda, and there's nothing wrong with seeing black helicopters in the sky if they're really there.

Obama, in this meeting, took seven questions, all of which were fairly friendly to his cause and only one from a Republican (who asked about medical malpractice).

Then we have Debbie - who was "spontaneously" allowed to ask a question. According to the New York Times, this was when "the policy and politics was interrupted."

"Good afternoon, Mr. President... I'll try not to cry. I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently - um - my situation is - um - I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time and I was his (unintelligible). So I could not be tied up having my kidney removed. So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then. And I had insurance and everything was paid for that. But basically, because of the damage that the radiation did and things, I'm no longer able to work, and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come to their office. I can, um, get checked into a hospital and with their (unintelligible) program they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money. So currently, I basically... social security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying (unintelligible) for social security, currently. Um, I cannot get medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home - it's just me. I get food stamps, but that's it. And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security. Now that I have a new tumor, I have nowhere to turn."

Of course, Obama calls her over and she gets a hug. He will take her information and find out how they can help her, yada, yada... Then he launches into his spiel: "Debbie is a perfect example of somebody who we should, in a country this wealthy, be able to provide coverage for her health care problems. And what we don't want is a situation where Debbie gets worse and worse because she's not getting treatment, and then ends up having to go to the emergency room - as I said before - all of you will pay for it anyway, it's just you'll pay for it in terms of a hidden subsidy, and she's not getting the best care and we're actually paying more than we would have if Debbie right now was getting treated, uh, on a regular basis, by, uh, a physician who knew her history. Debbie, you are Exhibit A and we appreciate you sharing your story."

Spontaneous? I don't think so... after Obama is done making his speech, Debbie puts in a plug for some program for free medical care July 24th, 25th, and 26th... then talks about the good its doing, says that it would be a great place for Obama to "showcase why there's a need," then points to the governor and says how he can tell Obama the actual statistics, etc... this woman is politically active and is pushing for a government health care plan herself in an active way. Not only is this evident in her speaking, but reporters found out that she is active in "Organizing for America," which is a Democrat group that "grew out of the Obama campaign." When asked, the White House responded that Obama calling on Debbie was "coincidence." Yeah...

So... the big lies here?

1. Obama is not for government-run health care.

2. The townhall meeting "audience questions" were spontaneous.

3. Government health care will actually save the taxpayers money.

4. If we don't pass this - and quickly - the economy will never bounce back.

4 pieces of propaganda being thrown to the public by the White House and aided by the press in order to take over yet another sector of the economy and our freedoms.

I guess we'll have to see how effective the current administration is at Joseph Goebbel's job. Because, you know, your propaganda doesn't have to be intelligent. It just has to succeed.

What A Great Story!

2009-07-01T07:42:00.003-04:00

Hollywood should do so well... the coup in Honduras has all the elements of a great story. Filled with intrigue, irreverent humor, and drama, the story has made headlines all over the world. For little Honduras!!

So picture this:

We have a leader who is looking at his Latin American neighbors and seeing that some of them have extended their stay in power (notably Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador). Power is good, power is fun -- it's always great to stay as long as you can, right? Add to that the fact that in the middle east, a certain country has made serious headlines by fixing the vote. This Honduran leader had wheels turning in his head, apparently, and decided that it's high time to put out a referendum to the people to extend his stay... no need for term limits here, no matter what the good constitution of Honduras might say!

I guess the headlines everywhere and the current trend in Latin America spooked some folks, though... and an organized coup ensued. And what wicked scheme did these rebellious souls devise? Did they kill the leader in his sleep? Did they poison his coffee? NO. They took him out of bed in the middle of the night and, in his jammies, flew him to Costa Rica. This left the President of Honduras complaining to the press the next day in his nightclothes -- saying that he's the president, for goodness sake, and to return him to his office! (The only thing that could make this more hilarious would be if he had somehow been infused with helium right before his speech.)

Of course, our president has sided with the Honduran president (along with the dictators from Latin America). And the press goes wild... Obama is so smart! He's so wonderful! Chavez is trying to accuse the United States of being involved in this coup -- and Obama has completely diffused him! Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna... And diffused Chavez may be. I'm not discounting that... According to the NYT, "The Venezuelan president will not forget that the C.I.A. had knowledge of the coup that ousted him in 2002 yet did nothing to prevent it, and that Washington has a recent history of providing aid to groups that are critical of his government, opening the United States to charges of destabilization." They go on to say, "But for now, at least, Mr. Obama's non-confrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chavez off balance. 'Chavez is beginning to understand that he's dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,' said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American dialogue, a Washington policy research group."

Clearly, Obama has a different approach... to everything. But here's the bigger question: Why? It's fine to have someone come in with a better approach and a higher class of diplomacy. Frankly, I will freely admit that the Bush administration lacked diplomatic ease... to state it nicely. And, to put it bluntly, George W. Bush simply lacked communication skills. (He didn't even communicate effectively with his own people, much less people abroad.) However, Obama doesn't simply come in with a new skill - he comes in with a new set of beliefs. And, given the fact that he doesn't come down on the side of America even within America itself, it doesn't surprise me at all that he's lining himself up with dictators like Chavez in support of a president in Honduras who is trying to make himself into a dictator.

Boondoggles R Us

2009-06-27T09:21:00.008-04:00

It's been a while now that I've considered the House, the Senate, and the Presidency to simply be three different ways to be crazy.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only the most recent examples of this lunacy, but as examples go they are prime.

The most recent evidence of this pervasive insanity is the cap 'n' trade bill that was passed by the house on Friday. Granted, this bill needs to make it through the insanity that is the Senate and must be signed by the lunatic in the White House, but I'm almost certain it's a given that it will be done... and never mind what the pathetic people living in the United States think of it, either. The House of Representatives phone switchboard went down due to the pleas of the people... but what do the people know? Leave the governing to the "elite." They certainly know best, right? Representative Charles Gonzalez, a democrat from Texas, voted for the bill while telling CNN, "I can't begin to tell you how many calls we've received. And it's disproportionately 'vote no.'"

It is a certainty that Obama will sign a bill put on his desk. On Thursday, he said, "Now is the time for us to lead. We cannot be afraid of the future. We cannot be prisoners to the past... Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill." REALLY! Don't you just love how everything the president wants can be translated into a "jobs bill?" Hefty stimulus for banks? JOBS. Out of this world taxes on energy? JOBS. Overhaul health care and nationalize it? JOBS. It's really amazing the power of this president, isn't it? Jobs, jobs, everywhere...

But look at what Barack Obama said - before he was elected:

“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

“That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

“The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

‘It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

So... he's out to bankrupt the coal industry, he's out to create a new market that will generate billions of dollars for the government... albeit supposedly so that the government can invest in clean ways to produce energy. Past experience would dictate that the money will go elsewhere. But we're not going to go into the ponzi schemes of the past today, are we?

The bill goes further than simply raising the cost of energy, though. It's also another way to redistribute the wealth of the middle and upper classes. Somehow, the CBO has estimated that the average American household will pay an additional $175 per year in energy costs (which is probably a low estimate)... but the poorest households will receive rebates lowering their annual energy costs by $40.

I hate to go off on a tangent (but apparently am going to quickly do it anyway). What is it about the liberals that makes them want to drag down the successful instead of raising up the poor? Do they really think that they're helping to improve the situation of the "working poor" by lowering their annual energy bill by forty bucks? My frustration with the mentality of the leadership in our country is mounting daily... and frankly, my frustration with the mentality of the American people is right up there as well. We still live in the land of opportunity. We still live in a country where a hard working, creative individual can rise up and make something of him or herself. Is it hard work? YES. But that's the whole point... to work hard for something. Are there people out there who work hard and don't make much from it? Sure. But if that's your situation, you need to do something different. Don't just keep digging the same hole and filling it back in... and then wait for a government check. That's stupid.

But back to cap 'n' trade. The market created by this incredibly irresponsible bill is not to be worried about. Because it's going to be regulated... yes, regulated. Whew! We were all worried that there wouldn't be enough regulation of the regulating markets. Not only will it be regulated, but it will be regulated by three different federal agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Don't you feel better now?

The bill "devotes billions of dollars to new energy projects and subsidies for low-carbon agricultural practices," according to the New York Times. I'm almost afraid of what kind of research they are doing to reduce cow emissions.

According to the Global Guru, Al Gore, "This bill doesn't solve every problem, but passage today means that we build momentum for the debate coming up in the Senate and negotiations for the treaty talks in December which will put in place a global solution to the climate crisis. There is no backup plan." Wow. How frightening is that? The fate of the world rests on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama's energy plan - and there is no backup plan. I'm feeling chills up and down my spine right now.

Back in June of 2006, Gore gave us ten years... I guess the clock has been ticking down ever since. Only seven years left to live... what will you do? Huh... well, it looks like we'll pay more for our energy in our waning years.

No Wieners For You!

2009-06-26T08:53:00.002-04:00

I have to admit - I thought it was a little bit humorous that the Obama administration was extending their olive branch to the Iranian government via a celebration of our nation. But on June 24th, the president officially decided to rescind those invitations. Most likely because not a single Iranian official had RSVP'd. But who can blame them, really? Tough choices... I mean, clearly the 4th of July celebration is going to be a big weenie roast, and Muslims are prohibited from eating pork. The very best kosher hot dog is a Hebrew National, but Muslims are convinced that even the jews are pigs, so I'm sure they can't touch those, either. I'm pretty certain that the Muslims aren't too keen on partying it up with The Great Satan, either.

The State Department sent out a memo to all embassies and consulates on Wednesday, ordering them to rescind all invites. In the interest of making sure the embassies got it right, the memo included: "For invitations which have been extended posts should make clear that Iranian participation is no longer appropriate in the current circumstance. For invitations which have not been extended, no further action is needed." Ah, yes... thus the word "rescind." It's kind of difficult to take back that which has not yet been offered. It's kind of fun to think about, though... a disinvitation saying, "Not only were you not invited, now you're sooooo not invited!"

CNN reported that Hillary Clinton made the decision and then informed Obama. I'll bet that went over well.

I, for one, am breathing a sigh of relief. I was really worried about the hot dog situation.

Partying with Iran

2009-06-25T07:40:00.003-04:00

Major Garrett, reporter for FOX News, asked the president "What took you so long?" in condemning the actions of the Iranian government. If you want to see a miffed Obama, albeit controlled, watch that clip. It's a bit of a hoot. Obama, clever as always with words, answers that he has been consistent on this issue, supporting democracy but not wanting to give the Iranian government a reason to blame the CIA or America for the protests on the streets of Iran.

Garrett then followed up his question with another, asking Obama if Iranian leaders would still be welcomed to the 4th of July celebration. Obama said, "Well, uh... I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. Uh... I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles that we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S./Iranian relations, but that is a choice the Iranians are going to have to make." Can we assume from this answer, Mr. President, that they are still invited but they have to choose whether or not to show up to party?

Obama's strong words (please detect a note of sarcasm here) have produced such a change in the Iranian regime's attitude towards its people... oh, wait. No, that's backwards. According to the NYT this morning, "Iranian officials stepped up efforts to crush the remaining resistance to a disputed presidential election on Wednesday, as security forces overwhelmed a small group of protesters with brutal beatings, tear gas, and gunshots in the air. Intelligence agents shut down an office of a defeated presidential candidate, saying it was a 'headquarters for a psychological war.' The nation's leadership cast anyone refusing to accept the results of the race as an an enemy of the state." So the opposition to President Imanutjob is officially accused of "illegal gatherings, the promotion of unrest, and efforts to undermine the country's security." Don't worry, though... they've all been arrested.

Creating further speculation is the fact that the Iranian government is stepping up its efforts to block all independent news coverage throughout Iran. Also from the NYT, "The government banned foreign news media members from leaving their offices, suspended all press credentials for the foreign press, arrested a freelance writer for The Washington Times, continued to hold a reporter for Newsweek and forced other foreign journalists to leave the country.

According to official reports, about 240 people (102 of them political figures) are in jail. The Iranian government reports that it has arrested 627 more since the protests began.

Given all this, I have one question. What would make any reasonable man think these leaders are people with whom one can negotiate? And if there is no reason to think this, why would our president be continuing his quest to make nice with the Iranian government?

A Tribute To Alexis de Tocqueville

2009-06-21T14:04:00.002-04:00

Alexis de Tocqueville lived from 1805 to 1859. He was an incredible political thinker, having great understanding of what was happening in his day as well as an eye to the future. In his work, "Democracy In America," he wrote, "There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans... Each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world." That's some amazing insight, coming from his day. He also had a few other famous quotes... consider the following:

America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.

And one of my favorites... a great reason to study history:

When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.

Iranian Insanity

2009-06-21T13:31:00.002-04:00

The unrest in Iran really gets me thinking... I'm not exactly happy with the direction in which our government is headed, but I can be grateful for what I still have.

As the whole world is trying to watch (and only moderately succeeding), Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rigged the Iranian election and then promised "bloodshed" if the people won't shut up and take it. This garbage has led, of course, to garbage spewed by our own beloved journalists, and I quote:

"What can we expect as far as accuracy, because we have our own problems, Florida in 2000." CNN

"Like Florida 2000..." CNN

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his main opponent have declared victory. Florida 2000 anyone?" MSNBC

"The Supreme Court obviously, in this country, doesn't decide who's going to be on the ballot, but in 2000 they decided who was going to be president. Remember that?" CNN

Ah, but I digress. Back to Iran... please.

The Ayatollah has followed through on his promise to not allow any more protesting. And, frankly, I've been a bit surprised that it lasted as long as it did. Moussavi, the shunned candidate, has called for a general strike upon his arrest. He told his supporters that he is "ready for martyrdom" while calling again for nullifying the election results. (An almost sure bet then that he's going to get what he's ready for.)

Our president warned Iran that the world is watching. Oooooo... I'll bet they're scared now. The world is watching, the best that it can with the press thrown out of the country. But the Iranian leadership doesn't give a hoot what the rest of the world thinks. They have no respect for us. They wish us dead. Gone. Six feet under. What do they care if we're watching? What do they care if we don't like what we see? Keep in mind, OBAMA, these leaders lying about their own national elections are the same people who are saying they wish to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. These are the same people you said, in Cairo, have every right to "nuclear energy." Maybe you're willing to take their word on spit and a handshake... I'm not.

The promised bloodshed has begun. I'm not naive enough to think the protesters are behaving themselves in a pleasant fashion. I'm sure there are some who are angry and acting stupidly. But the fact that people are being shot for standing in the street and saying they are unhappy with their government is... oh wait! It's not unusual for Iran. See, here's what really gets me. Many people here in the United States cannot fathom a government crushing its people the way that Iran is doing. But it happens all over the world. And it CAN happen anywhere.

Liberties we enjoy here in the United States were hard fought and won by the bloodshed of our forefathers. It saddens me to see so many Americans taking these things for granted and assuming that the ugliness that is so prevalent in governments throughout the world cannot take hold here. Human nature dictates that it can... and if America's citizens are not vigilant, it will.

Transcending the Culture War

2009-05-15T08:13:00.002-04:00

In my general perusal of the news this morning, I came across an article in the NYT titled, "On Abortion, Obama Is Drawn Into Debate He Hoped to Avoid." This is said because Obama is going to be giving a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame and because he's in the process of finding a replacement for a Justice Souter.

According to the NYT, President Obama "has pursued a careful two-pronged strategy on abortion, enacting policies that secure a woman's right to the procedure while vowing to move beyond the culture wards that have divided the nation on the issue for more than three decades." I'll say! Obama, in his less than four months in office has done the following:

• repealed the Mexico City rule (which prohibited funding of abortions overseas with tax dollars)

• reversed the decision on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

• stripped funding for abstinence-only sex education

• is currently seeking to reverse regulation allowing doctors protection if the refuse to perform abortions

• is consistently naming abortion rights advocates to top jobs

As the NYT so aptly put it, he has "delighted abortion rights advocates."

The president would like us to think that he's a highly nuanced individual. Tilting his head just so for the camera, looking ultra-presidential (even if decidedly practiced), he says that "culture wars are so '90s" and that knowing when life begins is "above my pay grade." Of course, abortion is "a moral and ethical issue" but it's an issue "best left to women and their doctors." Or, considering the fact that he's even against parental notification, perhaps we should rephrase that to "best left to women, children, and their doctors." Seriously, anything goes as long as his daughters aren't faced with having made a mistake and being "punished with a baby."

I just think it's so interesting that Obama sees himself as somebody who can just rise above a culture war by talking. It seems to me that no matter what he says to try and make people think he's "nuanced," he has picked a side in the culture battle. He says that he "respects life" and that he views abortion as a "moral tragedy." But, frankly, this statement just doesn't mesh with a person who so adamantly advances the destruction of life. When someone is murdered in the street, this is also a moral tragedy... and one for which there is justice, be it ever not so swift. Why is it good enough for the unborn to simply acknowledge that their death is a moral tragedy while ensuring the continuation of such travesty?

The author of the NYT article believes that conservatives are "frustrated by what they regard as Mr. Obama's skillful efforts to paint himself as a moderate." I'm not so much frustrated by Obama's skill - since I don't think he's been all that effective in painting himself in such a way. I am frustrated by the media's attempts to cover up Obama's lack of character.

And, certainly, I'm frustrated by the left's attempt to declare the "culture war" over simply because they have their guy in office at this moment. It's not possible even for Barack Obama to rise above the abortion debate by pretending he's something that he's not.

The Next 1300+ Days

2009-05-02T10:25:00.002-04:00

I haven't been able to blog for a while... and not because there's nothing to write about. Not because I'm just way too busy. Not because I don't know what's going on. Only because what's going on has me in the dumps so bad that nobody would want to read a thought I have.

But I've been sufficiently chastised. And I'm back to the blogging board with a brief overview of my latest irritants.

• First, try to find some reasonably priced ammunition for your firearm. Oh... everybody's out, you say? Yeah, I know. But you can order and it will show up at your door in about two months time. That's what we did.

• And I'm thinkin' that the fact that everybody is arming up might be what led to the DHS releasing a memo about the right-wing terrorist threat that exists in the country. Of course, no right-wing group has blown up any buildings or hijacked any aircraft... but we're labeled as potential terrorist threats nonetheless. Oh - why do I say "we?" That's because I technically fit the definition of those worth watching according to the memo. Granted, I'm not a returning vet (because that was one of the dangerous groups), but I am pro-life (another dangerous bunch), and I do believe in state's rights (another qualification). I suppose I should put a disclaimer in here saying that Janet DID apologize for her slight to the troops. But she appears to stand by her indictment of the rest of us. Meanwhile, actual terrorism is referred to by the DHS as "man-caused disaster" because "it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." Uh-huh.

• We've had news that the Obama administration is planning to release the Gitmo prisoners... and just let a passel of them live here. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why somebody thinks this is a good idea.

• President Obama has had his first 100 destructive days in office, and the press made a huge stinking deal of this. Watching them kiss his butt and slobber all over him was a bit nauseating if not somewhat entertaining... I especially liked the efficient reporter who asked the question that has most been on my mind... "Mr. Obama... after your first 100 days, what is it that you find the most enchanting about the office?" Uh-huh. Yeah, I really want to know. What is it, Barack, that enchants you? Oh, and by the way, when will you be releasing a photo of your shirtless self? We've seen Michelle's arm muscles, now we would love to see your pectorals as well. ...C'mon. Seriously? Is this the best that we can do? Doesn't anybody in the press corps want to know what in the heck makes Obama think he has the right to fire somebody from GM? What, pray tell, in the Constitution of the United States (which he recently swore to uphold) gives him the authority to take over the banks? Doesn't anybody want to ask him where the hell he's putting our liberty once he takes it away?

• Another irritant was when Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency (created in which article of the Constitution again??) was interviewed on National Public Radio? Talking about the proposed cap-and-trade tax policy, she said, "The president has said, and I couldn't agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people." Oy. Frankly, our country doesn't need a "single national roadmap" to anything but the highways. Not having a single, national roadmap is what's often referred to as "capitalism." Even the interviewer on NPR questioned this idea by saying, "Is that the role of the government? That doesn't sound like free enterprise." Yeah... that's because it's not. Obama doesn't believe in free enterprise and has never really effectively pretended to. Jackson (not overly practiced in the double-speak required in selling her positions) said, "Well, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play than we might've when Henry Ford rolled the first cards off the assembly line." Right. Capitalism is bad - we need to replace it with a national roadmap to...

• Then we have the pig flu. I, for one, love the fact that the media is making such a big deal out of this. Last summer I got really cheap tomatoes because the media created a fear-frenzy over eating them. My family had gazpacho, salsa, margarita pizza, and various other meals with tomatoes all summer long. It's beginning to look like this summer will be the summer of bacon, pulled pork sandwiches, crown roast, pork chops, pork and beans, etc... It doesn't matter that you don't catch the pig flu from eating pig. People are weird and they're going to stop buying pork -- and I'll get mine far cheaper than last year.

• I really love Obama's claim during his 100 days news conference that "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." Which jobs are those, I wonder? Of course, the US job market has dropped well over a million jobs since Obama took office... not that I'm blaming this on him. I'm just saying that I doubt his claim is even remotely true. But it's darned convenient that it's not provable. How do you count a hypothetical job savings?

• Another statement Obama has made in recent days that is worth noting for a chuckle or two: "I've personally asked the leadership in Congress to pass into law rules that follow the simple principle: You pay for what you spend, so that government acts the same way any responsible family does." (Laugh track inserted here.)

• But the thing I read recently that depressed me the most was by Mark Alexander, the editor of The Patriot Post. I have been reading his essays for years and have always thought him to be a thoughtful and reasonable individual. My opinion of him has not changed upon reading his most recent essay... I still view him exactly the same way. My view of our national situation, however, has changed somewhat. Mark says, "There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths 'to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, 'A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.'"

These are serious statements. The idea of an armed uprising is a horrible thought. But the scariest thought I have these days - and the most depressing - is this: With 1300+ days to go, can we keep our free republic without one?

In studying United States history, I have often wondered if I would have been among the people willing to rise up and fight for independence or if I would have been one of those who, fearing the cost, would say "just pay the tax and forget it." It's beginning to look like I might have that question answered after all... which would you rather? A bitter cup of depression? Or a can of whoop-ass?

A Filthy, Nasty Habit

2009-04-05T07:52:00.002-04:00

These last few days, I just couldn't bring myself to really read the news. I was a headline girl, more or less. I had read about Barack Obama at the G20 summit and was still trying to digest the fact that they are there doing on a global scale what we are doing on a national one. A redistribution of wealth. After reading that, I thought I just might not have the stomach for more.

But, alas... news is to me what smoking is to some. It's simply a filthy, nasty habit that makes me feel bad -- and yet I find myself consistently compelled to indulge in more. So I did:

To begin with something close to home... more job losses in March. Well over 600,000 was the figure I read the most recently. My area is, I believe, second in the nation for joblessness. Second only to Detroit. So we have a still-sagging economy. Of course, the New York Times had to run a story on how Louisiana is supposedly a positive test case for the injection of federal aid propping up an economy. The article points out that the state's unemployment rate in February was 5.7 percent - and, of course, all the credit for this goes to the injection of federal dollars for rebuilding. I, personally, think it might be important to research how much population was lost after Katrina, though... and since many of those displaced were among the poor, it's quite possible that the joblessness was simply redistributed to other states.

Then there's the news of the gunman in Binghamton, NY. Some dude goes into an immigration services center and opens up on the people there. Who knows why he did it? I can't comprehend it. Neither can the people in the media, but they're sure as heck going to focus on it for a good while.

The Iowa court has voided the state's gay marriage ban. And now there's a push to "extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians in all six New England states by 2012." Huh. Funny that this is news... I thought there was a push to extend marriage rights to homosexuals nationwide. And I thought they wanted it done yesterday. But, as the NYT says, Iowa now has decency. "The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling for gay marriage is a refreshing message of fairness that makes the decisions to ban same-sex unions in states like New York seem all the more shameful." I'll bet that's the first time the elitists at the NYT ever looked at Iowa and felt anything but contempt and shame for them.

And then there's Pakistan... There are suicide bombings and serious unrest going on over there. But in the northwestern region of Swat, the government had reached a truce with the Taliban and Sharia law was introduced to the area. So now they have public floggings of 17 year-old girls for doing horrible things like leaving the house without a male escort. Or for being seen in public with a man who is not her husband.

But not to fear... the news isn't all bad. After all, Michelle Obama had her "moment" overseas. (Here is where we get a glimpse of the mainstream media's mentality.) See, Mrs. Obama, while in London, hugged the terminally ill, chatted with J.K. Rowling, and (while visibly emoting) spoke to a group of girls at a London school to "aim high." And I quote from the NYT: "But none of that, not even the meeting with the queen, can come close to finally appearing in the same camera lens with the former Carla Bruni, an Italian-born singer and former Victoria's Secret model now dominating the French political-fashion scene." Wow. I wonder if I should really aim that high... I mean, to stand next to a former Victoria's Secret model-turned-politicians-wife. Yes, sounds just too good to be true. (Please note the sarcasm here.)

And just for laughs I'll tell you, President Obama had some very earth shattering advice for Europeans. "I think that it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now president and George Bush is no longer president, Al Qaeda is still a threat." Hoo--eee! I'll bet they were confused on that just one minute before his speech. Perhaps some of them were, at that very moment, pondering such a philosophical thought. Good that he set them straight. Of course, in that same quote, Mr. Obama used his own middle name. What a breach of etiquette!! What? You mean it's now okay to use the name Hussein in connection with Obama? Oh, I'm so confused!!

Also, did you know that in a gesture of goodwill, Sarkozy of France has offered to take a prisoner off our hands from Gitmo? Isn't that nice of him? Yes, he'll take ONE. And he says that it wouldn't be right for France to just demand the closing of Gitmo and then wash their hands of the matter. That's not what being allies is all about. Apparently, being allies is all about making an almost meaningless gesture of goodwill -- since there are almost 250 more prisoners and we need to find someplace to put them.

In fulfilling his campaign promise of "hope 'n' change," Barack Obama is busy changing everything about our foreign policy. For one, he keeps insulting the Brits. Of course, he's tired - and I'm sure this is why he can't remember who our friends are. But still. And then, on the other hand, he's intent on making friends with the other guys. Russia and Iran immediately come to mind. But did you hear about Cuba? Yes, now it's in the news that our new, more hopeful government is signaling possible warming of relations with the Castro government. I guess this makes sense, as Obama might need their advice in how to make America over into a similar paradise. I don't know about you, but I've always wanted to try living in a country where it's preferable to grab a dinghy and take your chances with the ocean than to stay there.

And did you know that schools are now teaching empathy classes? Yes, apparently somebody discovered recently that middle school kids are mean. So now they're teaching empathy. Makes sense, I guess... so I wonder what else they're not teaching to make room for that. I think that empathy is something that kids need to learn, certainly. But why are they not learning this at home? You know, "Do unto others..." Oh, wait. Can't teach that. It's from the Bible.

So now... you're beginning to see why I say the news is just a filthy, dirty habit, right? Somehow, I read all this and I feel gross. And yet, there's a you've-got-to-be-kidding factor that makes me read on...

Freedom As "Ideological Symbolism"

2009-03-28T10:10:00.002-04:00

Remember shortly after 9/11? Most of the country came together, willing to wave an American flag, talking freedom. People were not willing to simply hang up the American way of life. They were interested in seeing those who brought this horror onto American soil found and brought to justice. And it was a popular thing for the replacement tower to be named "Freedom Tower." It sounded good... it sounded right. Because it was America's way of saying, "We stand for freedom and we won't back down."

Eight years later, we've backed down. After all, giving the tower a name like "Freedom Tower" is controversial. After all, tenants "might balk at a name with such potent ideological symbolism." Freedom is supposed to be the foundation for American political thought and deed. So, I suppose it's fair to say that "freedom" is American political ideology. But freedom is FREEDOM. Without it, what do you have? Isn't the fact that American has stood for freedom for centuries something to be proud of? Since when are we ashamed of it? Or worried that people might shy away from renting space in a building aptly named for it?

But now the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is calling the tower "One World Trade Center" to market leases in the building. The New York Times is downplaying this change, saying that "people will call this building whatever they like. The Sears Tower is about to be renamed The Willis Tower after a British insurance company. Try that on a Chicago cabbie and see where you end up." But it's more than that. A change from the name of "Freedom" to the name of "One World" is a very big change. And one that Americans shouldn't be taking lightly.

Power Grab Part 2

2009-03-28T09:31:00.002-04:00

I don't know if this can actually be classified as a "power grab" or if I would be more accurate to simply declare it insanity and be done with it. But worldwide, things are going a little bit loopy.

As crazy as things are getting here, we're still behind Europe in the insanity department. Unfortunately, we're heading the same direction... but we can look to them to see where we will be in the near future. It's kind of like looking at someone else's pictures of their vacation to Siberia right before you go on yours. I can't figure out why we're still planning the trip, but HEY. I guess I'm not in charge.

Barack Obama, in his recent "town hall meeting," made the following comment:

We could set up systems so that everybody in each house have their own smart meters that, uhh, will tell you when to turn off the lights, when the peak hours are, can help you sell back energy, uh, that you've generated in your home through a solar panel or through, uh, uh, other mechanisms. All this can be done, but it also creates jobs right now. Our biggest problem, we don't have enough electricians to lay all these lines out there.

Oh, really? That's the biggest problem? Huh.

I understand that a smart-meter and a smart-grid can actually be a good thing. I'm not opposed to the idea of using something in my home that will tell me if the kids left on all the lights in the basement. It also doesn't sound too bad to have some sort of energy producing mechanism in my house, saving me money. But all these things cost a lot of money, too. If the federal government decides that everybody in each house has to have this, who is going to pay for it? And if the federal government is going to pay for it, how will they generate the dollars needed to pay for it? I think this is where the cap and trade system comes into play.

Back in October of 2008, Obama was interviewed on public television on energy and he had this to say:

Number one, we're gonna have to start doing a better job of conserving on energy. Americans like to drive their big SUVs, the like to leave all the lights on in their house... If we want to do something serious about that, it's not going to be painless. We're going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gases. That means the power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers... We will have to guard against the low income and fixed income individual having to pay more for electricity, but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity. And that means we're going to have to change our light bulbs, we're gonna have to, you know, shut the lights off in our houses... And I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior. If electricity goes up, people become more mindful of their electricity bill. Over time the electricity bill goes back down as technology catches up.

So... once again those of us whom Obama deems "can afford it" are going to foot the bill for everyone. Apparently, he's going to have some system in place so that not everybody has to pay a higher energy bill. Just most of us.

But on to Europe, where the insanity has become more profound. In the UK, councils are sending "energy police" into the suburbs with heat detector vans to take thermal images of homes. The thermal image is then sent to the homeowner to show them where heat is escaping... from leaky doors, windows, walls and lofts. The director of the thermal imaging company, "Heatseekers," has said that there's no way the plan can infringe on privacy rights because "It is purely and simply a heat seeking camera. It can't penetrate brick work and it can't penetrate glass." Whew! I'm certain the Brits were all concerned you were trying to see them naked.

The UK's Energy and Climate Change Secretary (yes, they have one of those) likes this new approach -- but he says the ultimate solution is in going door to door. "It's been experimented on by a few councils and what we want to see is, can this be taken wider and more nationwide? By going street to street, door to door, people can actually get help."

Really!! Because up until now, people have been sitting in their homes, wondering from where help would come. I know I have... I've been wondering when the heat seeking van will drive through my neighborhood and tell me what I have to do to my home. Whatever...

But this is where we're headed. An insane waste of money... and further greenhouse gas emissions (c'mon... vans everywhere, traveling through neighborhoods at 10 mph, taking pictures of houses?) so that the government can tell people further how to live their lives. After all, it's for the good of the planet. Right?

Power Grab Part 1

2009-03-26T14:43:00.003-04:00

I confess that I'm just not old enough to remember power grabs of the sort that we're seeing in the news these days. Thus, this feels like completely new and unchartered territory to me.

Tim Geithner has announced a "plan" to overhaul financial regulation. According to him, the changes are needed to fix a system that is badly flawed. Of course, we had no idea that the system was as messed up as it is until this current financial crisis -- and now we understand. Thus, he doesn't want any modest change... he wants a complete overhaul. "New rules of the game."

Basically, what he's calling for is a new governmental agency (we need another one of those like another hole in the head). This agency will be responsible "for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities." Translation: the federal government does not currently have power to seize whatever they please and Geithner would like to change this, please.

According to Geithner, the changes called for are "very complex, very consequential, very difficult." Ooookay. And apparently they're too complex and difficult for his wee little mind to grasp because he didn't divulge any details (this is fast becoming a trademark for him) but said that the proposals will be outlined over the coming weeks.

And here's a tidbit that should put everybody's mind at ease: Barney Frank is still the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Yes, this is the same committee that oversees Fannie and Freddie. This committee "oversees all components of the nation's housing and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities." Barney Frank has said that it's clear... we need better options than allowing Lehman Brothers to fail or pumping billions into AIG. He says that they are looking for alternatives to avoid those "polar extremes." OH! I'm so glad he's on it.

Representative E. Scott Garrett (R, New Jersey) made a statement that any authority given to the government to take over failing institutions would need to be carefully structured "to avoid a lot of unintended consequences." Forget the unintended consequences! What about those intended? Or is he just being nice in trying not to accuse his fellow congressmen of a massive power grab?

Geithner is hoping to work with Europeans on a "global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight." He doesn't want a "balkanized system at the global level like we had at the national level."

They're going for government power to look at the inner workings of companies. If the regulators decide that a company has become "too big to fail," then they would begin to impose stricter capital requirements and closer scrutiny of its activities. They want to regulate private capital as well. And here's where it gets really interesting: Under this proposal, hedge fund, private equity and venture capital fund advisers would have to register with the S.E.C. (These are the companies which handle investments of the very rich.) They would be required to provide the government information on how much they borrow to leverage their investments as well as information about their investors and trading partners. And then the S.E.C will share those reports with the new "systemic risk regulator."

They're going after the people with the money. I'm still not sure what it is they're trying to accomplish with this, but I can guarantee you that it isn't good. Hedge funds haven't been at fault in this current financial mess... it's been the result of poor judgment in mortgage lending and financial investments tied to subprime mortgages. (Hello, Fannie and Freddie -- and Barney Frank.)

And it isn't that hedge funds aren't regulated already. They are. There are laws and rules that apply to this sort of investing that would certainly leave me out of qualification for participation.

Geithner has said that time is of the essence in implementing this restructuring. He says, "We have a moment of opportunity, we need to act." Sound familiar? Never waste a good crisis... But he is also saying it's important to have an international effort to reform the global financial system. In one sentence he says that the US will work with Europe because we cannot move alone... and then he said, "We cannot wait for consensus with the rest of the world." I'm not really sure what to do with that -- but that's par for the course these days.

All I'm patently certain of is the government is on a massive power grab. The current administration doesn't much care for the producers and money makers in our society. And everybody should be on the alert for further infringement on freedom and capitalism.

Oh - and, as always, hold on to your wallet.

The First Lover's Tiff

2009-03-25T08:17:00.003-04:00

Could it be?? Maybe? Is the NYT actually getting disgruntled with the messiah? It appears that they may not have appreciated his most recent prime-time news conference:

For just under an hour on Tuesday night, Americans saw not the fiery and inspirational speaker who riveted the nation in his address to Congress last month, or the conversational president who warmly engaged Americans in talks across the country, or even the jaunty and jokey president who turned up on Jay Leno.

Instead, in his second prime-time news conference from the White House, it was Barack Obama the lecturer, a familiar character from early in the campaign. Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs - often introduced with the phrase, "as I said before: - sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.

Hooo---ee! Barack Obama stars as Sybil! And, along with his apparent myriad of personalities, he has a myriad of agendas as well. But rest assured that "the bottom line is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit." Uh-huh. Isn't calling for all those in one sentence kind of like a fat person saying that they want more food, more fried food, more desserts, and to lose weight?

Also... we need to feel comfort in the fact that Barack Obama is "as angry as anybody about those [AIG] bonuses." And for executives, "enriching themselves on the taxpayers' dime is inexcusable." What I think is kind of funny is that there's this irritation... this anger... this rage - towards "executives." What about the blasted politicians? Are they not enriching themselves on the taxpayers' dime? Are they not the ones making the decisions to give taxpayer money to these failing corporations?

The NYT goes on to say:

He showed his usual comfort with a wide array of subjects, even as he excluded the nation's big newspapers from the questioning in favor of a more eclectic mix. (Perhaps this sentence alone explains why the article was opened with criticism of Obama.) He signaled that the new conservative government in Israel could make achieving a peace deal more difficult. (Why is it always the conservatives' fault? None of the other governments have been able to achieve a peace deal, either... at least not one by which the Arabs are willing to actually live!) He expressed patience about dealing with Iran. And he defended his proposal to increase the tax burden on the wealthy.

Well... I can't say that I agree with much that Barack Obama says or does. I do think that he's right when he says there's no peace deal coming in Israel - but I don't think he's right in assuming that has anything to do with the conservative government. It's just really hard to broker a peace deal with people who insist that your entire race needs to be dead before there will be peace.

And I also think it's interesting that he expressed patience with Iran. Really, what's the alternative? Bomb the hell out of them? If "patience" means holding down the nasty rhetoric, then fine. If "patience" means that we're not going to annihilate them just yet, okay. If "patience" means that we're going to compromise American principles and forsake Israel in order to play kissy-face with the Iranian government, well -- that's not okay.

All in all, it's good to hear that the New York Times was bored with words coming out of Barack Obama's mouth. Usually they only hear the angels singing and respond with a resounding "HOSANNA!"

Faux-Pas?

2009-03-21T09:58:00.002-04:00

All the focus on Barack Obama's "faux pas" on the tonight show when he dissed the handicapped by comparing his bowling performance to the Special Olympics is silly, I think. I don't like Obama - not one bit. But I don't think that he has some deep seeded hatred for the handicapped and it happened to slip out during his talk with Jay Leno. I think only that he isn't sensitive to the fact that some people would be offended by some common middle school language.

And yes, it's certainly fun to point out how stupid it was to say such a thing. But I have to say, I wouldn't want people pointing to all the stupid things I say... and I say plenty. So no, I don't think that we should be focusing on his faux pas of the evening.

I do think, however, that there are plenty of things he said during that interview that we could focus on and discuss. How about Obama stating that the problem with the AIG bonuses is an "attitude of entitlement," while almost in the same breath he was calling for higher taxes so that the people who are doing "pretty well" will "pay a little more" so that the country can pay for health care, energy, and higher education for all those "less fortunate."

Jay Leno had pointed out how scary it was that congress was going to tax some people they don't like 90%. What happens when congress decides they don't like another group? They can just tax them into oblivion... Obama's response to this was that we need to take measured steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. First of all, to lock the door before the horse gets out of the barn (his words, not mine). And secondly, to have a better tax system so congress isn't scrambling for the money it needs (my words, not his).

He then said we need to change the laws so that if, financially, things "explode in your face" you will be "protected." (HUH???) How, exactly, would one do this? Well, he says that we need "regulatory common sense" and then went on to explain how our economic system is based on the financial system... money on paper. (I fully acknowledge that our economic system is not based on product, only on buying - and that this is not a good thing.) But his answer to this problem is something I find troubling... for how to you put in place and enforce "regulatory common sense" that will also accomplish his goal of, "What we need is... young people... instead of a smart kid coming out of school, instead of wanting to be an investment banker, we need them to decide they want to be an engineer - uh, they want to be a scientist. They want to be - or a teacher."

Full disclosure here: I do not have any concrete reason to believe what I'm going to say here beyond the fact that I've listened to what Obama has said thus far and I have judged his character, his beliefs, and some of his motives based on the things he has said. That said, I think that the answer to this dilemma in the Obama administration will be to regulate what people do for a living. I think Obama is going to want to take our money in taxes and give full government scholarships to "smart kids" who are willing to study what the government wants them to study.

Granted, there are probably a number of people out there who read something like that and say, "So???"

But why would the answer to this dilemma be further regulation and having the government paying for the college education of people willing to go into these particular fields? How is this going to actually fix anything? So there are more people in those fields... are they any good? Is it their passion to do that work? Or did they decide to go ahead with it because it was the easy way out for them? Is this the way to best build a great team of people? Who wants a bunch of scientists and engineers who are looking for the easy way out? I don't think I want that type of person designing the bridges I have to drive across every day...

Why not encourage more people to become teachers by reducing some of the already existing regulations on teachers? Get rid of some of the crazy red tape that goes along with being a teacher in the public system. Get rid of some of the regulations that are imposed on the other fields as well... Some of the bright minds out there who have a passion for that sort of thing will then jump at the chance to do their work in freedom and creativity.

Ronald Reagan once talked about how Washington views everything. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." I guess some things never change.

Misdirected Anger

2009-03-20T08:29:00.002-04:00

Yes, yes... I know. The whole world is mad at AIG. They have, after all, received much taxpayer money -- and then appeared to be squandering it with lavish resort vacations for their executives. Of course this is irritating. And wrong.

But in the latest "scandal" involving AIG, it really appears to me that the anger is a bit misdirected. To paint the picture clearly...

First of all, AIG has not received only one government bailout. After the first bailout of $85 billion in September of 2008, AIG executives went to California on a posh trip. In November of 2008, AIG receives another $150 billion. Chump change, right? Ah... but that's not all. See, AIG was a recipient of "stimulus package" money as well... and language was specifically drafted within that package to include these bonuses for AIG employees. Any bonus promised before the drafting of the stimulus legislation was going to be paid.

The American people are understandably upset at this turn of events. When you're talking about bonuses of millions of dollars, the taxpayer should not be footing that bill. If the company is in the tank, my opinion is that we should let it tank. (Not a popular opinion, I know. But as I've confessed before, I'm a radical capitalist - so there.) But... BUT... when the government specifically drafts legislation saying that they're going to be stupid with the taxpayer's money, anger for that should be directed at congress -- not at the executives at AIG.

And I think it was... and I think congress doesn't like so many angry phone calls. So their solution? To demand release of the names of AIG bonus recipients. Wow. Nothing like throwing a group of citizens under the bus.

Of course, the congress went further than that, then. They also passed a new law that would tax all these bonuses at 90%.

But here's the naked truth. Of course the bonuses shouldn't have been given. DUH. The company is going under. But Sen. Christopher Dodd actually changed the wording in the stimulus package to allow said bonuses (at the request of the current administration). Of course, Dodd now claims that he didn't know about AIG's bonuses at the time... and, frankly, it is impossible to know what information was in his head while he was taking out the piece of legislation which would have made these bonuses impossible. But what he knew at the time is irrelevant. If you remove wording that would require companies to be penny-pinchers with the taxpayers' money, you should have an inkling of what the consequences might be. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure that one out.

So here's how I see it. We have some goobers in power who are bound and determined to be as irresponsible with our money as they would like. When they're found out in their supreme stupidity, they have so little character as to destroy the lives of particular citizens rather than accept the richly-deserved anger of the people.

What a bunch of weiners.

What A Proposition...

2009-03-06T08:55:00.002-05:00

So California is an interesting state, isn't it?

Proposition 8, which passed this last election cycle, actually changed the Constitution in the state of California to say that marriage in that state is only between a man and a woman. People opposed to this idea (the changing of the Constitution) argued forcefully that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee." Well... yes. It is. Frankly, everybody has to follow the law. In theory, you cannot grant special treatment to a select few and say they are above the law. (This is, however, just a theory - since we see people getting special treatment all the time in Washington, D.C.)

Not to change the subject, but I've always been fascinated by men's obsession with sex. They even call items at the hardware store "male" and "female" depending on whether the item is designed to go into something or to allow something in. Take, for example, plumbing. Can you imagine if a plumber decided that he only wanted to plumb with male parts? I would imagine that the first job he had would be the last. Seriously -- in order to declare a property a leak-free zone, you have to use both male and female parts.

But, in reality, the current fight in the court system isn't over same-sex marriage. We don't even need to argue about plumbers and parts and leaks, etc... The current court battle is over whether the people of California have the right to change their own constitution. Can they amend it? Can the majority of the people in a state decide to put something down on their governing paper that the courts then are compelled to follow?

I think it would take a pretty gutsy court to attempt to override the will of the people in their own Constitution. At that point, you have to assume that the courts have taken over and they're the only authority. Clearly, this is not how our founding fathers set things to be in our system of government. C'mon... dig back... three co-equal branches of government... checks and balances... remember?

Since the job of the courts is supposed to be interpretation and enforcement of the law and the Constitution, it would be a big stretch for them to overreach quite that far. They might pull a muscle...

The arguments in the court were interesting. Ken Starr, arguing on behalf of the Proposition, stated that "The people are sovereign - and can do unwise things." This is true. The people can do all kinds of stupid things and have throughout history.

The lawyer opposing the amendment to the Constitution, in a last ditch effort to eke out some victory made the argument that if homosexuals can't say they're married, nobody should be allowed to. Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a really childish argument. I get fat if I eat ice cream in the amounts I would like. I get fat super fast, actually. My husband? He can eat anything he wants and seems to never gain an ounce. To me, this appears to be a drastic discrepancy in the natural order of things. But can you imagine if I told him that he shouldn't eat ice cream since I can't? "No more Klondike bars for you, baby. Not unless I can eat them without getting bigger than our own house." Gracious! But these people make this exact same argument in a courtroom in front of God and everybody.

The chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco, upon leaving the courtroom, said that if the homosexual community didn't get their way this time, they would go back to the ballot box and win. Okay, she didn't use those exact words, but this was the essence of what she was saying. And you know what? I believe they will. It's only a matter of how long it will take.

More Mortgage Mumbo-Jumbo

2009-03-05T12:08:00.003-05:00

For Mark Klepper, 40, who lives in Miami, buying a big house was a way to establish credit to start a business. In 2004 he bought a home for $585,000, and watched its value rise to $1.4 million. After refinancing twice, he owes $1,064,000. But the home is now worth a little more than he paid for it, and his income has fallen by 40 percent. He stopped paying his mortgage in January. If he were to continue paying, he said, the drain would crush his business. The government's plan does not help him.

"I feel if there's a plan out there, there shouldn't be a limit," Mr. Klepper said. "If the government is helping these lenders, they need to take some principal write-downs."

He asked his lender to reduce his balance to $600,000 and his rate to 4 percent, but so far has made no headway.

"I'm saying I can afford to pay, just not what I did in the past," he said. "I wouldn't be asking for it if everything was fine, but it's not." - New York Times, "Unlucky or Unwise, Some Borrowers Are Left Out," March 4, 2009

How's that for chutzpah?

Of course, then you have Chadi Moussa who lives in a house for which he owes almost two million dollars to the bank. Unfortunately for Moussa, his home is valued at about one million. Mr. Moussa is irritated with the federal government because the "rescue package" disallows his situation. His mortgage is too high and it's not backed by Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Moussa said, "You give $25 billion to a bank, at least they should help people stay in their homes. But once you get to big loans, nobody's doing anything about it."

There's so much that bothers me about the mortgage rescue plan that I don't even know where to start, really. According to administration officials, this plan is intended to help as many people as possible and "could prevent three million to four million foreclosures." But the plan will not help people who have seen a significant reduction in their income, making them unable to pay their mortgage. Nor will it help people who are upside down in their mortgage. Ahem... pray tell, whom are we helping, exactly?

Can somebody please tell me why there are people who are "at risk" of foreclosure who owe 80% or less of the current value of their home, and haven't experienced a significant reduction in their pay? Pray tell, what circumstances have caused them to default on their mortgages? Are we currently experiencing, along with the economic turmoil, a plague making people in droves default on their mortgages due to unforeseen medical expenses?

According to the New York Times article mentioned above, "The planners expect 20 percent to 30 percent of people who receive modifications to default again..." Whoa... so we're modifying loans for people who have defaulted in spite of the fact that they haven't had a significant reduction in their income... and we're expecting a large number of them to default again anyway? What kind of insanity is this? But J.P. Morgan is estimating that the loan modification plan will prevent from 600,000 to 2.6 million foreclosures. First of all, that's quite a span. Secondly, how can you know? Of course, the administration is estimating a much higher number... 4 million. I guess -- reach for the sky. Nobody can prove you wrong if you say you "saved" that many people. Since all you're claiming to have done was prevent something that hadn't happened yet anyway, it's pretty hard to prove you wrong. Kind of like having sex, running around your house fifty times -- then claiming that this is what saved you from becoming pregnant.

Another issue I have with this plan: there is no ceiling on how high their income can be as long as they are "in danger" of losing their homes. Some people could see their interest rates drop to as low as 2 percent. I suppose we can then call those people "winners in life's lottery?" I mean, really... it seems like what we're talking about here is a person who has a pretty nice pad (mortgages up to over $700,000?) and isn't very good handling their money. Clearly, they have a decent income if they qualified for a mortgage that high even in the most liquid of lending times. But for some reason, despite their decent income, they have defaulted on their mortgage at least once. Late payments, maybe. Something to alert the mortgage company that this person is a foreclosure "risk." So this person can go to the mortgage company and request that they change the terms of their loan... maybe from a reasonable 6% interest rate to a 2% rate. Hooo-ee!! Congratulations! You've won an increase in spendable income -- off the backs of the American taxpayer.

Another aspect of this whole thing that bothers me is Timothy Geithner and his inability to make sense. He says, "It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets." Excuse me, Mr. Geithner? Isn't the "damaging spiral" going to effectively make housing more affordable? Really, the lower the price of homes goes, the more affordable owning one's own home becomes. But... how can you have both? Either you want things to become more "affordable," or you want to stop the downward spiral and ensure that people keep the value they currently have. That fiddle can't play both tunes at the same time.

So here's how our taxpayer dollars are helping in the loan "modification" program. The Treasury will give mortgage servicing companies an upfront payment of $1000 for each loan they modify. Oops. Make that "the taxpayer" will give them $1000. Then, the taxpayer will be fronting the company an additional $1000 each year for the first three years - but only if the borrower remains current. On top of this, we taxpayers will be chipping in $1000 per year to reduce the borrower's loan amount if they stay up to date on their payments. But that's not all, folks!! We, the taxpayer, are also going to match, dollar for dollar, the lender's cost in reducing a borrower's monthly housing payment from 38 percent of the household's gross monthly income to 31 percent.

Do you want to know how they'll decide if you've won this particular lottery? The lender will calculate how much it would cost to reduce your monthly payments to an "affordable" range. If the calculation shows that the lender's cost in modifying the loan (after receiving our taxpayer subsidy) is lower than the cost of foreclosing -- YOU WIN!! As in, the bank is required to do this for you. If the concessions by the bank look higher in cost than foreclosure, then the bank can decide if it wants to help you or not. And don't worry!! The lender is prohibited from charging you any fees to modify your loan. Those fees, and then some, are being charged to us - the American taxpayer.

Do you think this frosts me a little bit?

Of course, this program is only for people who are living in their home full time. You cannot ask the bank to modify the mortgage on your second or third home. Well, darn... but you can request modification on your mortgage if you purchased the home and signed on December 31st of 2008. Pretty cool, really, to be able to refinance at great savings on your interest rate, get the taxpayer to pay $1000 a year on your loan just for staying current on your own mortgage, and not pay any closing costs on the new loan.

Rock on, America!!

Fairness My Foot

2009-02-26T15:22:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh dedicated the entire third hour of his radio program to a "women's forum." This was a schtick where women were supposed to call in and tell Rush Limbaugh why they didn't like him, or why they find him offensive, or why other women they know find him offensive. Silly, really, since he could ask his ex-wives and probably get quite a personal earful. But here's a question for you: if the fairness doctrine were still around, would the station be required to give free air time to women who adore Rush Limbaugh (since for an hour there was talk of all his faults)? And an even more important question: Could Rush have taken that without an explosion of his already somewhat swelled-up head?

No, these are not really the things I ponder when I think of the fairness doctrine.

I was actually trying to figure out what the fairness doctrine really was, to be honest. While I'm not really a spring chicken, the fairness doctrine was in effect before I was interested in paying attention to anything resembling news on the radio or television. (Yes, there actually was a time when I didn't have a high level of interest in current events - can you believe it?) So... a little mini-refresher course on the "fairness doctrine."

First of all, it was quite poorly named as there really wasn't anything "fair" about it. The basic idea was that stations were required to air controversial issues of public interest (regardless of their chosen format) and were supposed to air them in a balanced manner. Sounds fair, right? One problem, though, is that it required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions which were broadcast.

Define "controversial" for me, will you? Isn't it any opinion which is likely to give rise to public disagreement? Wouldn't that be every opinion? I could say that it's chilly outside today and some people would disagree.

Another question: Is there anybody out there who watches any news channel and thinks that the newscasters are simply reporting the news without any personal bias? Did anybody watch Peter Jennings when he was covering the election of 2000? 2004? As George W. Bush was winning, Mr. Jennings was almost visibly sucking on a lemon. Can anybody say with a straight face that Chris Matthews of "Hardball" is balanced? (I don't know that there are too many people who would even declare that man mentally balanced, much less say that he presents news in a balanced fashion. Especially since his leg started feeling shivers in 2008.)

So, if group A gathers funds to air a spot on a topic near and dear to them - say, even, that they're wanting to air a spot to promote something as stupid as the "fairness doctrine" - and they finally get enough money to do so. They go through the work of making the spot, they pay for its airing, and the station gets a complaint from group B which says it's "controversial" and group B wants to be allowed to air a rebuttal. Why should group B get to air their rebuttal for free? How is this fair?

It was the FCC under the Reagan Administration that ended up revoking the Fairness Doctrine. Reagan was advised at the time that it was politically unwise for him to do so as the "Fairness Doctrine" was "the only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks." Regardless, Reagan supported the effort to repeal it.

The Doctrine was officially abolished in August of 1987 with a 4-0 vote. According to the FCC at the time, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters... and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." It's good to know that there was a bureaucracy that, at one point, made a statement that made some sense.

The Democrat-controlled Congress, in June of 1987, tried to preempt the decision by the FCC and wrote the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it. The Democrats tried one more time in 1991, but it didn't even make it to the President's desk as George H.W. Bush promised to veto it if it did. In 2005, the Democrats tried once again to introduce a "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act" which would have shortened a license term and gave a requirement that "the license holder cover important issues fairly, hold public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations." This didn't make it out of committee. During that same year, another Democrat introduced H.R. 3302, the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" which was intended to "restore the fairness doctrine."

I guess Sinclair Broadcast Group during the 2004 election cycle had "pre-election plans to force its 62 stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal." Supposedly, the company reversed its decision to do so as their stock declined. (Info taken from www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm) This same article states that, "Sinclair's history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy, puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone - one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It's an imbalance that begs for a remedy."

Frankly, this cracks me up. If we need a remedy to balance out talk radio, then how about a remedy to balance out the liberals on television? Are we going to balance out Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews? Matt Lauer, for goodness sake? Katie Couric? Larry King? Bill Maher?

How about some balance on paper? Can we balance out Gail Collins, Roger Cohen, Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Paul Krugman at the New York Times with more than just David Brooks? What is it that makes the airwaves so much more subject to "balance" and control than the print media? What about the computer? Should the Huffington Post be required to post authors who aren't certifiably liberal?

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is, for all intents and purposes, patently unfair. If it would truly bring fairness to the playing field of ideas, everybody would be in favor of it. Frankly, the conservatives have two media outlets. Talk radio is, by far, dominated by conservative thought. And FOX News, while being "fair and balanced" by giving liberals time to air their views, is generally dominated by conservative thought as well. All the other airwaves are dominated by liberal thought (including public television, which is funded by our tax dollars).

I thus must conclude that those wishing to see the "fairness doctrine" (or some form of it) imposed are suffering from a serious case of sour grapes. As William F. Buckley Jr. said so well, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." Since 1987, it has been shown that there are, indeed, other views in the world - and since 1987, liberals have been shocked and offended by the airing of these views. They've been trying to shut them up ever since.

A New Declaration

2009-02-23T12:32:00.003-05:00

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before... The good news, I suppose if you want to see a silver lining, is the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution... it's not an argument about big government vs. small government, but more effective government... Five of the reforms that we seek: One in health care, would be in the area that deals with cost control as a principle and expansion of coverage. Energy, with both independence and alternatives. In the area of taxes, fairness as well as simplicity. In the area of education, there's gotta be fundamental reforms there as it relates to making sure that we are effectively training the workforce... Lastly, financial regulatory overhaul, with the principles of both transparency and accountability." -Rahm Emanuel.

Not to be over-the-top-conspiracy-theorist driven, but really -- when people say out loud what they're thinking, wouldn't we be smart to listen? President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, made his statement shortly after the election in November. Now, the President tours the country, talking crisis and catastrophe, and pushing a leftist agenda through congress like a drug peddler pushing heroin. Of course, Obama warns that a failure to act immediately to push the bill through congress was going to "turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession." Nothing like using the panic of people to gain political points. "Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred." Oy.

I've recently come to the realization that I'm not just a typical capitalist. I'm a darned radical capitalist. And it's kind of funny to think of myself, sitting here in my jeans and sweatshirt, as a radical. But I am. I really think that government has gotten so out of control huge and meddlesome that the only hope for fixing things and maintaining any level of capitalistic freedom is to scrap the whole lot of them and start over. It sounds like a messy and tasteless business, but I'm all for it.

Do you remember the tenth amendment to our beloved Constitution? It states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This is a blanket statement that shows how bloated and grotesque our federal government has become. There is no place I can find in the Constitution that talks of federal governance over the financial welfare of the people. No place does the Constitution give the federal government the power to control the education of our children. And the list can go on and on...

I think we might need a new "Declaration of Independence." Ah, yes... a completely radical thought. But how many people know what radicals our founding fathers really were? Listen to what they wrote in their Declaration of Independence from England:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Truly, these were some radical dudes.

I suppose it would behoove me to say, at this point, that I'm not trying to call men to arms and march on Congress. (Although it would be quite a show, wouldn't it? Can you imagine the look on Pelosi's face?) But I am suggesting that we need to get creative and fight back. Frankly, the lunatics are running the asylum right now -- and that's a scary place to be.

I think the best way of fighting back right now is to simply be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. And, in preparing for the "unthinkable" (as Glenn Beck would say), we can act decisively rather than irrationally if and when what was previously unthinkable occurs.

My plea to everyone is to remember history. If that takes sitting down and discovering history for the first time, take the time to do so. History will tell us so much about what we can expect in the future.

Then, after we've remembered our history, we need to look at the present. Listen to what leaders are saying. Keep in mind that half the reason we suffered as much from terrorism as we have is because we refuse to listen to what the terrorists say. When somebody says they want to kill us, we should be paying attention. But, it appears that the American people would rather feel comfortable than hear what Russia, Iran, Syria, and various other disturbing foes are saying.

We also need to listen to the words of our own leaders. When Rahm Emanuel says that one should never waste a crisis, we should understand full well that Obama is following that advice to a T during our present one. This might make us feel like terrible, cynical people, I suppose. But no matter how we feel, in reality it makes us realists. Lets get off the feelings train and start dealing in reality. Then, and only then, will we be prepared to defend our freedoms against tyranny.

No matter the circumstances, all struggles for power begin in the human mind. How prepared are you?

Mortgage Madness

2009-02-19T14:16:00.004-05:00

"I'm here today to talk about a crisis unlike we've ever known." - Barack Obama, beginning his speech to introduce his mortgage bailout plan.

"The plan I'm announcing focuses on rescuing families who played by the rules and acted responsibly... I want to be very clear about what this plan will not do. It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators... It's going to allow millions of families, stuck with loans at a higher rate to refinance. And the estimated cost to taxpayers would be roughly zero." - Barack Obama.

So his holiness the President of the United States goes to Mesa, AZ to introduce his plan to "help struggling homeowners." Strategically chosen, I suppose, because the Phoenix area was hard hit when the housing bubble popped. Funny thing, though... there was significant protest in the area over this speech. People holding signs reading:

"Give Me Pelosi's Plane"

"I want... a house (crossed off) a car (crossed off) a president with ethics and honor"

"Gimme-nomics - Give Me A Baby Grand Piano"

"Annual Passes to Disneyland"

"Fund Bikini Wax Now"

"Stimulate the Economy: Give Me A Tummy Tuck"

"Give Me Liberty OR At Least A Big Screen TV"

"Can I Have Free Gas With My Free Rent"

"I Need A Beach Front Condo"

"Free Beer For My Horses"

"Mr. President!! Before we're forced to Hades can you get me a Mercedes!!"

I have to say, although I'm sure I sound cold and cruel, I have a very hard time with the government "rescuing" anybody from a foreclosure. Yes, even though Obama's plan supposedly focuses on rescuing families who "played by the rules and acted responsibly." First of all, playing "by the rules" does not necessarily mean that they "acted responsibly." Just because the rules said that you could take out a mortgage up to 110% of the value of the home doesn't mean it was the responsible thing to do. The rules made it perfectly okay to take the equity out of your home to buy a big screen television and a new car, but that wasn't exactly the responsible route to take, either. The "rules" also required banks to lend to people who were extremely high risk (or, in other words - people the banks knew wouldn't be able to repay). This was not responsible on the part of either the banks or the people taking out the loans.

I think it's pretty apparent, too, that Obama was blowing more sunshine up our collective derrieres when he stated that his plan was going to help millions of deserving families refinance at lower rates at a cost to taxpayers of roughly zero. I know that Obama has a messiah complex, but this is getting ridiculous. It's like he's into loaves and fishes now or something... If there's a plan out there that is going to "help" people get a better deal than they currently have, somebody has to eat the difference. Whether the government is going to fund that on the books, or whether they're going to force the banks to eat it -- the taxpayer is ultimately going to pay. In some way, shape, or form -- the piper will be paid. Unfortunately for Obama, if he's going to force mama dollar and papa dollar to make many baby dollars to spread around, he's going to have to actually print that money. He's not capable of pulling it out of the sky.

Rick Santelli of CNBC said, "The government is promoting bad behavior, because we certainly don't want to put stimulus forth and give people a whopping eight or ten dollars in their check and think that they ought to save it! ...I have an idea. The new administration is big on computers and technology. How about this, President and new administration. Why don't you put up a website to have people vote on the internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages? Or would we like to at least buy cars, buy houses in foreclosure, and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water? This is AMERICA!! How many people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgages that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? President Obama, are you listening? You know Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now they're driving '54 Chevys (maybe the last great car to come out of Detroit)... We're thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I'm gonna start organizing. If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves."

Can I get a resounding amen to that?

The basic bones of Obama's plan is three-fold. The first part would - get this - "help homeowners who are still current on their payments, but who are paying high interest rates and cannot refinance because they do not have enough equity in their homes." (NYT, Feb. 28, 2009) Don't get me wrong... it would be a huge bummer to be in this position. I do have a measure of sympathy for people who feel stuck like this. But the fact is that nobody forced people to buy the biggest and best house for which they could qualify. What about the Americans who purchased a house and left that equity alone... lived a modest lifestyle in a modest home because it was easily within their means? Why should those people have to fork over money to the folks in the next neighborhood over who decided to take their equity and upgrade their house and lifestyle off it? Why punish the responsible? The savers of society? Why reward the debtors? What sort of message does this send?

The second part of the plan is supposed to "provide incentives to lenders who alter the terms of loans to make them affordable for troubled borrowers." This is basically the portion of the plan that will help folks "at risk" of going into foreclosure. I assume this to mean that this portion of the plan is for people who are currently behind in their payments but have not been served with a foreclosure notice yet.

Then, there's the third part of the plan - and this might be the best part yet. Get this... we're going to give $200 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Can I take you back to September of 2008? Remember when the Treasury Department announced it was going to effectively take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They were "critically wounded, government-sponsored mortgage behemoths." September 8, ABC News online had a story that said, "The federal takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will likely lower the cost of a mortgage for buyers with good credit, but it will also likely stick U.S. taxpayers with a bill in the tens of billions of dollars, analysts have concluded." Isn't it strange how just a few short months ago, we were wringing our hands over "tens of billions" and today we're shrugging off two hundred billion?

So we've come down the road far enough that the government has a $275 billion dollar mortgage rescue plan. But, according to the NYT, "analysts and administration officials alike cautioned that it would not come close to halting the tidal wave of foreclosures. Nor would it provide much help to millions of homeowners who are 'under water,' or holding mortgages that are bigger than the market value of their houses."

Obama said in his speech, "This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild." Okay... so then what is the point, exactly? We do still live in America, right? The land of opportunity? I'm pretty sure we all need to "rebuild" a bit... and it's high time we take responsibility for doing so. For if we don't, the consequences will be disastrous. We will pay for our "prosperity" with our freedom. And mark my words... once freedom is gone, prosperity will follow it out the door.

Dumbfounded, But Entertained

2009-02-11T19:33:00.003-05:00

I'm dumbfounded.

Henrietta Hughes in Florida was at a "town hall meeting" with Barack Obama. When she had her turn at the microphone she said with trembling in her voice, "I have a urgent... need. Unemployment and homelessness. A very small vehicle for my family and I to live in. We need urgent... and housing authorities have two years waiting lists and we need something more than a vehicle and parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom... Please help."

Obama's response? He got her name and then said that they were going to do everything they could to help. He then gave her a kiss... and after he kissed her, you could see a lady off to the left mouthing, "I love you, Barack." Ewwww....

Then there's the McDonald's guy. Have you heard this? Julio Osegueda was the last question of the meeting... "Oh, it's such a blessing to see you Mr. President! Thank you for taking time out of your DAY!! Oh, GRACIOUS GOD, thank you so much!" No, I'm not kidding. This is really what the guy said. Obama responded while chuckling lightly, "Alright, what's the question?" Julio asked, "Mr. President, my name is Julio Osegueda and I'm currently a student at Edison State College in my second semester and... okay. I've been at the same job which is McDonald's for four and a half years because of the fact that I can't find another job. Now, with the fact that I've been there for as long as I've been there, do you have any plan or any idea of making one that has been there for a long time receive any better benefits than what they've already received?" Sadly, Julio is majoring in communications and would like a career in radio or television. Let's hope Edison State is capable of taking that one on...

Obama says that the fact that Julio is working as hard as he's working at a job that doesn't always pay as well as other jobs is a source of pride for him (Julio). Never mind the fact that Obama has no clue how hard Julio works while he's at McDonald's. And never mind that one can get a pretty reasonable idea as to why Julio can't find another job simply from listening to him speak... Obama says that Julio will actually benefit from the tax breaks that they're passing. Obama says he wants to reform the health care system for Julio. And Obama wants to make it easier for Julio to go to college by giving him a refundable tax credit for his tuition. Uh... earth to Obama. Julio is already IN college.

A retired school teacher asks Obama what he's going to do about getting out a stimulus to the American people who are notoriously impatient. Obama hopes that the American people expect from him the same thing that he expects from himself. He just wants us to feel like he and his staff everyday are thinking about us and our lives. They're talking to the most knowledgeable people, they're making the best decisions for what's good for working families and middle class (not just the wealthy, powerful and well connected), they're open to any idea (whether it comes from Democrat, Republican, Vegetarian...-Obama's humor, not mine), and that they're working as hard as they can to solve our problems.

I know that people aren't just going crazy now... they must have been crazy before, too. But it does seem like all the crazies are coming out of the woodwork... and they're going to Obama's town hall meetings. Like I said, I'm dumbfounded. But on a positive note, it certainly does provide for some good, free entertainment.

Attitude Adjustment Needed

2009-02-08T20:17:00.002-05:00

There's an article in the New York Times today on which I just HAVE to comment. Possibly quite extensively.

Titled, "In Florida, Despair and Foreclosures," I went into the article expecting a bleak picture, to be sure. And don't worry... I wasn't disappointed. So many devastating quotes to choose from: "221 families waiting for free bread at Faith Lutheran Church..." "...laid off construction workers in flannel shirts scavenged through trash bags at a home foreclosure, grabbing wires, CDs, anything that could be sold..." "homes are selling at 80 percent off their peak prices" "Only two years after there were more jobs than people to work them, fast-food restaurants are laying people off or closing." "Crime is up, school enrollment is down, and one in four residents received food stamps in December..."

According to the article, there are a "host of troubles that follow unemployment" and hunger is chief among them. Okay... I can bite on that, I guess. Truly, though, it doesn't help that the pictures and video they show are a bunch of fat people sitting around a table. Yes, I know that chubby people get hungry, too... but it's just hard to swallow that there's a starvation epidemic out there at this point when America is still quite enlarged. But they go on to say, "The organizations offering food in Lehigh Acres have seen demand increase by as much as 75 percent in the last year. And the people being served are no longer just the chronic poor." They then go on to list some of the newer arrivals to the food line:

Fred Csifortos, 62, living on $650 per month in disability payments, was there because the free food "left more money for his medications." But, see... Fred's situation has probably not recently changed (except in that he now has access to free food where before he did not).

Luis Oquendo, 38, has been coming for free food since last fall when his full-time construction work "disappeared."

But the kicker is Megan Brown who was waiting in line for the free food with her two daughters, aged 2 and 4. Why was she there? Because she "feared the worst." According to her, her husband still had his job but "things are getting more and more tight." Seriously??? Her husband is still working, they still have income, but she doesn't have as much spending money so she's in the food line? Don't people have any pride anymore?

Of course, all that said the people running the food line consider themselves to be successful "not just because it has helped more families but also because organizers believe that the links they are forming will be the foundation of a tighter community." No offense, but I don't think that forming links with a bunch of freeloaders is the way to a tight community... at least not any community of which I'd care to be a part.

Team Rescue, the group organizing the food distribution, is "trying to figure out how to curb the spread of desperation." But "Most recently the group has been struggling with a growing wave of families that either visit multiple food pantries using aliases or return the food to supermarkets for money or other items." Oh, yeah. That's tight.

So now the group is blacking out the UPC symbols on cans so grocery stores won't accept them as returns. But the lady running things says that she can't be sure she wouldn't do the same thing if she were a single parent and her kids were hungry... HUH? Why in the heck, if your kids are hungry, are you going to return stuff to the grocery store to buy something else? Don't people think anymore? No pride... no common sense... scary.

Then there's a very telling paragraph: "And then there is Ms. Chilson. She lost her house partly because of the boom (if not for easy credit, she might not have refinanced her mortgage a few years ago), the bust (which led to her husband being laid off from his pest control job) and overspending (which led to more than $20,000 in credit card debt)." No this isn't good. And I guess there's a part of me that feels really bad for the lady. She gave in to her want-it-gotta-have-it feelings and now she's paying for it. It's a hard lesson to learn.

But it tells something about the general character of America at this time. People aren't willing to suck it up and learn the lesson. They aren't willing to pay the ultimate piper right now, just as they weren't willing to pay their bills they saddled themselves with before. And everybody is out looking for some kind of handout. Yes, even people who have not yet lost their jobs -- they're in line with the rest of them because they're so worried they might need to be there later.

What's up with that?

Making Work Pay... and Pay... and Pay

2009-01-24T08:25:00.003-05:00

Jog my memory, will ya?

During the election cycle, there was a massive bailout passed over the objections of most Americans. Am I right? Did this happen? I remember being so irritated that McCain couldn't even muster up an aversion to it - because it would have helped swing things his way. Instead, he sat there during the "debates" and calmly said that the bailout was the right thing to do. Never mind that the American people were completely opposed to it.

But Obama, in his first week in office, has "stepped squarely into the fractious effort in Congress to assemble an $825 billion economic recovery package..." Yes, again. See, apparently, the first $850 billion didn't do the trick. And the Democrats are hoping that throwing more money at the problem will save the day.

Also at issue this first week was Obama's view that those who pay no income taxes should be receiving "refunds." Obama and No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor squared off on the issue. Apparently, Mr. Cantor outlined the Republican line of thinking on giving refunds to people who have not even paid, and Obama's response was, "You're correct, there's a philosophical difference, but I won, so we're going to prevail on that." And he's right. He did win. And they will prevail.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says, "Anyone who belittles cooperation resigns him or herself to a state of permanent legislative gridlock. And that is simply no longer acceptable to the American people." But I'm an "American person," and I am totally okay with some gridlock. Even permanent gridlock. There are some things that should not receive cooperation. I think this is where the Republican party has gone wrong, actually. They appear to have no backbone... no resolve.

The Obama administration has said that the "Making Work Pay" tax credit (where refunds are given to people who don't pay taxes) is "nonnegotiable." So the Republicans' attempt to introduce legislation that doesn't include this is being stomped down. They had wanted to reduce the two lowest income-tax brackets from fifteen percent to ten, and from ten percent to five. According to Bob Williams from the Tax Policy Center, those "are not the right kinds of cuts. You want to put money into the hands of people who will spend it." Apparently the only people we can trust to spend money these days are those who don't pay taxes.

Conservative Thought = Anger & Angst?

2009-01-18T12:05:00.002-05:00

It's no secret by now that I tend to lean heavily conservative, both politically and morally. My definition of "political conservativism" would include a desire to see our country adhere to the Constitution of the United States and the intent of our founding fathers. It would be a desire of mine to see others brought around to my point of view (obviously - who wouldn't want to see other people begin to think like themselves?), and I've been spending some time pondering how this would be most effectively done. I've come to a few conclusions:

One, we're not doing it right. And when I say "we," I'm talking about the general atmosphere of many of the conservative spokespeople out front. John Hawkins (of Townhall.com) has two articles titled "A 'You Suck' List." The first line of the first article reads, "Just consider this to be constructive criticism aimed at idiots who are too dumb to ever take it." If there is anybody from either side of the spectrum who can explain to me how this is "constructive," I'd love to hear it. I can see why it would sell - things that are vitriolic and shocking often do - but I don't see the benefit to anybody from writing such a thing beyond a monetary benefit to the author.

Ann Coulter is another conservative who is absolutely brilliant in her marketing strategy -- and yet I have a hard time believing that she is an effective voice for converting others to conservative thought. She's famous for making cutting remarks about liberals such as, "If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans." While such comments are found funny by a segment of the population and sell like crazy, they're not very conducive to starting an effective conversation on the issues. Don't get me wrong, Ann Coulter has some very interesting things to say in many of her columns - and she has an incredible amount of insight. It's just sometimes hard to dig past the angst and cynicism in her writing to get to it.

I think, though, what bothers me the most about some of these authors' style is that they're purporting to be not just conservatives, but Christians as well. Ann Coulter, Mike Adams, Doug Giles... they very plainly write about their Christian beliefs as well as their political beliefs. But they do so in such a way as to completely lambast their opposition rather than convince them. I don't know if this is because they feel there is no hope for people who don't think and believe like they do or if it's simply an attempt to sell more of their product (which is, I guess, themselves). But regardless of the motivation behind their style, I believe it's counterproductive.

It's a little bit like the difference between a Christian who goes out to those who are hurting and ministers to them... helping to heal their wounds, loving them where they're at - and the Christian who prefers to stay in a pew on Sunday morning, listening to a sermon on how evil all the others in the world are. I'm not saying that either of these people are not Christians, only that one of them is not being very productive in their Christianity. And sometimes it takes stepping outside our comfort zone... maybe not trying so hard to be entertaining (or looking for entertainment)... Maybe we should focus on seeing the "others" as people, created by God, whom we are called on to love and treat with respect regardless of any differences we might have.

What If I Just Threw Up?

2009-01-15T12:20:00.002-05:00

Seriously, folks. All the Obama stuff is getting out of hand. I understand that he's the first black president of the United States and all... and I really think that's a good thing. A different skin color is fine, no matter the color. I'm still not okay with Obama's policies, but I can deal. What I'm about to toss my cookies over, though, is all the HYPE.

As soon as Obama won the election, I started being inundated with television commercials for Obama coins, Obama plates, I started seeing Obama Christmas cards and Obama - well, everything. That was already too much for me. But the fact that Marvel Comics put out a new Spider Man comic "starring Barack Obama" is (to put it mildly) over the top. Apparently, I'm on my own little island in this opinion, though - the magazine already sold out. Yes, it sold out in less than a day. But never fear, folks!! You can still get a copy -- they're coming out with a second edition.

Is my family really so alone in our feelings? I just can't imagine that the entire country is in adoring-fan mode. What's to worship? I can't help but see Barack Obama as a narcissistic individual who has spent oodles of time posing in front of a mirror to get his camera face ready.

Puh-leeze stop putting that practiced face on plates, cups, shirts, hats, buttons and coins. Please stop trying to sell me "Hot 4 Barack" hot sauce (Really??? For real?).

"I Kiss Barack" lipstick, Barack Obama wine, Barack Obama post it note holders, Obama dog tags, Obama wristbands, glow-in-the-dark fridge magnets, paper weights, lighters, wristwatches, Obamabears, novelty cash... you get the idea. Of course, the one that takes the cake... the Obamarella (patented by New Thomas Technologies). This lovely umbrella lights up, displays Barack Obama, and (upon pushing a button on the handle) says, "We all agree with Barack Obama that the United States is in desperate need of change. Let's SUSTAIN in the RAIN and finally, finally, let's get it on!"

I suppose... perhaps I'm suffering from a case of sour grapes... I'm disappointed in the outcome of the election. On the other hand, I had no way NOT to be disappointed in the outcome (since I was disappointed in all my choices). So my grapes can't be all THAT bad. Ah, well... I guess now is the time to suck it up and simply be entertained by the insanity that is my world.

Happy shopping, America!!

A Pointless Post

2008-12-03T10:52:00.003-05:00

I am not posting at all regularly lately for a variety of reasons. First of all, I'm really, really, REALLY sick of the news. This might come as an enormous shock to the people who know me well, but alas - 'tis true. Glenn Beck has been off CNN for a while now (although I understand that he's coming to FOX News) and he was the most entertaining doomsayer out there. I've never been able to stand Sean Hannity, and even Bill O'Reilly has not been yanking my chain. When I turn on the news, all I see is Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. (I don't know if it's just because I've never liked him -- but I'm REALLY tired of seeing him already. And did you see the new Barack Obama coins?? I'm NOT KIDDING!)

The second reason for my lack of blogger activity is that I've started homeschooling again. Actually, I should say that I've started homeschooling. Period. I haven't tried since the kids were in second and third grades and that only lasted a couple weeks. But since this time it needs to stick (the middle school here is completely unacceptable), I have been giving it my all. This generally doesn't leave a lot of time for digesting current affairs, forming an opinion (which, I admit, is the part that comes quite naturally for me), and writing it all down.

The third reason would be the season. Yes, the holiday season! Between homeschooling my son, keeping up with my daughter's school activities (including her involvement in "Yankee Doodle's Dandy Christmas," which included the need for a costume making her into an early settler - and I don't sew), Christmas shopping (which, I must admit, I've only begun thinking about at this point), having relatives over for the Thanksgiving holiday (probably the most relaxing Thanksgiving I've had as "hostess" - you gotta love low maintenance people!!), and volunteer work at the elementary school... well, I guess you can probably understand.

I was told that my last post was just ICK with no real point. Most people prefer a point. I don't think I really have much of a point today, either -- in all honesty. Not really. Except maybe to say that I've found there are things in my life that have become more important that what goofball is going to be sitting in the oval office next, what congress has decided to do with the money we don't have, and how much the economy is going to tank before it gets better. These things would be my kids - my family. My local life, the here and now... where I have an influence and can do something positive.

It's Christmas. Positive is good.

Depravity Defined

2008-11-27T07:42:00.003-05:00

What would cause a group of people to watch and encourage as someone distraught commits suicide? Of course, it happened online -- and maybe that contributed to their emotional detachment. But the comments of "OMG", "LOL" and "hahahaha" as 19-year-old Abraham Briggs of Florida purposely overdosed on camera are more than troubling. I mean, it's one thing to watch something like that in helpless horror (if you are a part of that chat room) but to be entertained by it? What is that about?

Then, in Great Britain, 42-year-old Kevin Whitrick, father of two children, hung himself on webcam in an internet chatroom. One of the chatters said, "Go on, jump! I'm waiting. Look at him wriggling, he can't even kill himself properly!" There were chatters talking to him over text chat, microphones and video -- some urged him not to do it, but others were egging him on.

Suzanne Gonzales, 19, also in Florida, committed suicide after frequenting for nine weeks an Internet newsgroup called ASH (Alt.Suicide.Holiday). This group glorifies killing oneself, using phrases such as "transitioning," "exiting," and "catching the bus" to describe the act. An ASH member called "River" wrote, "Suzy had me proof-read her notes and we went over all the details of her exit, just to be safe." SAFE?!? What, exactly, is a safe death, pray tell?

And then there's 13-year-old Megan Meier who, upon having a "boy" tell her that this world would be better without her, wrote back that he was the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over and went to her room and hung herself. In this case, though, it wasn't a "boy" at all -- but a neighborhood mom of a girl who had been fighting with Megan. The mother was convicted this week on three misdemeanor charges and has not yet been sentenced. She could face up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines.

I would ask what this world is coming to, but I'm afraid of getting an answer...

An Uninformed Electorate

2008-11-20T10:12:00.002-05:00

In subjecting myself to my usual round of torture, I was reading the New York Times this morning. When skimming their headlines, I was fascinated to see an editorial titled, "Flunking the Electoral College." Designated a "quadrennial ritual born in the economics and politics of slavery and the quill-pen era," the New York times has decided the Electoral College has to go. According to them, "it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it."

Although usually they are lovers of nuance, the NYT seems to see this issue in black and white. They say of the history of the electoral college:

"It was believed that it would be easier for them to vote for local officials, whom they knew more about, to be electors. It is hard to imagine that significant numbers of voters thought they did not know enough about Barack Obama and John McCain by Election Day this year."

Ah, yes... it's true. Significant numbers of voters did think they knew enough about Barack Obama and John McCain by Election Day. Does that mean they were truly well informed?

John Ziegler is working on a documentary titled, "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected." Yes, I admit this sounds highly partisan -- I think it's safe to surmise that Ziegler is not an Obama fan. But his point rings true regardless. He commissioned a Zogby poll to question Obama voters on the issues. The findings were interesting:

57.4% could not say which party controls congress.

71.8% had no clue Joe Biden had to quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism.

82.6% didn't know that Barack Obama won his first election by getting his opponents kicked off the ballot.

56.1% did not know Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.

86.9% thought that Palin said she could see Russia from her house (but that was Tina Fey from Saturday Night Live).

93.8% identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter.

You can see the full poll results and a video clip of Obama voters being interviewed at the polls on Election Day at www.howobamagotelected.com. Watching the video clip was enlightening... at the end, one person questioned said she realized now that she's not as informed as she thought she was... then considered for just a moment and said that she doesn't think it would change her vote, though.

With such an uninformed and apathetic electorate, how will America stand?

Furthering An Agenda Through Detroit Automakers

2008-11-15T07:25:00.004-05:00

On October 31st, the New York Times had an editorial supporting throwing money at Detroit automakers. Their piece was so incredibly silly, I had to blog on it that day - you can click on "October" on the right to read it; it's the first blog post there. Well, today the NYT had another tasty treat on the same subject...

Called, "Saving Detroit From Itself," it's another opinion piece that favors throwing a chunk of change Detroit's way. This time, however, the NYT has changed the tune a bit. They start out by saying:

We have seen a lot of posturing, but we haven't heard a lot of sense in the debate over whether the government should spend even more to bail out Detroit's foundering automakers.

Hmmm... they must be reading their own editorial page! But I digress...

They go on to say that Republican Senator Richard Shelby is wrong in saying the troubles of Detroit are "not a national problem." I agree with the NYT that problems as big as this one turn into a problem on the national stage. A loss of jobs on the scale of which they speak is a big deal and will affect the nation's economy as a whole. But just because it's a problem that will affect the entire nation... does that mean that the government has to intervene?

Back in October, the NYT was saying that money should be thrown at the companies simply based on the fact that we can't let them fail right now - and that it made sense to do it even if it only staved off their inevitable failure. Now, they're saying:

...Congressional democrats and President-elect Barack Obama, who are pushing for many billions worth of emergency aid for the nation's least-competent carmakers, must ensure that tough conditions are attached to any rescue package. If not, the money will surely be wasted.

This goes beyond firing top management, forbidding the payment of dividends to stockholders and putting limits on executive pay - all necessary steps. The government should insist on a complete restructuring of any company it pours billions of public funds into.

What does it go to if it goes beyond those things? Improving fuel efficiency!! Building smaller cars!! According to the NYT, "If Detroit were willing to make smaller cars, as European companies do, it could probably achieve a fleet-wide average of 50 m.p.g. by 2020." Also, the restructuring "would mean that creditors would have to swallow a loss or accept equity - as under a regular bankruptcy filing. Restructuring would likely require more plant closures and layoffs."

Ah... so I see!! The NYT wants the government to use this "crisis" as a means to grab for power and ownership of private companies and to push through their agenda of teeny death traps for American roads. Since throwing that cash at Detroit and implementing this agenda would also mean that everything else would proceed as "under a regular bankruptcy filing."

I certainly hope not too many people fall for that one.

A Rapid Decline Into Socialism

2008-11-12T13:06:00.003-05:00

"For the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history. ...But it hasn't been shared, and that's the problem, because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it. They have an antipathy toward the means of redistributing wealth. And they may be able to sustain that for a while, but it doesn't work in the long run." -Rep. Jim Moran, Democrat of Virginia

This is a big problem for me. A disheartening development, actually. When Barack Obama made his "slip" and said something about how he thinks it's a good idea to "spread the wealth around," I thought that the American people would be outraged. I really did. And I think some of the Obama campaign managers thought so, too -- thus the attempt to destroy Joe the Plumber. But we were wrong... the American people weren't upset - not in vast numbers, anyway. There, instead, appears to be a gleeful acceptance of the notion. Gleeful enough to embolden other politicians to spout the same trash.

I'm no economist, but it stands to reason (just common sense thinking here) that if you take money from the wealth creators in our society and distribute it to those less willing to create their own wealth, there's going to be a downturn in the growth of wealth. Truly wealthy people don't sit on a pile of cash, they invest that wealth into other wealth building ventures... this is how the wealthy grow wealthier. And in doing this, they create jobs. Which enables other wealth creators the opportunity to begin their own pot of wealth creation.

I know that Obama's statement was that he wanted to take from the wealth creators a portion of that wealth and hand it out to other people to enhance their ability to create more wealth. But the fact is that every society has its share of sloths. And if you hand a sloth a check for $1000, chances are pretty good that instead of creating wealth with that handout, he's going to go buy himself something truly stupid with it and then hold his hand out again for more. It's a matter of character. (I know, these are not popular words. But they're TRUE.)

Obama's statement that the redistribution of wealth is "neighborly" or that our capitalist system is "making a virtue out of selfishness" are completely offensive to me. And I will be a recipient of the charity if Obama's plan goes into effect! But I have to tell you - I have friends who are in a higher income bracket than I. They already pay $0.50 on the $1.00 in taxes. When they found out this year that they are likely to owe an extra 15K in taxes at tax time, they were faced with the task of either working extra hard to make the 30K it will take to pay that tax bill or to take it from their investment accounts. How is this right?

I'm sorry to see the rapid decline into socialism that our country is making. I wish I could be angry with the Democrats for this, but that wouldn't be very honest of me. The democrats will take us down the highway as quickly as possible... but the Republicans paved the darned road for them.

The Dangers of a Civilian National Security Force

2008-11-11T14:06:00.004-05:00

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

"Our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe."

These quotes are taken from a speech Obama made in July. According to the AARP Bulletin, during this same speech, he "said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students. For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service."

Okay - so Obama isn't even in office yet... and nobody knows what he's actually going to do once he's in. He clearly cannot deliver on everything he has promised because there's not enough money in the world to do so (much less in the current American economy). But what if... what if Obama does go through with this one? He talks about needing a civilian national security force that's just as strong and just as well-funded as the military... and then talks of having this security force made up of volunteer service. This is pretty funny, really. They say, "You can choose to do this or you can choose not to graduate high school," making it "voluntary" because people are "choosing" to do it. But if they're going to punish people by forcing them to live their lives without a high school diploma, that's pretty much taking away their choice.

I have talked to people who think this is no big deal. Not such a bad idea... after all, Israel does it, right? Well, yes... in a way. Israel does have mandatory military service. The state of Israel has been a hotbed of terrorist activity and consistently on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for as long as I can remember. It seems to make a certain amount of sense to me that they would have mandatory enlistment there... But I'm not certain I'm ready to hold the Israeli government up as always doing everything right, so I don't see the "Israel does it" argument as very convincing. That said, this is probably something they're doing rather well and it seems to be something that works for them.

But there's another comparison being made all over the web... and that's the comparison to Hitler's "Hitler Youth" program. A small amount of background on this: The Hitler Youth stemmed from already existing German boys and girls associations (much like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). The formal Youth Party was formed with only about 300 members in 1926, before Hitler had taken office as President. Before WWII was over, the Youth Party had grown to close to 9 million members, mostly because of the membership requirement established in 1940. The requirement was that all children (with an emphasis on boys) must belong. The training the children received in this group was all aimed at furthering the goals of the 3rd Reich. 1, fertility and child-bearing among women, increasing the Aryan bloodline and fostering a firm family-base in nazi ideology. 2, Erase old ideologies and other political ideologies. 3, The Hitler Youth program was quite successful in accomplishing its goals.

According to an article on "shoaheducation.com," the reasons Hitler was so effective in getting people to comply with his evil agenda were complex, but involved the following factors: "high-minded promises, increased economic rewards, propaganda, and the inculcation of conscience-free decision making through the Führerprinzip. But one of the more formidable factors was in the setting apart of a generation of youth, totally immersed and educated in the principles of the National Socialists."

Führerprinzip, German for "leader principle," is a prescription for a system with a military structure applied to civil society at large. It was not, however, invented by the Nazis, but by a German philosopher who claimed that certain "gifted individuals" were "born to rule" on the basis of Social Darwinism. During Nazi Germany, Führerprinzip was used because unquestioning obedience to superiors was supposed to produce order and prosperity.

I am not writing this to compare Obama and his potential leadership to Hitler and the Nazis. President-elect Obama has (obviously) not yet even taken his oath of office. I have no idea what he will end up doing during his time as President - and I think it's obvious his agenda will not include increasing the Aryan bloodline. I am, however, writing this to say that his proposal to have a civilian national security force that is as strong and as well funded as the military is a dangerous idea. It gives far too much power and control to the central government.

When Hitler was elected to office in Germany by popular vote, they did not live under totalitarian rule. They had many elected offices throughout their districts. The Nazi party was actually the National Socialists party, shortened to Nazi. The people of Germany were not somehow more evil than us. They were not more stupid than us. The man they elected turned out to be horribly evil, and they had some programs in place (as well as forming some after his election) that enabled that evil to continue unchecked.

I don't look at Obama as a Hitler... but I do think that we need to know our history -- and be ever watchful and aware that if we don't know it, we just might be doomed to repeat it.

Who is Rahm Emanuel?

2008-11-09T08:14:00.003-05:00

Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel was born in Chicago in 1959. He is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, a former member of the Jewish militia Irgun (operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine).

He, as a small child, attended a Jewish day school (Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School), and after that attended public schools. He attended summer camps in Israel.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Rahm was a civilian volunteer in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).

Emanuel has earned a reputation as a "take no prisoners" politician and carries the nickname "Rahm-bo." He worked for the Clinton administration, and on the night after the 1996 election, he was "so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead!... Dead!... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."

During a two and a half year period working as an investment banker (1998-2002), Emanuel amassed a personal fortune of $16.2 million. In 2000, he was named to the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, a position that paid him $31,000 in 2000 and $231,000 in 2001. While on the board (and, obviously, ever thereafter) Freddie Mac was steeped in scandal involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. Emanuel went from being on this board to being a congressman.

The top five contributors to Emanuel's 2008 campaign were UBS AG at $63,700, AT&T at $49,950, Blackstone Group at $47,000, JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $45,700, and Grosvenor Capital Management at $38,900. The top five industries contributing to his campaign were Securities & Investment at $600,500, Lawyers and law firms at $172,851, Insurance at $134,400, Commercial Banks at $121,200, and Health Professionals at $113,350. Emanuel did not self-finance any of his campaign in 2008.

Emanuel serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax legislation, Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs. Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood said of Emanuel after the 2006 election cycle, "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."

Clearly Rahm Emanuel is a passionate individual. He has a very liberal voting record and is dedicated to the survival of the Jewish state. He doesn't appear to fear criticism from anybody. Some are saying the choice of Emanuel as Chief of Staff by Obama was strange given Obama's promise to bring a new tone to Washington... but I don't agree. After all the questions about whether or not Obama would support Israel, he couldn't have chosen anyone else to more clearly articulate his support.

I highly doubt anybody closely following politics for the last year expects Obama to govern from the center. I wouldn't expect Obama to choose for his cabinet anybody I would align myself with politically. I have strong disagreements with Rahm Emanuel in policy - but given what Obama wishes to accomplish in his presidency, I think Emanuel probably a perfect choice in getting those things done.

My Post Election Umbrage

2008-11-07T09:41:00.004-05:00

I know there are a lot of conservatives out there who are feeling downtrodden and depressed. I, personally, began to wonder if I was a jinx on anyone for whom I voted... until I realized that Virginia Foxx did, indeed, win her re-election bid. Finally! ONE person I voted for managed to eke out a win.

One would think that an Obama win would be what caused me to take offense. Not the case, however. I'm not offended by his win. And he won by enough of a margin that I'm not even inclined to think ACORN cheated him in. Nor am I the type to say that the man "bought the White House" as some have. True, he had plenty of money to campaign with -- but while he outspent McCain, he also out-messaged him. Barack Obama had a message that the American people wanted to hear. (Not this American person, but obviously more wanted to hear it than not.)

McCain could have clearly articulated the opposing view and made a more distinct choice for the American people. He chose not to do that and instead rushed in the middle of his campaign to broker a bailout the American people clearly didn't want. So no - I'm not offended by an Obama win.

I am, however, deeply offended by the news media. Well, the media and the shameless people who are namelessly attacking Sarah Palin. "Anonymous critics" shouldn't be quoted in the press. Period. You have a complaint about somebody? You want to air a grievance? Fine... I can get that. But have the balls to attach your good (or not so good?) name to the petty plunder. The fact that the press is gleefully reporting on this is, at best, irresponsible journalism.

In light of this and other events, I would like to take this opportunity to bring an old and much more positive discourse to the people.

In 1917, William Tyler Page of Maryland wrote the American's Creed. It goes like this:

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.

I, too, choose to align myself with the American's Creed. An election that didn't go my way is not enough to dampen my love for my country or my hope for its future. We are still a democracy in a Republic. We still have voting rights and the power of the people. What we need is to educate the American public in regards to American heritage and civics.

There are five main principles on which our country was built that contributed to our success as a nation.

1. Our belief in God. In answering to a power higher than ourselves or our government, we had a higher sense of personal responsibility.

2. Limited government. Limiting government limits national expenses and gives surplus capital for tools and a good living standard.

3. Individual freedom. Each person could work at what they chose.

4. Incentive. Each person had the right to keep the fruits of their own labor.

5. Competition. This is the one thing that makes businessman and employee alike serve his fellow man well.

These principles were put into writing by Walter Knott of Knott's Berry Farms. Along with these principles, Mr. Knott also had this to say:

America became a place where the common man could be uncommon, where a man could become whatever his energy, his intellect and his manhood could make him. This was the challenge, the hope, and the American heritage that touched and inspired hearts everywhere.

That freedom which our founding fathers gained for us is the cornerstone upon which this nation is built. We in America have been able to deliver in unbelievable abundance what Marxism, collectivism, Socialism and fascism can only promise. But freedom rests, and always will, on individual responsibility, courage, and faith. It was exactly these qualities which have made the United States the most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

What truly concerns me is that for two centuries, because of the individual strength of each citizen, we guarded and nurtured our hard-won freedom. Gradually, though, as we have become more prosperous, we have also become less willing to shoulder individual responsibilities. More and more, we have become content to let the government do what the individual should do. Either we will again assume the responsibility required by freedom or that light will go out in America. And if it does, it will go out all over the world. If the wealth, luxury and leisure that our system has brought us make us smug and complacent, willing to load our responsibilities on our government, we will lose - and deserve to lose - all these fruits of freedom.

Alexis de Tocqueville concluded about our nation's success, "America is great because she is good; when America ceases to be good, then she will cease to be great."

William O. Douglas, a liberal Supreme Court justice, wrote in 1952, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." We are becoming less and less a religious people - and while many in America still assume they answer to a Supreme Being, that Being is looking less and less like any sort of God of the Bible.

Daniel Webster said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it."

Calivn Coolidge reminded us, "The meaning of America is not to be found in a life without toil. Freedom is not only bought with a great price; it is maintained by unremitting effort."

How many people in America today have even heard quotes such as these, much less have them implanted into their memories? Without the people being educated in these areas, there is no hope for America's future. It is, thus, our responsibility to do all within our power to educate through positive political discourse. Because, as Edmund Burke put it, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Everybody Senses Impending Doom

2008-11-01T09:01:00.002-04:00

So I was watching FOX News the other day - and they had a commentator on there who was saying that he would be extremely surprised at this point if McCain came out the winner on Tuesday. Frankly, I'm with him - and not just because Obama is up in the polls. Truth is, McCain has not been running his campaign in a very effective way. I know, I know... they didn't ask me. But consider the fact that McCain got a serious boost from his choice of Palin. People were excited. So what does McCain do? He hid her away for a while... then threw her to a couple of interviews with unfriendly news anchors. Now, when the polls are beginning to tighten a bit, he throws out two new ads - one on global warming (not even sure where this one is airing), and another one (airing in Pennsylvania) showing Hillary and McCain all cozy. Apparently, he's trying to gather the Hillary-ites to his fold. The problem is, he still hasn't gathered his own base.

But I open up my NYT mail today to find an article titled, "Obama Is Up, and Fans Fear That Jinxes It." It appears that it's open season on doom and gloom. I guess this is proof positive that it's another tight election.

I just love what passes for "news" at the NYT. A two page online article... all about how liberals cope. Mr. Downs is 53 years old and a "confirmed liberal and profound Obama fan." I had no idea that liberals went through confirmation now, too... Interesting. But Mr. Downs says, "Look, I have this sense of impending doom; we've had a couple of elections stolen already. The only thing worse than losing is to think that you're going to win and then lose." Patricia Kihlman, 54, says, "Oh, God, I'm optimistic, but I can't look at the polls. I'm a PBS/NPR kind of person, and, O.K., I do look at some polls. If he doesn't get this, I'll be crying so hard." (Everybody, quick - vote for Obama to keep Patricia from crying.) Shana Rosen has apparently told her boyfriend that their love life is on hold until after election day. (So now liberals are going through confirmation and fasting. They're beginning to sound downright religious.) Lisa Sirizawa, 44, says, "I'm cautiously, cautiously optimistic. Though I worry: Am I going to be hurt again?" And Lucy Slurzberg, a psychotherapist, reports that 90 percent of her liberal patients speak to her of their electoral fears during their sessions.

According to the same article, conservatives are not "immune from the worry vapors." But the psychotherapists are reporting that, "Wealthy Republicans are very anxious about taxes. They are not pretending to vote for the black man." Really?? So it's down to liberals needing to feel the love and not have another election stolen from them while the only conservatives out there sweating it are the rich folks who sit on the therapists couch and talk about how the thought of higher taxes sends them into paralyzing fear?

But one of my favorite paragraphs in the article was this:

Many liberal Democrats watch MSNBC, but some say it sounds too much like comfort food. CNN serves its election coverage with a stiff little chaser of doubt for Democrats, and many liberals say CNN and NPR are their regular evening companions. If they really want to rub the sore tooth of worry, they dial over to the "Obama's radical friend Bill Ayers" channel, otherwise known as Fox News.

I finally get it. I know now why the liberals are so positive that any time a conservative wins an election, it's been stolen. The liberals generally live in concentrated areas. They are densely located in particular patches... and they don't get out of their bubbles of liberalism much. They don't connect with the population at large, nor do they wish to. They're better than that - and besides, watching a news network like FOX just drives them crazy. So they're better off sticking to MSNBC and CNN. One liberal put it this way, "We live in a bubble. I drove to Monterey recently, and I saw my first McCain placard ever."

To hear the NYT tell it, liberals and conservatives everywhere are so distressed about the election they're all seeking therapy. And I thought I was obsessed with politics. Guess I'm not that bad. I guess blogging is my therapy. That and telling all the news I hear to my husband (who is occasionally not so appreciative of my informative efforts). After a long day at work, I guess he doesn't want to come home every day to, "Guess what Obama did today!" All the more reason to vote for McCain, I guess. If Obama isn't elected I can't possibly do that to my man for the next four years.

A Sorry Opinion... Indeed

2008-10-31T09:17:00.002-04:00

First, I want to say that I was much gratified to find another person who reads the New York Times each day for its entertainment value. Bernard Goldberg wrote a book titled, "Crazies To the Left of Me, Wimps To the Right," which I read this week. I don't agree with everything Mr. Goldberg says, but I can say that I'm on the same page with him in most things. I really recommend the read...

But on with today's subject!

The New York Times has an editorial piece titled, "More Money for Detroit." This particular opinion piece should highlight quite beautifully why I find so much entertainment from these people. They're clearly... nuts. The article begins by saying,

Here is a measure of just how grim the economic outlook is: It seems to make sense to pump billions more taxpayer dollars into Detroit's automakers even though down the road they could quite possibly go bust anyway.

Really??? That makes sense to you? Pray tell, WHY?!?

They then go on to say that the request by GM and Chrysler is preposterous because both companies are losing money hand over fist and now they're requesting a load of cash to go along with a merger. The NYT says, "Gluing them together would not change this dynamic." But the editorial goes on to argue that the money should be tossed over to them anyway.

Why? Get this: because "they are expected to offload responsibility for their retirees' health care onto a new fund... they have negotiated new contracts with the auto workers' union that eliminate retiree health care and allow for lower wages for new hires... Some analysts believe they finally have a promising lineup of fuel-efficient cars..." And last but not least, "Even if Detroit's car companies do not manage to survive in the longer term, it may still be worthwhile to keep them from going bankrupt next year. The economy and the job market will have their hands full dealing with the fallout from the near-collapse of the financial system."

So... taxpayers are supposed to be fine with pumping billions of dollars into failing companies -- partly because these companies are no longer going to be providing their employees with health care upon retirement, which will lead the taxpayers having to pay for those benefits as well... Also, because the companies are now going to be paying less money to their workers, which means fewer tax payers (because people making less money really don't pay taxes). And because even though the bailout may not (and probably won't) work, we shouldn't let the companies go bankrupt next year -- we need to save that treat for another time.

According to the NYT, allowing these companies to fail next year would be extremely costly to the government because the government's pension guarantee corporation would have to "pick up some of the tab for hundreds of thousands of retirees." Is the NYT actually trying to say that the government won't need to pick up this tab in a later year? Methinks not...

They also state that, "Detroit's three automakers employ hundreds of thousands of workers and support several million jobs in related industries like auto-part manufacturing and car sales." Yes. This is true. But somebody needs to explain to me how pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into the companies is going to change their sales data? If they're not selling cars, they're not selling cars. So if we pump more money into their companies so that they can continue to make cars that aren't selling, we're just forestalling the inevitable -- and wasting billions of dollars in the process.

The NYT ends its editorial with this paragraph:

We realize that helping Detroit involves big risks. After bailing out the financial system, it will encourage other companies to seek sustenance at Washington's trough. Washington will have to learn to say no. But at this juncture, Detroit is too big to allow it to fail. And who knows? It may learn to survive.

Oy. At least they have things right when they call it "Washington's trough." Ever notice that much of what comes out of Washington is in reference to pigs? The "public trough" and "pork" are the most prominent. And very fitting, if you ask me.

Too big to fail... sheesh. Keep in mind, there's no such thing as a government that is "too big to fail."

Fix Our Broken Souls

2008-10-29T14:47:00.003-04:00

"I think about this little girl in Newberry, South Carolina. And she was ten years old. She said, 'Do you realize that when your husband becomes the next president of the United States, it will be historical?' But I thought to say, 'Well, what does that mean to you?' And she said, 'It means that I can imagine anything for myself.' And then that little girl started to cry. I mean she broke down in hard tears, streaming down her face, sobbing. This little girl gets it. See, she knows what's at stake. She knows that she's probably already five steps behind in schools that are underfunded, without the resources to prepare her. She knows that if she or her family gets sick, she doesn't have access to a primary care doctor. She's going to be sitting in some ER for hours on end. She knows that her parents' work situation is hit or miss. They don't know what's going to happen day to day. She knows that. But you know what she also knows? That she's so much better than this nation's limited expectations of her. And all she has is hope. That's all she has, is a little hoping and praying, and she's hoping upon hope that we get this right. She is hoping that we get this right. There are parts of that little girl in all of us, especially those of us who are struggling, who have hit some ceiling where they've been told you're not good enough, that you're not ready, that you're not smart enough. 'No, don't, you can't, wait your turn.' We have all heard those limits." - Michelle Obama, 2008

"Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties - it says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf." - Barack Obama, 2001

It's interesting to learn more and more about the way Barack Obama thinks. Frankly, the more I hear, the less I like him... and I didn't have a whole lot of love to begin with. But to refer to the Constitution of the United States as a "charter of negative liberties" ...well, that's a new one. Limiting the power of the federal government isn't a "negative liberty."

That said, Barack Obama is off in his assessment of our Constitution in a more basic way as well. The Preamble to the Constitution says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Words are important, so let's take a look at the words our framers used. They wanted to form a more perfect union. That's pretty self explanatory.

They wanted to establish justice. They chose to do this through our governmental system which includes a distinct separation of powers. (Our framers understood a little something about human nature, it seems.) Thus, they created the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. All three branches work together to establish justice.

They wanted to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense as well as promote the general welfare of the citizenry. They did this through the "powers of congress" section of the constitution. Here are the specific powers granted to congress:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.

To establish post offices and post roads.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court.

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.

To declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

To provide and maintain a Navy.

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

To provide for calling forth the Militia and execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I would make the argument, then, that the Constitution is specifically spelling out what the federal government must do for us. It says that they are to establish and maintain justice. They are to provide for our defense with armies and navies. And they are to establish and maintain a system of money.

Then there's another section of the Constitution that imposes limits on congress. Here are the limits:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the write of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

So there are things the government must do on our behalf - and things the government must not do. Of course, in 1913, the government amended the Constitution with Amendment 16 saying that "Ya-huh! We can collect taxes on incomes!!" Of course, their wording was a bit better, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Whew! At least they got that out of the way for Obama... but now he's still not satisfied with the document... because it doesn't demand the redistributive reparations he is seeking. I would argue that it not only doesn't demand it of government, but it doesn't allow it of them.

Now the games we're playing with words include:

"None of us want to see unnecessary burdens on business, but after what we've seen on Wall Street, isn't it obvious by now that we need some common sense rules of the road to protect consumers and our economy?" - Barack Obama (note - he uses the phrase "unnecessary burdens," followed by a "but")

"He (Obama) is not spreading the wealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have... We think the people should be getting that tax break are not continuing to redistribute the wealth up. We think middle class tax payers should get a tax break." - Joe Biden (note - "redistribute the wealth up." What in the world is that?)

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Barack Obama

"I know this has been a pretty mean campaign. I was on a television station the other day and doing a satellite feed to a major network in Florida. And the anchor quotes Karl Marx and says in a sense, isn't Barack Obama Karl Marx? You know, I mean, folks, this stuff you're hearing in this campaign, some of it is pretty ugly." - Joe Biden

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't mean in the constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer. What he's saying - this is the irony of it - he's basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals." - Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, muddying the waters (and his brain) on Obama's "redistribution of wealth" comments. (Note the redefining of "redistribution." Not "equalized wealth," simply "positive rights.")

Ah, well. As Jonah Goldberg said, "In short, Obama and his disciples only demand one kind of transcendence from all Americans. We must, as Obama likes to say, unite as one people, one nation, one American family and transcend all our misgivings about Barack Obama. Then, and only then, will The One fulfill his wife's pledge and fix our broken souls. Only a racist could possibly disagree."

How Politics Is Played

2008-10-27T10:08:00.003-04:00

Joe Biden was interviewed by Barbara West of WFTV out of Orlando. Apparently, Bob Jordan, the news director, decided not to ask softball questions. For once, they were actually very good questions... such as:

"Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?" Biden answered by saying that he wasn't embarrassed because they aren't actually tied to ACORN. He claimed that the campaign hasn't given a dime to ACORN for registration of voters.

When asked if Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth around was a potentially crushing political blunder, Biden said, "Absolutely not. The only person to spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the 20s, 1 % of the people make over 21% of all the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became president. All we want is the middle class to once again have a fighting chance. That's why we focus all our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break and John McCain doubles down on Bush's tax cut..."

Next question... "You may recognize this quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?" This upset Biden. Clearly, the Obama campaign is not used to actually being questioned on their policies. Biden responded, "Are you joking? Is this a joke? Is this a real question? He is NOT spreading the wealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened, just this year, people making one point four million dollars average, the top one percent - good, decent American people - are gonna get a new 87 billion dollar tax cut. A NEW one. On top of last year. We think the people should be getting that tax break, and not continue to redistribute the wealth up, we think middle class tax payers should get a tax break. That's what we think. It's a ridiculous comparison, with all due respect."

How funny. Obama said that he thought they should "spread the wealth around." Yes, this is a direct quote - you can watch it on YouTube. But now, politics requires that they say somebody ELSE has been spreading the wealth around and it needs to stop. Yes, Biden is actually claiming that up to this point, we've been guilty of redistributing the wealth UP. Not quite sure how he's thinking that's the case... but HEY. Whatever it takes to deflect attention from the mistakes of the Obama campaign.

Well, one would think that Obama and Biden would be glad for a chance to rephrase their past blunders... but apparently not. Since this interview, Obama's campaign decided to punish the news station by pulling the plug on the already scheduled interviews in the future. The Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, Laura K. McGinnis, wrote to the news station, "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

Oh, well...

Wonder what it will be like if they get in office? Guess everybody will have to try really hard not to make them mad...

Stupidity

2008-10-22T19:07:00.003-04:00

I have to say, I hate it when the people I'm going to vote for do or say something stupid. But I'm certainly not going to fail to point it out when they do.

Just in case you've been living in a cave the past few days... did you know that Joe Biden said something really stupid? (No, I'm not supporting Biden... but this is background.) Yes, Joe Biden said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said." (Betcha he's wishing right now he hadn't asked folks to remember this.) "Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.... and he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." This is weird enough... but then he went on to ask the crowd to "gird your loins." Hooo---ee. Gotta love that.

So, yes. This was stupid. And I really think the Republicans should just let the Democrats say their stupid things without trying to compete with them. But NO. We can't do that, can we? So McCain decided to get in on the action. McCain tried today to score some political points on his side by saying that enemies wouldn't similarly challenge him as president. "They know I've been tested. They know I've been tested. I've been tested many times." I'm sorry - but I think this is really dumb. First of all, we don't even know what kind of threat Joe the senator was talking about. We have no idea what kind of "test" he's manufacturing in his strange little brain. But now McCain is going to come out and say that nobody's going to test him? Why? Because he was in Vietnam?

Don't get me wrong - I know he's a war hero. I know he served his country well and with incredible honor during those years. But that doesn't mean our enemies are going to consider him thoroughly tested and not mess with the United States on his watch... that was just, in my opinion (of course), a really stupid thing to promise.

And maybe it's just me -- or maybe I'm just being affected by the polling data (that I know is none too accurate). But it's looking to me like we're going to end up with a president Obama. He's going to make Bill Clinton look like a mischievous little school boy. Maybe I'm just a bit low tonight, and the glass of wine is affecting my head. But I'm thinking that the economy is in the tank, the country is going to elect Socialist Obama (and NO, "socialist" is NOT code for "black" - gracious, did you hear about that one?), and... well, woe is me.

Why can't the Republicans just let the Democrats implode? With Biden helping, it might work. And I really think the best strategy is a mostly silent one this time. But, alas... they didn't ask me.

"Non-Regulation" As I See It

2008-10-18T15:17:00.002-04:00

"The concept of non-regulation means don't mess with business and business will take care of us," said Mike Jones 63, a geologist in Elko, Nev., who is considering voting for a Democrat for the first time in his life. "But I was looking to retire, and now what do I retire on?" -- "Beneath the Issues, Strong Personal Views," by Jennifer Steinhauer, published October 17th in the New York Times.

It sounds to me like maybe Mike is a bit confused. The ideas behind unfettered capitalism don't include "business will take care of us." I'm pretty sure that a free, capitalistic society means that we're supposed to take care of ourselves. The whole point of a market economy is that it's the best way to make an economy strong. Supply and demand... all that good stuff. And a strong economy means more jobs. More jobs means the ability for people like Mike to earn a decent income and the opportunity to prepare for their eventual retirement.

But where do grown men get the idea that their welfare is somebody else's job? Why do people think that there's always supposed to be somebody out there to take care of them? Where did the independent spirit of the American electorate go?

Is it too late? Are there no longer enough people out there who wish to embrace freedom and the responsibility that it entails? Because you have to make a choice. You can either choose for yourself a sense of "security" or freedom. But wait - don't make that choice quite yet. Not until you completely understand all the implications.

Please notice that you are not choosing between freedom and security, but between freedom and a sense of security. And there is an enormous difference. Once you give over your freedom for that sense of security, you are no longer in charge of your welfare.

I suppose there is a certain kind of person in the world who gets some satisfaction out of knowing that someone else is truly to blame for their misery. Maybe the idea of failure is so unthinkable that they would rather the failure belong to someone else. But keep in mind... if we decide as a country to give our freedoms up to be "taken care of" by our government, our misery and failure will be nobody's fault but our own.

Joe the Plumber

2008-10-17T08:33:00.002-04:00

Joe the Plumber, or as he's known by the New York Times, "Mr. Liar Liar Pants On Fire," must be a fascinating individual indeed. I kind of like him. It seems that Barack Obama came to campaign on Joe's street - and Joe seized on the opportunity to ask a tax question of Barack Obama and got an answer that gave clear outline to Obama's Marxist leanings. Thank GOD for Joe the Plumber, because I honestly don't know if the last debate would have gone as well without that quote from Obama.

But WAIT! Is Joe really a plumber?? You know, this matters a lot -- to the press. Anything to deflect attention from Barack Obama's grave mistake of telling the truth about his own policy. And the press has decided that NO. Joe the Plumber is no plumber at all. True, he works for a plumbing company... and true, he does plumbing work. But that doesn't make him a plumber. No, siree. What makes a plumber a plumber is, apparently, a state license. And Joe doesn't have one and thus cannot possibly be a plumber. But this... THIS... is only part of the "real deal" on Joe the Plumber (published October 16th in the NYT).

It turns out that good ole Joe is almost as bad as - dare I say it? - Sarah Palin! Yes, the horrible truths the press managed to dig up are difficult and painful, but we must face them. After all, the press has no agenda... they only want to encourage truth, justice and the American way. Right?

So get this tidbit... the man's real name isn't even Joe. No! Say it ain't so! Well, the truth must come out. His REAL name is, according to the NYT, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. So... if he's willing to lie about his own name... I mean, c'mon!! Gee... I wonder what that "J" stands for? Let's give a hand to the press for digging up the truth on this man! We certainly can't have him making policy for the country if he's not even forthcoming on his full name when asking a question of the anointed one. (Oh, wait - Joe ...er, Samuel J., wasn't going to be making any policy, was he?) But the unbiased press just wanted to hear the truth... (only don't say Barack's full name because that's racist).

We can also rest easy knowing that the press was willing to dig into this situation enough to have tax analysts look into Samuel J.'s taxes in order to show that Mr. Non-Plumber's question itself was flawed. Mr. Non-Plumber's taxes aren't likely to rise... that makes me rest easy. I was really worried about Joe! But if Joe's taxes aren't likely to rise, then that whole question about spreading the wealth around is a moot point, right?

Samuel J. Non-Plumber is the very picture of a working American. Single father, works all day, comes home at night and fixes dinner while helping his 13 year old son with his homework. That said, though, he clearly needs to be brought down a peg or two for not looking to the Democrat party and Marxism - and other people's money - to better himself.

Samuel J. works for a small outfit -- just himself and his boss, the owner of the plumbing company. Nervy little (or big) fellow didn't answer the New York Time's phone calls... so the NYT decided to publish that he "has provided only vague information on his and the company's finances since talking to Mr. Obama." The NERVE of him... I mean, if a citizen of this country is going to ask a question of a presidential candidate, they need to be prepared to have their finances, their taxes, and their entire lives under intense scrutiny. It's only fair, right?

So, in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, the NYT also reported that Mr. Non-Plumber has had two liens... a lien with a hospital which has been settled and a tax lien that is still outstanding.

So the picture that the NYT presents is as negative as they could possibly make it -- Joe the Plumber is:

a.) not a plumber

b.) a liar

c.) a deadbeat

But the bigger picture is that Joe the Plumber is:

a.) actually a plumber, just not a licensed one

b.) a man who most likely goes by his middle name

c.) a man who has had medical issues... and still does not want nationalized health care

d.) a man who saw an opportunity to ask a question of Obama

e.) a hard working single parent who still doesn't want a hand-out from his neighbor

Okay - now that we've got that established, let's just talk a minute about truth, justice and the American way in the press. Look at all that scrutiny they gave to poor Joe. I'll bet they've almost made him sorry he asked the stupid question (which is probably the point -- fewer people will be willing to do so in the future, knowing what's going to happen to THEM). But what questions are they unwilling to dig into and report on when it comes to Barack Obama?

1., How is it possible that Obama went to church for twenty years without hearing the offensive preaching? Did he sleep while he was there?

2., In 2004, when talking to a reporter from the Chicago Sun Times, Obama named Father Pfleger as a "friend and advisor" who "helps him keep his compass set." Being a friend of Pfleger, did Obama know his views on race and politics? Were those views what helped set his compass then?

3., Obama's father was a Muslim. After his parents divorced, his mother remarried to another Muslim. What did this upbringing bring to Obama's worldview? Is this why he was comfortable with his pastor, friend and mentor praising the likes of Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam?

4., What, specifically, has Obama's past and present affiliation with ACORN been? Obama's campaign gave ACORN over $800,000... what, specifically, was this money paid to them for? What contracts were signed and negotiated?

5., How many close relationships has Obama had that have been questionable? And how many more people can he possibly distance himself from without becoming very, very lonely?

These are not questions I expect the press to actually dig into... but I have to say, the work they've done on Joe the Plumber has been expansive and vigorous (to say the least). And to think - all he did was ask a question.

Finally - A Real Debate!

2008-10-16T14:35:00.002-04:00

I have to admit, my hopes were not high going into last night's debate between McCain and Obama. The last two debates were so dull I couldn't even make it through. But I was pleasantly surprised on many fronts, although it didn't start out looking like I would be. McCain started out by saying, "Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry... They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C." At this point, I thought it was going to just be more of the same... and I thought, "What about those of us who are frustrated and angry because we're innocent victims of the American government taking money from us to fix the bad choices of our neighbors?"

I was somewhat gratified, however, to hear from McCain that the $300 billion he wants to use to shore up the housing market comes from the $750 billion already passed. I highly doubt that he will have any success in extracting this from congress at this point, since they're already working on even more bailouts, but at least his idea wasn't to pass an extra bill for that.

McCain launched into Joe the plumber right at the beginning of the debate. Most people had no clue about Joe the plumber until last night... so a bit of background on this for you. Joe Wurzelbacher approached Obama in Ohio and asked him a question about the taxes on a plumbing business he is preparing to purchase. According to Joe, the business makes between 250K and 270K each year. He took issue with Obama wanting to charge him a higher tax rate. Here's Obama's somewhat lengthy response:

"Well, here's what's gonna happen... First of all, you get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut of taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above two-fifty, then from two-fifty down your tax is gonna stay the same. Now it's true that from two-fifty up, say from two-fifty to three hundred or so...(Joe tries to interrupt and Obama talks over him) I just wanna answer your question. So for that additional amount, you go from 36 to 39 percent which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small business make less than two-fifty. So what I wanna do is give them a tax cut. I wanna give all these folks who are, you know, bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. So what we're doing is we are saying that the folks who make more than two fifty, that marginal amount above two-fifty is going to be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate... There are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is - now that you've become more successful (Joe interjects 'through hard work') through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is, 95% of folks who are making less than two-fifty, they may be working hard, too. But they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is... project, put yourself back ten years ago when you were only making whatever - sixty or seventy - under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you would have lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster... My attitude is that if the economy is good for the folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

So McCain accuses Obama of making the American dream of owning your own business more difficult. Obama responded by saying that McCain wants to give $200 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations in America. (This is funny... because the idea of a plumbing business bringing in 250K per year being one of the wealthiest businesses in America is ludicrous - and yet Obama is wanting to raise their tax rates, too.) He also said that independent studies have looked at their respective plans and concluded that Obama gives three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Senator McCain. (Of course, this becomes an easy thing to achieve when you're even mailing checks to people who don't pay any taxes at all.) Obama also claimed that 98 percent of small businesses make less than 250K, which doesn't hold up under the microscope of government statistics. According to the numbers available through the economic census, only 54% of small businesses make under 500K. (I couldn't find any statistical information that went only to 250K.)

In going round and round on the tax issue, Barack Obama says this:

"I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffet, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000." And then on and on to the people who are trying to figure out how they're going to afford food and save for their kids college education. (Maybe it's just me, but I think if people don't know where their next meal is coming from, they're probably not thinking about college.) So Obama knows that nobody likes taxes, but that "ultimately we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong, and somebody's got to do it." Call me crazy, but I didn't know that our economy was ever made strong by taking from the rich and doling it out to people who aren't as rich. Because let's get real here... if you're working, and you're coming home to cable television and X-Box and internet access... if you're smoking cigarettes and buying beer and going outside on your four-wheeler, you're not poor. If you have those things and you don't know where your next meal is going to come from, you need a lesson in budgeting.

After Obama once again tried to connect McCain with President Bush (which is pretty funny, considering how often McCain went against Bush in the last eight years), McCain said, "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country." Not a bad response, really.

And on the issue of reform, McCain challenged Obama to come up with one issue where he stood up to the leaders of his party. Obama answered that with supporting tort reform which wasn't very popular with trial lawyers (so?) and supporting charter schools which isn't popular with teachers' unions. But neither the teachers' unions or trial lawyers are the leaders in the Democrat party, so I guess he doesn't have one.

Both men were asked about the tone of their campaign. McCain responded by saying that he regrets some of the negative aspects of both campaigns - and then went on to cite Congressman Lewis' remark about McCain and Palin being like George Wallace (segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, etc...). Then he said, "And Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them." He also reminded people that Obama had signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if McCain did and he didn't keep his word.

Obama's response? "Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough." He goes on to say that the impressions of the American people according to polls is that McCain is more negative than Obama. Well, hoooeee! I guess if the American people have that impression (even though it's not true) we'll just keep it that way, huh? Nice. McCain ended up holding Obama's' feet to the fire on this one and said, "But again, I did not hear a repudiation of Congressman Lewis's remarks." Obama's response was to defend Congressman Lewis.

McCain was asked about Obama and "terrorists" and he responded by saying he didn't care about an old washed up terrorist, but that we need to know the full extent of that relationship. He also brought up Acorn - and the fact that the Obama campaign has paid Acorn 832K for "lighting and site selection." Obama was not honest on either the Ayers point or the Acorn point in his response and I wish McCain had held his feet to the fire on that as well.

A couple of times in the debate, McCain commended Obama on his eloquence right before pointing out his slippery words. I think he scored a few points there.

And on to the Supreme Court. McCain did a good job of communicating his view on the justice nomination process. He said that he voted for Breyer and Ginsburg not because he agreed with their ideology but because they were qualified and selected by the president.

McCain attacked Obama on the issue of abortion and cited the fact that Obama voted against legislation in Illinois that would require medical attention for the surviving babies of botched abortions. Obama responded by saying, "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true." Unfortunately, though, it is true. You can look it up.

To sum up, I think that McCain did a really good job. I don't know if it's enough to help boost him to win in November, but he stood up and held his ground. And I have to say, I was impressed. Thank you, Senator McCain for finally not trying so hard to be nice that you don't say anything at all.

John McCain And His "Jobs for America"

2008-10-15T13:27:00.003-04:00

After doing my duty looking into Barack Obama's economic plan for the good old US of A, I decided I needed to be "fair and balanced" and look into McCain's as well. The good news is that McCain's plan cannot possibly be worse than Obama's. The bad news is that I won't be throwing any parades in honor of John McCain based on his plan for the country, either. But I guess we already knew that.

Let's start with McCain's idea for meddling in the workplace, titled "Workplace Flexibility in a Changing Economy." Here, John McCain is said to understand that today's changing economy is making it harder for parents to balance the demands of family life and their jobs. This irritates me, and I'll tell you why. (I'm sure you were sooooo afraid that I wouldn't.) We had our first child back in 1997 and at that time made the decision that I would stay home with our kids. My husband has a college degree in English, and was (at that time) working in credit card collections. As you may already know, people who work in credit card collections are making their entire living off commission - yes, that's right. 100% commission on how much you're able to collect from people who don't pay. Needless to say, we had some exceedingly lean times on that income.

From there, we moved across the country and my husband got a job in a different industry making 30K per year. It wasn't easy to live on that - we did without many things that others may consider to be necessities. But we had food, diapers, and as much clothing as we needed - and I was home with our son, which was what really mattered to us. It wasn't easy, just important.

McCain is also said to understand that our "changing economy forces many families to deal with the disruptions that come with a job change." Because of this understanding, I guess, he believes that workers should be able to "choose new training that fits their personal situation so that they can build new skills as their careers change." Are you serious?? Is there some goober somewhere telling people what training they can and cannot experience? Or does McCain believe that I should be paying for their training?

He also believes that "as our workforce ages, many older Americans want to continue to stay in jobs." He thinks that more flexible arrangements would enable these folks to continue their careers. Well, fine... start a company and implement that, then. But coming up with the "Wish I Were Retired Act of 2010" isn't probably a good idea.

To sum up, here are the things McCain finds important to mess with in the workplace:

Modernizing labor laws to allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements.

Ensuring labor laws don't get in the way of working at home.

Promoting telework.

Making health care more portable.

Ensuring that workers can "choose retirement plans" that suite their needs.

Providing workers job training assistance.

In health care, McCain is offering the following:

Cheaper drugs.

An emphasis on prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, etc...

Coordinated care, collaborating providers.

Government walk-in clinics in retail outlets.

Reform Medicaid and Medicare.

Smoking cessation programs.

Tort reform.

McCain's tax plan is "Taxes: Simpler, Fair, Pro-Growth and Competitive." He wants to keep tax rates low. Top tax rate of 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase out the AMT. He wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, saying that keeping the corporate tax rate low is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States.

He wishes to ban internet taxes and cell phone taxes.

McCain is also promising "Immediate Relief for American Families." According to his site, "John McCain will help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs." He'll act immediately to reduce the "pain of high gas prices." How will he do this? He's going to send a strong message to world markets. Yes, he's going to be "telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump." Uh-huh. Now why didn't anybody else think of that?? We should have told them that a long time ago!! Sheesh.

Also, John McCain is going to "increase the value of the dollar and thus reduce the price of oil." Somehow, we're supposed to believe that by the mere existence of John McCain in the White House, Americans "will have a stronger economy, a stronger dollar and greater purchasing power for oil, gas and food." C'mon, dude. I'm a Republican... and I really want to be on your side here... but I'm going to need a little more to go on than that.

He also says he wants to begin a summer gas tax holiday. But John, I'm not thinking you're going to have much success in getting something like that to pass in the House and Senate. Sorry.

McCain wishes to "keep well-meaning, deserving home owners who are facing foreclosure in their homes." Yes, there must be some folks out there who are not paying their mortgages who still deserve to keep their home. O-kay. Here is his approach:

No bailouts for investors or speculators. Only homeowners.

Holders of a sub-prime mortgage taken after 2005 on their primary residence who 1, can prove creditworthiness at the time of the original loan, 2, are either delinquent or can demonstrate that they will be delinquent, and 3, can meet the terms of a new 30 year fixed-rate mortgage will be eligible. All they have to do is pick up a form at any post office or download the form over the internet to apply. The FHA certifies that the individual is qualified and contacts the individual's mortgage servicer. The FHA replaces the existing mortgage with a new one. I have to be honest with you and tell you that I don't get this. Not that I don't understand what he's trying to do -- but I don't understand why it's a good idea. Why cut it off at 2005? Why would you have people apply who are still making good on their current mortgage payments? Why would you bail some people out of their bad decisions and not the others? How is this right?

McCain is also dedicated to "Reforming Washington to Regain the Trust of Taxpayers." I have two words for this idea: TOO LATE. Seriously, he does go into some reforms he would like to see -- they're on his website if you want to know what they are. Call me jaded, but I just don't believe it for even a minute.

That being said, I still think that McCain is less scary than Obama. He's still scary, but much less so. So here's how I feel about this whole mess... I don't much like horror films. I'm just not into the scare-me-silly-by-showing-me-a-slaughter thing. (Call me crazy.) And if somebody told me that they were going to take me for a night out and I had to choose between two films, one of them being petrifying and the other being less scary, I would opt out of the entire night out. Unfortunately, there will not be a place on the ballot for scrapping it all and starting over, so I'm probably stuck with the less scary film choice here. I'm in for a night out that I didn't ask for - and I'm not going to like it either way.

How Obama Will "Jumpstart" the Economy

2008-10-14T10:45:00.002-04:00

According to Barack Obama, the economic struggle can be laid out in two main problems. One, wages are stagnant as prices rise. Yes, this is the case. Prices are getting a bit out of hand (even the basic necessities are becoming ridiculous). And two, there have been "tax cuts for the wealthy instead of the middle class." No, this is not the case. The tax cuts were for everybody. We all got some. It's true that the more money you make, the bigger your tax cut -- but that's because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

Also outlined as a problem in the "tax cuts" section is the fact that the Bush administration has not "tackled health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class." Oy. Well, I don't think the government tackling health care is going to benefit anybody, regardless of class. And the Bush administration DID try to tackle education and made a holy mess of it. Unfortunately, it looks like somebody might be tackling housing, too, before the end of the year.

So... on to the Obama fix! First things first, right? They're going to "jumpstart the economy." How are they going to do this? It's all somewhat vague... but they're going to start by imposing a "windfall profits tax" so that they can send a $1000 emergency energy rebate to American families. Common sense would say that American families are going to still be paying their energy costs... it's just that the energy is going to need to cost more so that the oil companies can afford to pay the "windfall profits tax" that needs to be generated in order to make this work. Please keep in mind, companies don't pay taxes - consumers do. It all gets passed on.

Then they're going to provide $50 billion to jumpstart the economy and prevent 1 million Americans from losing their jobs. They're going to do this by making sure they're preventing state and local cuts in health, education, housing and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. Somehow, with a mere $50 billion, Barack Obama is going to save the day by preventing excess property taxes at the state level, tolls and fees... and he's going to pump up the governments with enough money to prevent them from having to make cuts in any of their services or employees. Really can't figure out how he's getting the numbers to work... but maybe it's like Jesus with the loaves and fishes and I just need more faith.

After the generous jumpstart to the economy (which is better translated as a jumpstart to big government, because his injections are all for government jobs), he's going to provide middle class Americans with tax relief. Well, whew!! Here comes that relief that 95% of Americans are going to get!!

The first step is to "restore fairness" by providing 150 million workers tax relief. This is done with a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $500 per person or $1,000 per family. According to Obama's website, the "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. And yes, he really does appear to think that this somehow "restores fairness." His logic to get there must be a bit dizzying, but I digress...

Secondly, he's going to eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. Okay... I don't really have an issue with seniors' IRAs not getting taxed as they pull that money out. According to Obama, this will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide an average savings of $1400 per year for them. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will not need to file an income tax return.

Thirdly, he's going to simplify tax filings for the middle class. According to their plan, they're going to "dramatically" simplify things so that Americans can do their taxes in less than five minutes. Maybe it's going to be a simple form such as:

"How much did you make? _______________

Go ahead and send it in."

Frighteningly enough, Obama's plan counts on having the IRS use the information it gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers "pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return." Got that? He doesn't even trust us to do our own paperwork. He wants to tell us what we owe and have us send it in.

He then goes on to say, "Experts estimate that the Obama-Biden proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees." Oh, yeah... that's funny. He's going to increase government jobs and that's how he's going to "jumpstart" the economy... meanwhile he's putting the tax accountants in the country out of business.

On trade, they're going to "fight for fair trade." They want to open up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They're going to stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). They will work with Canada and Mexico to "fix" NAFTA... and he doesn't mention the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), possibly because the FTAA is not yet in place, but the DR-CAFTA was looked at as a stepping stone to an FTAA treaty.

Obama wishes to increase what was once known as the "School To Work" program. Supposedly to help workers adapt to a "rapidly changing economy," they want to create "flexible education accounts to help workers retrain" and provide "retraining assistance for workers" where people are "vulnerable to dislocation." I'm sorry, but what happened to people taking responsibility for themselves? If you can see that the industry in which you work is in deep trouble, then go get some training for yourself and change jobs! (Hint, hint -- people working for GM.) They're also going to create a new jobs training program for "Clean Technologies."

Somehow Obama is going to make sure that companies are not financially benefited by moving their operations overseas. I'm not sure how he's going to do this because he doesn't say. Maybe he's not sure, either.

Also, Obama "will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs." He doesn't state what these specific policies might be, but I have a question. How can he create a new policy that has already been proven?

Barack Obama is also going to improve our economy by creating "new jobs through national infrastructure investment." I am beginning to think this guy has no interest whatsoever in the private sector except to dismantle it. He is going to create a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments.

And this one? I just need somebody to tell me what it means:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country. What in the heck is a public-private business incubator??

Obama will increase the minimum wage and ensure it rises every year.

He will ensure freedom to unionize. I really hadn't realized this was in jeopardy. I know more people who would prefer to opt out of the union and are not able to than I do who would like a union and can't have one. (Or perhaps this is again directed at Wal Mart?) Obama will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. See, I have an issue with this, too. If a group of employees are refusing to come to work, and there are other able bodied people there willing to fill those places, why shouldn't the company be allowed to replace those refusing to work? Rendering the employers completely powerless doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.

Obama is going to "reform bankruptcy laws." He is going to cap interest rates on payday loans at 36 percent. Frankly, anybody willing to pay that has to be insane anyway... and should probably seek some sort of help. They're going to "encourage responsible lending institutions to make small consumer loans." Get this: "Obama and Biden will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Insitutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business." Well.... kind of hard to drive them out of business when you're handing them billions of dollars in bailouts! And I don't know that I would want the government "encouraging" my bank to make certain kinds of loans anymore. We all saw what happened the last time they did that! And he's going to create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses, creating a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet. Does anybody else see how all this costs an incredible amount of money? Where is it going to come from?? Back to that loaves and fishes thing again...

They're also going to balance work and family life for us. "Obama and Biden will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules." That's a tall order, really.

They want to expand the FMLA to be enforceable with even smaller businesses and to cover more purposes. Employers would be required to allow time off for elder care needs, for parents to participate in their children's academic activities, and leave to address domestic violence.

This is an awful lot to take on -- and some of it is just downright scary. But since, according to Louis Farrakhan, Obama is the new messiah, I guess it really is a loaves and fishes thing.

My best advice to you is this: grab your wallet, grab a shovel. Go to your backyard and dig a big hole, insert your wallet. Fill in with dirt, packing it down hard so the government can't find it. Because this economic plan is what they're all saying is a shoo-in come November.

The Investigation of Governor Palin

2008-10-11T16:34:00.002-04:00

I think we all know by now that politics can be a very dirty business. A thick skin (preferably one tanned into leather) is required. But I have to say, I find the hoopla over Governor Palin to be one step short of hilarious. One step short simply because while ridiculous, I cannot actually find it funny - and I'm a twisted soul, thinking politics is usually full of some good humor. But this stuff is just downright ugly. Let me explain.

I opened my browser today to the headline, "Palin Denies State Report She Abused Power." I thought, "Well, this one I have to see..." And I'm glad I did. What I would like to do is highlight the scandal for you in its entirety - so that you can see this in the same light as I do.

Back in 2005, Mike Wooten was on his third marriage, being married to Sarah Palin's younger sister, Molly. Their marriage was not a fun one, apparently. On April 11, 2005, Molly filed for divorce and a protective order against her husband. They had been married for four years. After several complaints, the state police opened an investigation into Wooten's conduct. This investigation led to the Grimes Report, which noted that "unacceptable conduct appears to have continued and even escalated," and "clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and, at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period." And that, "a civilian investigated under similar circumstances would have received criminal sanctions."

In spite of this, Wooten continued to be assigned to patrol the neighborhood of the Palins' family.

There were further accusations (of death threats made by Wooten, of Wooten scamming disability pay while not injured, etc...) but these things, as far as I can figure out, were not included in his suspension. Whether this is because the accusations were not substantiated or because the suspension had already taken place, I don't know.

Palin herself never contacted Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan regarding Mike Wooten. Todd Palin, however, did. And Frank Bailey (of Palin's administration) did on February 29th of 2008. They wanted to know why a person with this checkered past was (and is) still serving as a police officer. Monegan refused to fire Wooten.

On July 11th, Governor Palin decided that Monegan would be a better fit for the state Alcohol Beverage Control board, and she asked him to transfer. He refused and was relieved of his duties. According to Palin, Monegan was not supportive of the direction she wanted to take Public Safety (disputes over budgetary issues and the filling of trooper vacancies) and was insubordinate.

An investigation of Monegan's firing was launched on July 28th of 2008. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hollis French (a Democrat) managed the inquiry. On September 2nd, French told ABC News that the investigation could lead to an "October Surprise" for the GOP ticket.

The official report concluded that Palin abused her power as governor and violated state ethics law in trying to get her brother-in-law fired from the state police and that Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal, but Palin had the authority as governor to fire him.

A few more facts to consider when making our judgment:

Since Mike Wooten's divorce from Molly, he has already been married and divorced again.

In an interview with CNN, Wooten admitted to tasering his stepson "in a training capacity." His stepson was ten years old. He admitted to shooting the moose illegally. He denies drinking and driving, although there was sufficient evidence of this that he was disciplined for it, and he denies having made death threats against the Palin extended family. He admitted to the interviewing reporter that he has "issues" with relationships.

In the same interview, CNN asked Wooten what he would like people to know about him and his response was, "My priorities are my children, being the best father I can be... my job, being the best trooper I can be for the state, for the citizens... I was young, I made mistakes. I was punished for those mistakes, learned my lesson. They're behind me, I'm trying to move on and be the best dad I can be to my children and be the best trooper I can be. You know, I love my job and I love this state and those are my priorities." Really??? You were young? That's your thinking? This was three years ago. The I-was-young excuse usually needs a little more growing room before one can effectively use it. Also, the man was suspended for five days - five days!! And we are to conclude from this that the severity of that punishment enabled him to realize his grievous error? Sorry, but... I really doubt it.

In light of all this, here's how I see things:

Why in the world are they investigating Governor Palin and not the Public Safety Commission? Why would they allow someone with this history to continue "serving" as "public protection?" Does it strike anybody odd that the government officials are this unconcerned with public safety? Would anybody like to volunteer to have Mike Wooten come and patrol their area?? I sure wouldn't!

But here's where the politics of the matter get really interesting. Alaska State Senator Kim Elton said that about 1,000 or more pages of documents compiled during the inquiry against Sarah Palin will remain confidential because they "involve private personnel matters." Isn't that interesting? They get to publish a conclusion without revealing a bunch of facts... and then Elton goes on to say, "I believe that these findings may help people come to a conclusion on how they should vote" in the presidential election. Guess what? Elton is a Democrat.

Isn't it interesting how partisan our politics have become? And to try and take down the Republican ticket this way is... well, yucky.

You can all look back on my previous posts to see how disenchanted I am with the Republicans right about now... so I'm certainly not feeling like a partisan myself in writing this particular blog. But given all the evidence, I think they're really hitting Palin below the belt here. It's just not right.