The Right Slant 2009
Freedom on the auction block
December 31, 2009
Prior to the mid-19th Century, town squares often included an auction block. On those auction blocks human liberty was bought and sold like livestock, cotton, tobacco, or any other commodity. It's not a prideful part of our nation's history.
However, such transactions aren't a scar upon the United States alone. Nor was slavery invented here, contrary to politically correct notions. Nearly every nation, culture and race has engaged in selling human liberty. In some parts of the world it is still openly practiced and culturally acceptable.
Advanced societies have long since abandoned auction blocks. What's unique about the United States is that we ended legal slavery at an earlier age--less than 100 years--than other nations in which it's been practiced. Yet there remains one place in America where selling human liberty is routine and celebrated: the U.S. Senate.
Look at how the Senate healthcare bill unfolded. Lacking needed votes, Sen. Harry Reid and his minions opened our wallets and went shopping. When the spree was complete the votes were there and the bill moved forward.
It began with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), once a critic of the Senate plan. But when Reid sent $300 million to the bayou Landrieu had a change of heart. One Washington Post writer concluded that her payoff could look like a bargain before the wheeling and dealing was finished. That writer might be a prophet.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) sought $100 million from a series of amendments that will spread money around the country faster than Sooners can cross an Oklahoma prairie. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, grabbed $10 billion for his state. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) won concessions that will exempt 800,000 elder Floridians from the bill's proposed Medicare cuts. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) garnered up to $100 million to offset Medicare costs in his state.
The American Medical Association got a piece of the action, too.
Medicare fees for physicians disappeared, as did subsidy cuts to selected physicians. Taxes on cosmetic surgery were dropped in favor of a 10-percent tax on tanning salons. In return the AMA, which apparently has more pull than the tanning salon lobby, endorsed Reid's bill. The entire process is enough to make your head spin, or your stomach turn.
To be bought and sold in such manner is an affront to all a person is or ever will be. But, strange as it sounds, it isn't the ultimate insult. To see our liberty sold by our representatives and bought with our money takes pain and abuse to a new level. It's like opening a wound, filling it with salt, then bandaging it with concertina wire.
Yet supporters defend the treachery as standard Senate fare. Sen. Charles Schumer said it's why we have a Senate. And Harry Reid called the vote-buying and pork-barreling “compromise”. Both are as far from legitimate Senate action as the East is from the West.
The Senate's job is to enact laws within constitutional limits that protect life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and state's rights, not circumvent them all. And compromise isn't paying Senators to sacrifice their principles to Harry Reid's perverted image of the public good. Deeds that Senators defend as compromise would get the rest of us jailed for bribery.
Liberty can't forever suffer the selfish maneuverings of a recalcitrant government. Congress has become the chains of our subjugation. Maybe we can stop this assault on liberty. Maybe we can't. But if we stand idly Congress will continue to sell us and our freedom without a second thought.
Our constitutional, legislative and human liberties are on the auction block whenever Congress is in session. Each time a vote is sold or bought the auctioneer's gavel falls and what remains of our liberty is presented to the highest bidder. Isn't it time to bury this custom once and for all?
Lessons from the first forty-five years
December 24, 2009
Today marks the forty-fifth year I've walked God's earth. That's not long when you think about it. Certainly my life hasn't witnessed the changes that previous generations saw.
For instance, my grandmother--born in 1904--saw transportation change from the horse and buggy to the automobile. She saw the steam locomotive give way to diesel and a simple aircraft become a space shuttle. Radio ascended and television was born. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both rose and fell. There was a Great Depression and enough war for any one person short of Gen. Patton.
It seems that my brief existence pales in comparison. Even so, I and my contemporaries have witnessed some interesting events and amazing innovations.
In my childhood television was a black and white screen that received only VHF signals, with only two channels available. One afternoon my father brought home a UHF converter and our viewing opportunities doubled. Four channels. Let's hear it for technology.
Today there are hundreds of cable and satellite networks, with each dedicated to a specific interest. There are sports channels, music channels, food channels, news channels, you name it. Ironically, there seems to be no more worth watching now than there was then.
Eight-track tapes came and went, thank goodness. Cassettes did likewise. Vinyl records succumbed to the compact disc, which are now falling victim to the I-pod. Video games consisted of two white lines that batted a small dot across a screen. If you had “Pong” you were at the top of the childhood heap. But it wasn't exactly a PlayStation or an X-box.
Computers smaller than a notebook are infinitely more powerful than the ones used to launch Apollo 11, which apparently means they crash with greater frequency. Neil Armstrong's “one small step for man” came into our living rooms via a grainy black and white transmission. Now the reusable space shuttle has become obsolete and space launches are considered routine if not boring.
Walter Cronkite was America's newsman. His voice was calm and measured, encouraging a nation's trust. I later realized he was just another media mouthpiece and an apparent ally of our enemy in Vietnam.
Speaking of Vietnam, that war became the confirming moment in how America approaches war. In Vietnam our troops would take targets only to be pulled back after their victory. Predictably the enemy would reoccupy the area. Within days we would send troops to take the same location again. It was a recipe for frustration and futility. And in some ways that is how we have managed war in the post 9-11 era.
America once fought its enemies tooth and nail. War was waged against an entire nation, not just the uniformed military, and nothing less than victory was sufficient. Now we want to fight military personnel while building goodwill and trust among the civilian population. Do we not realize that civilians are the friends and family of the uniformed military, for that is where soldiers come from?
Also during Vietnam Hollywood celebrities--can you say Jane Fonda?--sided with the “oppressed” Vietcong or North Vietnamese Army. During current wars Hollywood celebrities side with, well, I guess some things haven't changed at all.
American society and Western Civilization were once secured on a centuries old morality. That has been turned inside out. America has produced a fundamental human and constitutional right to abortion when no such language appears in the Constitution. Sexual depravity, while it has always existed, is now celebrated. In fact, the definition of normal has been altered to exclude normality altogether.
Illegitimacy rates were once low and unwed pregnancy was considered shameful. Now it is nothing extraordinary and illegitimacy rates increase in conjunction with government dependency. A president taught a generation that oral sex isn't really sex.
Technology has changed. Morality has changed. The world in all facets has changed, in some ways for the better and in others for the worse.
According to Center for Disease Control estimations I have 30.8 years left to live, meaning I'm far more than halfway to the end of the line. Please indulge me a birthday wish or two. May positive changes continue unabated while those for the worse are reversed. And when the sons of my generation reflect on 45 years of life may they see only change for the better.
The role of proper government
December 20, 2009
Congratulations to Gaston County (NC) resident David Williams. It's not everyday that a man gets the opportunity to speak before a congressional committee. What's more, Mr. Williams apparently gave a good account of himself. He presented his material logically and reasonably, qualities which are in short supply in Congress these days.
Mr. Williams' focused on one of the federal government's legitimate duties, the census. Article One; Section Two of the U.S. Constitution directs the central government to conduct the census every ten years. The purpose is to determine appropriate representation and taxation. Adherence to such constitutional processes hasn't been high on Congress' list either.
However, I found one of Mr. Williams' points troubling. He said the census is used to distribute federal money. If more Gaston County residents complete the census the county will receive more funds from Washington. I assume that would hold true for any county. It is Williams' goal to ensure that his county doesn't get shortchanged.
This isn't a criticism of David Williams or his role in promoting the census. He has a job to do and seems to do it quite well. I'm not placing any blame on him. But it disturbs me that the federal government considers the census a tool for distributing money that first belonged to us.
Leave it to Congress to twist a constitutional duty into a self-perpetuating rewards system. It is not government's role to distribute wealth by the numbers. So, let's consider government's purpose.
Food and shelter are basic needs. Is it government's role to provide them? To think so requires an unusual view of rights. For a right to be a right and not a privilege it must demand no forced sacrifice from another person. Otherwise there would be no check on what government can confiscate in the name of the common welfare. It is no more the role of government to meet the needs of able-bodied individuals than it is to corrupt the census.
How about the equal distribution of wealth? In order to accomplish that goal some government bureaucracy or commission must possess the wisdom necessary to determine what constitutes equal distribution. Can any such board or panel exist? Who, other than God, is qualified to arbitrarily establish a person's worth?
The only fair method for wealth distribution is an individual's contribution to society. Free exchange between people, not government whims and biases, is the only legitimate means of distributing wealth among free people.
How about saving the earth? Is that a function of government? Perhaps in part, but not in the context of current climate debates. It is highly presumptuous to believe that man's activities can render earth unlivable. Certainly we can cause environmental harm to a degree, meaning sensible laws to curb pollution are worthwhile. But it's not government's role to use conservationism as a tool for spreading collectivist doctrine.
It isn't government's job to manipulate the housing industry or the mortgage market in pursuit of “social justice”, to force free people to purchase health insurance, or to ensure the perpetual reelection of incumbents. So what is the role of government as it pertains to free men?
All men are created equal. They receive from their Creator certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure and protect these rights is the role of government, the proper authority for which comes at the consent of the governed.
Government's most basic role, plain and simple, is to ensure that each individual can live freely and pursue their happiness without guarantee that happiness will be found. It is my hope that David Williams' diligence in promoting the constitutionally mandated census won't be used to further the power of self-indulgent politicians. But I suspect it is a false hope.
Climategate” aside, skepticism reigns on climate change
December 14, 2009
The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is in hot water, and it isn't due to global warming. East Anglia's scientists produce the data that form the gospel according to Al Gore. Now, thanks to a computer hacker, we know their research has been tweaked to produce predetermined results.
CRU data, the cornerstone of man-made climate change, is in question. And rather than face the possibility of exposure the scientists involved devised ways to keep undesired data secret, or to delete it altogether.
If these scientists were climate change skeptics they'd be summarily dismissed. “Shills for Big Oil,” their detractors would charge. But since they promote climate change their malfeasance is excused or ignored. Are they not shills for “Big Gov”?
But climate change skepticism doesn't require scientific fraud or manipulated data. Skepticism requires no degree in climatology, meteorology, geology, or other related field. All that's needed is a degree of common sense and a little research.
California regulates open fires, wood burning stoves and fireplaces because of climate change. Burning wood, green crusaders reason, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and accelerates global warming. But fire isn't new technology. Wood has burned since the first lightning strike and will continue as long as the world turns. Nothing could be a more natural part of our environment.
How about industrial pollution? Smokestacks are a relic; a mute tribute to the industrial age. Their pollution, we were told, was destroying the planet. New technologies allow power plants and factories to operate without those smoke-belching behemoths. Fast forward to 2006 and pollution becomes our savior.
Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, suggested that pollution is the key to combating climate change. His plan is simple. Balloons would carry heavy guns into the sky and spew sulfates into the stratosphere, which would reflect solar radiation and cool the planet.
Sound crazy? Not to everyone. NASA's Ames Research Center held private meetings to discuss re-polluting the skies that we formerly cleansed. NASA, if you'll recall, is a leading proponent of man-made climate change.
Doesn't global warming mean that the entire globe warms? Well, maybe not. In 2005, the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK argued that man-made climate change would stop the flow of warm air from the tropical Atlantic Ocean toward Europe. Not only is global warming man-made, it will produce a European Ice Age.
So, warming means cooling and cooling means warming. But that's not the only part that's confusing. The last time this Atlantic conveyor shutdown was 12,000 years ago, around the end of the Ice Age. A slowing of this process is also suspected to have occurred during the Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1850. Whatever the cause and effect, such a process is not unprecedented and has occurred without SUVs, coal-fired power plants, or incandescent light bulbs.
How about this? According to environmentalists, one of the prime contributors to global warming is deforestation. We must protect the forest canopy from loggers and wildfires. Or not.
According to a 2006 report from James Randerson, a science professor at UC-Irvine, a reduced forest canopy--say from a wildfire--would reflect sunlight back into space. Other research suggests that forests in colder climates raise temperatures as trees absorb solar energy. However, the co-author of the second report, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, cautions that following these findings is also detrimental to the environment.
Then there's the Petition Project, where more than 30,000 scientists bucked the “consensus” on climate change. And there's Al Gore--Captain Planet himself--who stands to profit big time from the climate change laws and regulations he champions. He refers to this conflict of interest as capitalism, which he defends for himself but condemns for everyone else.
Hopefully, Climategate is the torpedo that sinks this nonsensical ship once and for all. But it's only the latest in a long line of insults to common sense that drives environmental skepticism.
Doing “nothing” can be the best medicine
December 4, 2009
Question the wisdom or motives behind congressional legislation and you'll get the predictable response: read the bill. Alright, let's try to read Sen. Harry Reid's healthcare bill, beginning with its 14-page Table of Contents.
There are nine separate Titles containing another 51 Subtitles and 23 additional Parts and Subparts. Underneath those various Parts, Subparts and Subtitles are 365 Sections and Subsections, one for each day in a year. The bill itself is 2074-pages long with each page containing 24 or 25 lines each, a total of nearly 51,000 lines. I won't even guess at a word count.
Each line, Subtitle, Part, Subpart, Section and Subsection refers to others ad nauseam. In some instances, they reference separate articles of federal law, which must be just as confusing and unreadable as Reid's healthcare “reform” proposal. Now, in order for us to believe we're being properly represented we must accept that our Senators have read and understand this bill in its entirety. Sure, and you can see the Pacific Ocean from Lawrence, Kansas.
I'll make no pretense about understanding this monstrosity. Furthermore, I don't believe the four Senators whose names appear on the legislation understand it either. Further still, I think it was written that way on purpose.
First, Senators and Representatives need not understand their legislation; they will exempt themselves from it. Second, a bill understandable to them might also be understandable to us. And that isn't how Washington operates. They prefer ambiguity and legalese that no one short of a Philadelphia lawyer can follow.
Even so, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) explained her vote to begin debate on this behemoth thusly, “It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option.”
In fairness to Ms. Landrieu her procedural vote doesn't mean she will support the legislation, and at least I can comprehend what she means. But I have to call her on the “doing nothing” part. Doing nothing can be the better alternative in a host of situations. Let's examine a couple.
Let's suppose you awaken in the middle of the night and notice an odd glow outside your window. Your neighbor's garage is on fire. You call the fire department and, being a conscientious neighbor, out the door you go. The neighbor's garden hose is close by, but the water isn't working. Then you notice a gasoline container beside the shed in your neighbor's back yard. Is it better for you to do nothing? Or, is it better for you to toss the gasoline on the fire?
Let's try another one.
Black Friday just passed, so let's assume you were out shopping. The aisles are packed with scrambling shoppers and howling kids. But one kid in particular gets your attention. This little boy just will not behave. He wants an X-box and will stop at nothing to get it.
His mother tries to assuage the situation with the typical “maybe Santa will bring it” line. But if that's ever worked on a kid it's news to me. His tantrum continues. Is it better for the mother to give the boy his way and instill in him the idea that his behavior is acceptable and profitable? Or, is it better for her to do nothing, thus letting the boy know that being a brat won't serve his goal?
Am I exaggerating? Maybe a little. But both analogies illustrate that it can be far better to do nothing than to take actions that make bad situations worse, just for the sake of having “done something”.
Healthcare needs reform, just like the garage needs a fire department and the child needs a spanking. What healthcare doesn't need is a “do something” fix that adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated system. In regard to Reid's bill, doing nothing is just what the doctor ordered.
Like any brothel, the Senate has its price
December 3, 2009
An old joke begins with a rich man in a limousine passing a pretty woman standing on the sidewalk. He tells the chauffeur to stop beside the woman and he lets his window down.
“As you can see,” he says to the woman, “I'm a wealthy man. Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”
It's a tempting offer. One million dollars; she'd be set for life. The woman considers the rich man's proposal, smiles at him and agrees that she would indeed be willing to fulfill her end of the bargain. The man smiles back and asks if she would have sex with him for a hundred dollars. The woman's smiling face transforms into an indignant frown.
“What kind of woman do you think I am?” she asks.
“We've established the kind of woman you are,” the rich man replies. “Now we're haggling over the price.”
The rich man will have to come up with far more than a million dollars to buy Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). I'm not saying that Sen. Landrieu would sell herself like the woman in the joke. But she will sell her vote, a vote for a bill with which she has issues, for a barrel of pork spending. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed at least $100 million of your money to buy Landrieu, and she's not the least bit ashamed.
“I'm not going to be defensive,” Landrieu crowed to the Washington Post. “And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million dollar fix.”
No matter the price, it's obvious that the fix is in. Thus there is little difference between Landrieu and the woman on the sidewalk. The woman in the joke was willing to compromise her morality when the price was right. Landrieu has misgivings about allowing the federal government to commandeer healthcare. Yet she is willing to compromise those principles for money. She has sold herself just as surely as any streetwalker.
I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Therefore, I won't be the first to be tarred and feathered for the analogy. However, no one has refuted the charge to a worthwhile degree. Let's go to the dictionary.
The usual definition for prostitute involves granting sexual favors in return for money. But a prostitute can also be someone who misuses or compromises their talent, ability, or position for financial gain. Isn't that what Sen. Landrieu has done? She offered her ability, in this case a vote to move forward on the Senate's healthcare “reform” plan, in exchange for federal funds earmarked for her state.
At least if she were walking the streets Harry Reid would have to use his own money to acquire her services. But since she's a senator whose vote Reid needs, he can use our money to have his way with her. Just as in the joke, we have established the type of woman Mary Landrieu is; we are simply haggling over her price. And she drives a much harder bargain than our sidewalk lady.
Landrieu defenders will argue that this is just business as usual. It's how politics works, Washington in its purest form. I don't doubt that's true. More is the pity. The nation's future is being shaped by people who willingly sell their principles and their constituents to the highest bidder. Such people have no place representing a free and thinking population.
However, can we truly blame Sen. Landrieu for selling her vote to Harry Reid? Not really. Which do you think will sell better to her constituents come reelection time? Will she win favor for having stood on principle and voted her conscience? Or, will Louisianans more readily reward her for bringing home $300 million in pork? Sadly, I think the later.
Truth cannot be denied
November 23, 2009
Truth prevails whenever it confronts fallacy, for falsehood cannot stand fact. Now for a fact. No one with a heart can excuse abortion once they're exposed to its reality. To prove this point let me present Abby Johnson, for whom reality and conscience collided in a big way.
Abby's now the target of a Planned Parenthood restraining order. Of course, anyone who protests outside an abortion clinic will draw the ire of Planned Parenthood. But Abby isn't the typical pro-life activist. She is an abortion industry insider. Until recently, Abby Johnson worked at the Planned Parenthood facility in Bryan, Texas. While there she helped women receive the 60 to 80 abortions that the clinic performed each month. Those abortions are, according to Johnson, the most lucrative service the clinic renders.
But Planned Parenthood has a problem; a picture is worth a thousand words. Ms. Johnson's outlook changed when the wonders of the ultrasound allowed her to witness an abortion firsthand. She knew right away that she was in the wrong line of work. Abby is now associated with the Coalition for Life and pickets the clinic where she once facilitated abortion.
“When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart . . . a spiritual conversion.”
King Solomon, writing in Ecclesiastes, recognized that neither the wise nor the fool could escape error. But that in itself doesn't make foolishness preferable or excusable. In Ecclesiastes 2:13 Solomon wrote, “I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.”
Light's presence is darkness' elimination. So, too, will truth and wisdom repudiate falsehood and foolishness. Those who have given their time and efforts to defend life have long known this fundamental truth. We can now count Abby Johnson--a former Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion activist--in our number. Welcome aboard, Abby. And thank God!
Clinton is ignoring history. Will Democrats repeat it?
November 20, 2009
People who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. For example, collectivist policies have invariably produced poverty and misery. Yet they are routinely resurrected, each time with the empty promise that results will be different. Such is the circle we call history. It is simultaneously completed and renewed in an endless repetitive cycle.
However, this lesson appears lost on Bill Clinton and any congressional Democrat who heeds his latest advice. Or, it could simply reflect the arrogance of the megalomaniacal politician who thinks historically proven absolutes will change for them.
The former president had several interesting instructions for Democrats during a recent luncheon. On the topic of healthcare reform, he called it “an economic imperative” that even the coldest of hearts should support.
I suppose that's true for the allegedly progressive mind. If government's role doesn't increase that might mean individual liberty will flourish. We certainly can't have that, can we? This is also where Mr. Clinton loses his historical perspective.
Nationalized, socialized, centralized--whatever term you choose--medical care isn't a magic potion that will conjure Utopia. Nations with collectivist healthcare practices experience longer waits for standard procedures than do Americans. Treatment is rationed, at least to a degree, and care standards are generally lower.
Meaningful healthcare reform means decreasing the government's role, not expanding it. There's more than enough government in healthcare and insurance right now. It is beyond naïve to think that another layer of bureaucracy will reduce costs a single penny. What it will do is shift escalating costs to a shrinking number of payers.
What will reduce healthcare and insurance costs are market forces and comparative shopping for health insurance and treatment. Voluntary exchange produces more and better goods and services, at a lower cost, than does government manipulation.
Clinton has chosen to ignore this history, or he has conveniently spun it out of context. He has also ignored the history of his own first term. He reminded Democrats that failing to “reform” healthcare in 1993 led to the Republican Revolution in 1994. But that's only true in part. Healthcare reform was a piece of the GOP's winning formula, just for a different reason than Clinton admits.
It wasn't the administration's failure to socialize medicine that sent congressional Democrats down in flames. It was their desire for socialization and the manner in which it was attempted that helped fuel the voter rebellion. But the prime reason for the Democrat's 1994 destruction was gun control, from the Brady Bill to the so-called “assault weapon” ban. And Clinton himself blamed the NRA for the election results.
Clinton also claimed that the tea party protests are signs that Democrats are advancing their agenda. “The reason tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning,” said Clinton.
First of all, “tea-bagger” is a perfectly vulgar description of a sex act, which makes it apropos for someone who has conveniently forgotten his own personal history, like Bill Clinton. However, while Democrats have won recent elections, is their agenda really advancing?
Democrats are losing ground on Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have high unfavorable numbers. Despite their majority status, Democrats aren't moving their agenda much, if at all. Look at healthcare, cap and trade, Iraq and Afghanistan, or immigration. For a party with such sizeable congressional majorities they have precious little momentum.
Bill Clinton has ignored the history of his own administration and, in doing, has advised Democrats to repeat their 1994 implosion. That wouldn't be a bad thing. But the question then becomes whether or not Republicans will repeat history and revisit their own free spending, big government ways.
I'd bet the farm on it. If there's one thing at which politicians are adept it is ignoring and repeating history.
We'd better jump to conclusions before it's too late
November 11, 2009
Maybe it's time to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after all. It's obvious that our government has no intention of winning the “war on terror.” Not only are we afraid to allow our soldiers to kill our enemies, we won't even identify our enemies.
Is it so hard to admit that we're at war with Muslims who've deemed it their divine mission to convert or kill infidels? So what if only one-percent are violent radicals? That accounts for millions of radical Muslims worldwide. Even the non-radicals have given tacit endorsement to the nutcases.
What's worse, our enemy isn't on the other side of the globe; it's within the military establishment that's supposed to fight against them. Thirteen flag-draped coffins prove this point. What is our reaction? We won't even call the Fort Hood attack what it was.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a “peaceful” Muslim, attacked his fellow soldiers, who were unarmed. Forty were wounded and thirteen killed. Now we're told that we don't know Hasan's motivation for turning Fort Hood into a shooting gallery? Please!
Hasan once attended a mosque led by Anwari al-Awlaki and frequented by three of the 9/11 hijackers. Anwari himself is known to support terrorist organizations. Even now, from his current home in Yemen, he uses the Internet to spread Muslim fanaticism. Hasan, it's said, has a deep-rooted respect for al-Awlaki.
But does the fact that Hasan worshipped in a radical mosque mean that he shared al-Awlaki's views? Our course not. Our president sat in Jeremiah Wright's loony bin for 20 years and didn't hear a single sermon. Let's not jump to conclusions.
As an army psychiatrist Hasan was charged with helping our troops adjust after concluding their combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he had become a vehement critic of both wars. He defended suicide bombers and considered our retaliation for Islam's attacks on us to be a war against Islam. Hasan once told colleagues at Walter Reed than non-Muslims should be set on fire, beheaded and have boiling oil poured down our throats.
But let's not jump to conclusions.
Just before attacking Ft. Hood Hasan gave his neighbor a Koran and promised, “I'm going to do good work for god.” He was known to use his doctor/patient privilege to spread Islam and encouraged Muslims to rise up against America. He shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as he began his assault.
But let's not jump to conclusions.
Despite evidence to Hasan's attitude our main concern appears to be for other Muslims in the armed forces. We can't have anti-Muslim backlash. We don't want Muslims offended, or even suspected. It would harm our military diversity. But there's a solution for any Muslim who might fear retaliation--get out of our military! How can any US soldier be confident that the Muslim beside him isn't the next Major Hasan, or the next jihad warrior to roll a grenade into a crowded tent?
Call Hasan whatever you want. Call him a terrorist if you like. I call him a treasonous infiltrator and saboteur; a man worthy of death. Oddly, I hope he survives so he can face court martial and execution.
Why are we so concerned with what the “Muslim world” thinks? Muslims aren't at all concerned with what we think. Frankly, I could care less about offending Muslims or their blood-drenched, bomb-scarred, suicidal religion. Having Muslims in our military at this point in our nation's history is akin to accepting Soviet enlistees during the Cold War. It's nonsense to think one's enemies can play an integral part in one's defense.
Our “leaders” are blind guides, lacking the foresight and courage to even identify our enemies, much less fight them. Why send troops to confront an enemy they aren't allowed to recognize, especially within their own ranks?
No more political correctness. We'd better jump to conclusions while we still can.
Welcome your new neighbors
November 13, 2009
Roll out the welcome wagon; some new faces might soon move into your neighborhood. If you're going to help these folks settle in--you know, show them some real down home hospitality--you should know something about them. Fortunately, I'm here to handle the introductions.
Meet John Montgomery. He is a convicted first-degree rapist sentenced to life in prison for having his way with a 15-year old girl. The rape occurred while he was on the lam, having escaped from a Guilford County (NC) prison where he was serving two years for breaking and entering and larceny. Let's just say that John is no stranger to the slammer.
Be fair; don't judge John in haste. Montgomery hasn't been the worst of the worst behind bars. His only infractions, aside from the aforementioned escape, are quitting a community based program, weapon possession and creating an offensive condition. That last one is a bit unnerving. How bad does a person have to be to create an offensive condition inside a prison?
Let's face it; John Montgomery is a sweetheart. You're going to love him. I'll bet you can hardly wait to see his moving van in the driveway next door?
Perhaps you would prefer Alford Jones? You might not have to worry about him raping your daughter. But you will have to worry about him killing her. Alford is a first-degree murderer. He killed William Turner with a shotgun blast to the chest on January 6, 1975 and has been a guest of the state ever since.
Jones is industrious; he's been a busy man while in stir. Four times he has been cited for substance possession. And that's the good news. He's also committed an undefined violation of North Carolina law, been charged for fighting and has assaulted a fellow inmate with sexual intent. It's doubtful that Alford is housed in the female correctional facility. So, like I said, the wife or daughter can sunbathe in the backyard with a care. You men might want to take notice, however. And he might just kill the whole lot of you.
Andrew Carter is a first-degree murderer who strangled his victim. But that's not all; he can give you the best of both worlds. He's two for the price of one, as it were. Andrew sexually molested his victim, too. Whether it was before or after the strangulation isn't specified. Does it really matter? Maybe. But only in whether his scorecard reads simply homicidal maniac or includes necrophiliac, too.
Carter has also been busy behind bars. He has stolen from other inmates and been caught fighting twice. Also credited to Andrew is one count of provoking an assault and one count of making a verbal threat. Your new neighbor could be a big-mouthed, murdering pervert with an axe to grind who gets his jollies at the morgue. I'll send him over for a get-to-know-you dinner.
The mild-mannered Perry Omega was convicted only of second-degree rape. Apparently, he entered the home where his victim and her children were sleeping. The victim awoke to find Perry standing over her. When she tried to run he knocked her down and raped her, at knifepoint, multiple times. Sounds sort of premeditated to me. But what do I know? I'm neither a lawyer nor a district attorney. Whatever the charge, he was once on death row.
Omega isn't boring; you have to give him that. He has committed 18 infractions since he entered prison in 1977. Fighting, verbalizing threats, gambling, weapons, disobeying orders, profane language, general laziness, Perry Omega has tried it all. The party season is upon us. Don't you know Perry would put the “festive” your festivities?
James Pone is only a second-degree murderer, meaning he intended only to rob taxi driver Neil Purdie in 1978. Pone really didn't mean to hit Purdie in the head or shoot him in the chest. And I know Pone didn't mean to leave the hapless cabbie to die in a pool of his own blood.
Pone hasn't wasted his time in the big house, either. His infractions include fighting, gambling, interfering with prison staff, theft and what might be described as loan sharking. Well, he's no worse than Bernie Madoff. Why waste his talents? When he's released he can manage mortgage loans for Fannie Mae.
How about Willie Womble? Womble is surely a hard luck story. No doubt he was wrongly convicted and the shooting that put him in prison for “life” was an accident. Womble was jailed for the 1975 killing of Roy Bullock, who was shot once in the chest and twice in the mouth. Wow, three accidents occurring simultaneously. What are the odds? Talk about your bad luck. And that's not the only trial Womble experienced. The robbery that was underway at the time of Bullock's killing must've been an accident, too.
Misfortune followed Willie right through the prison gate. Since his incarceration he has been the innocent bystander to riots, fights and assaults. He was also unfortunate enough to have a Class B offense committed in his presence. Class B offenses run the gamut from drugs and property damage to sexual matters, assaults, weapons and arson. Talk about being born under an unlucky star. You'll help Willie change his destiny, won't you?
William Baggett, here's a man who certainly deserves a third chance. Baggett is serving a life sentence for the premeditated murder of James Williams in 1976. But he began his prison career in 1968. That's why he deserves a third chance; his second chance is all used up.
One thing is for sure. Baggett hasn't wasted his time in prison. He has been involved in all sorts of extracurricular activity. Unauthorized boxing is his preferred hobby. Seven times he has been involved in some type of fight or assault. Other people's property means nothing to him, either. And Baggett has also been cited for sexual acts. Oh well, everyone needs a pastime.
If you want your skin to crawl take a look at Willard Warren. This guy has “axe murderer” written all over his face. He's got a leg up on it anyway. Warren is a former death row inmate who went to prison in 1976 for the murder of Leo Clark. Now, instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, he could settle on a street near you. And don't worry about him losing the nerve to kill. He's racked up quite a list of substance possession violations while in jail. If any pesky qualities--say, conscience, compassion, or remorse--remain in Willard he can dull them pretty quick.
James Alford committed the premeditated rape and robbery of a woman in Winston-Salem, NC more than 30 years ago. If he is released he will be a registered sex offender. In all fairness, Alford hasn't been quite as notorious in prison as some of the other inmates we've met. He might make a quiet and peaceful neighbor. He might be easy to overlook, to forget. But somehow I don't think Alford's victim has forgotten the time she spent with him.
James Johnson is another sweetheart. Yes, he too is serving a “life” sentence that doesn't mean life. What's life anyway, especially to someone convicted of premeditated murder? James Farley Hall went to his everlasting calling thanks to James Johnson. Furthermore, Johnson is a former death row inmate. Don't bother asking how a convicted murderer can go from death row to serving less than half of a “life” sentence. You'll just make your head hurt. And you can't hold the past against him. That would be judgmental, and we can't have that it today's society.
One thing is certain. Johnson couldn't have earned early parole credits for his good behavior. He has committed twenty-four infractions since he took up residence at the Graybar Apartments. Johnson has possessed banned substances, started fights, been found with weapons and had a little sex on the side. Reformed? Yes sir! He's all set to be the guest speaker at Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church.
Just to look at Porter Manley you might think he's a likely candidate for a second chance. His prison picture looks like a nice, graying, friendly sort of man. Maybe he's just a little too friendly, especially when he robs you. You see, it wasn't enough for Porter to take his victim's money; he had to take his victim's physical favors, too. You guessed it; Porter Manley is a rapist. In fact, his conviction was for rape and armed robbery. Just like Andrew Carter, Porter is his own two for one sale.
Since his incarceration he has tallied 11 prison infractions. Some are for substance possession. Some are for weapons violations. But most are for being a general malcontent. I guess, if you're Porter Manley, you figure what can they do, put you in jail? If you have a loud, obnoxious neighbor on one side, Porter can provide you with a stereophonic experience.
Friends, if you think I've been far too harsh in my assessment of the men we've mentioned thus far, then I have a deal for you. Allow me to arrange your 17-year old princess's prom date . . . with Kenneth Mathis. Mathis has been in the can since 1978, perhaps literally. He went to jail for forcing his victim, presumably a woman, into a wooded area where he proceeded to have a high old time. One problem, his “partner” wasn't the least bit interested in Mathis. Therefore he was charged and convicted of first-degree rape, which proves that his wasn't a heat of passion mistake.
Has Mathis reformed? Has prison rehabilitated him? Well, maybe, to a point. But not in a way that qualifies him for a job as scoutmaster. In April 1990, Mathis was cited for a sexual act. In June of 2000 he was again cited for a sexual act and a Class A offense, which could mean he kidnapped a fellow inmate or staff member or used a weapon to obtain said sex act. In December of 2005 he was reprimanded for assaulting an inmate with the intent of committing--can't you guess?--a sexual act.
Let's see, we have a convicted first-degree rapist who can't keep his pants zipped in prison. Yeah, he's reformed. He's earned a new beginning. Now, what time will your little princess be ready for her date?
Faye Brown is in prison for the first-degree murder of a NC State Trooper following a bank robbery. She was discussed in a previous column so I'll give her a break. I'm feeling generous at the moment.
John Martin, is he someone who deserves another opportunity? He was sentenced to life, yes. But his crime wasn't premeditated, thus he was convicted of second-degree rape. The more lenient among us could consider Martin worthy of a break. After all, he didn't plan the assault. Of course, planned or not the victim was just as raped as if Martin had stalked her all the way home from the supermarket. And the fact that he was 24 or 25-years old at the time proves that he understood what he was doing, premeditated or not.
It also seems that Martin has already used his second chance at freedom. In fact, he's used his third chance. He got his second chance when he escaped from prison in 1995. The third opportunity came with his “unauthorized leave” in 2001. Frankly, I can only make an educated guess at the difference between an escape and an unauthorized leave. But in either case Mr. Martin wasn't where he was supposed to be. Finally, 13 of his 20 prison infractions have been for substance possession.
It seems to me that John Martin has spent the last thirty-two years right where he belongs. But you'll have to decide that for yourself. Feeling benevolent? If so, and if there's a foreclosure in your neighborhood, put me in touch with your realtor. I'll pass his number along to John.
Charles Lynch appears to be a different story. He doesn't seem quite as nefarious as the other murderers and rapists whose “life” sentences are fulfilled somewhere short of life. His crime was second degree burglary. During his time in prison Lynch has received only three infractions, and none of those appear serious. Surely this man is a likely neighbor.
Don't let your heart bleed for Chuck just yet. Let's do the Paul Harvey routine. You know, the rest of the story? Lynch's burglary conviction involved two counts, not just one. He also assaulted his victim with the intent to commit rape. He broke into the home alright, but the female victim wasn't there. So Lynch, being a patient man, made himself comfortable and waited for her. He had also broken into another home and stolen a necklace. If that isn't enough, he was suspected of nine other assaults.
Having a guy like Charles Lynch move in next door can drive property values down faster than a Barney Frank sub-prime lending program.
Here's a guy that you'll certainly want to take home to momma. Steven C. Wilson received “life” in prison for kidnapping and first-degree rape. It was proven, to the satisfaction of a jury, that Wilson made a conscious choice to abduct his victim and force that person into sexual activity. Oh, I left out one little detail; the victim was a nine-year old girl. Nine years old! Not only is Wilson a kidnapper and rapist, he's a child molester to boot. Now that's neighborly, don't you think?
To confirm Wilson's qualifications as a good houseguest, consider what he has been up to in the clink. Wilson was involved in 18 prison infractions between 1978 and 2001. Seven of those involved weapons, fighting or otherwise provoking contentious situations. Of his other 11 violations, one involved an offensive condition and another was for assaulting an inmate with sexual intent. Three more were for attempted Class B offenses.
According to the Inmate Booklet provided by the NC Division of Prisons, pages 11 and 12, a Class B offense can mean several things. Combining Wilson's history with sexual matters and the fact that section B6 in the prison handbook defines a Class B offense as committing, inciting, or soliciting any sexual activity, you have to assume the worst.
Steven Wilson is a kidnapping, raping, child molesting pervert. And he could be moved in next door in time for Thanksgiving. Set an extra place at the table. After dinner he can watch the kids while you ladies chat and the guys watch football. Good deal!
Don't let this next jewel of humanity fool you. Raymond Dull is anything but obtuse. You could say he's very exciting. Ray has seen a lot of things in his life, like 33 years in the tank and the business side of death row. He's witnessed the fear in a woman's eyes as he kidnaps her at knifepoint and forces her to drive to an unknown destination. He's seen that face change from fear to the blank realization of the inevitable when he holds that knife against her skin and does God knows what.
Do you feel sorry for Raymond? Do you empathize with his plight? Okay, let him bunk with your wife until he finds a place of his own.
Raymond Dull wasn't some teenager who got a little carried away with his date in the back seat of Pop's LTD. He was a man who committed an intentional, violent and premeditated sexual crime. Will he do it again? Who knows? He might come out of prison and be the perfect neighbor. But he might come out of prison and rape someone you love. And he might take vengeance on the woman who reported the assault that landed him in the jug for half his life. In prison he won't be raping anyone. Well, at least not our wives, daughters or girlfriends.
Now, old Dewey Gray, he's another case entirely. Old Dewey hasn't seen unfiltered daylight since 1976. And you know what? He earned every last, stinking minute of it. Take a look at what Young Dewey was up to and see if you think Old Dewey is right where he belongs.
One of Gray's charges was “AWDWWITKISI”. No, that's not like “LOL”, “ROFLMAO”, or some other teenage text messaging shorthand. It means Dewey committed assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill and inflicted a serious injury. Oh yeah, he was also convicted of first-degree burglary and first-degree rape. Maybe I'm weird, but that doesn't make me “ROFLMAO”.
Dewey Gray went to his victim's home armed with a gun and a knife. He forced his way into the victim's home. He dragged her outside where her raped her, stabbed her and beat her half to death. At least Raymond Dull had the decency to take his victim somewhere private. Dewey Gray took his victim outside where all the neighbors could watch. Not only is he a creep, he's stupid to boot.
Dewey has shown no signs of changing his attitude while in prison. He's earned recognition for verbalizing threats, creating offensive conditions and for unauthorized leave. Overall, he's been a disruptive, disrespectful, uncooperative agitator with a penchant for raping and assaulting at will. Okay, so he's qualified to run for Congress when he's released.
At least Cecil Morrison didn't plan his sexual assault. At least he wasn't convicted of premeditated rape, like so many of his possible parole mates were. It's grasping at straws, but maybe he's simply depraved, not someone who worked hard at perfecting depravity. He's depraved, though; make no mistake about that.
Morrison began serving his life sentence for second-degree rape in 1977. What sent him to jail? Nothing much. He only abducted his victim, forced her into the woods and raped her at knifepoint, that's all. Sound familiar? Oh, did I mention that the victim was a 12-year old girl whose provocation was walking home from school? Twelve years old; at least that's three years better than Steven Wilson.
Not being a man to waste time, Cecil has made the most of his incarceration. Four times he's been cited for provoking an assault. Twice he's been caught stealing and twice he's committed Class B offenses, which as previously discussed can be anything from inhaling intoxicating vapors to tampering with locks to sexual misconduct. Considering the crime that brought Morrison to this point in life don't you think the Class B offense could be of a sexual nature? And I forgot to mention that he was a “Pre-Sentence Diagnostic.”
“Well, what's a pre-sentence diagnostic?” you ask.
Glad you did. A pre-sentence diagnostic is an inmate who is committed to the Department of Corrections for an evaluation. You know, mental state, ability to stand trial, that sort of thing. Apparently, Morrison was found perfectly capable to stand trial for raping that little girl. So much for the “he didn't know what he was doing” argument.
Last but not least, meet the guy who made it possible for you to meet each and every one of these fine, upstanding examples of civil behavior. Allow me to introduce Bobby Bowden. No, some FSU fans might want that Bobby Bowden thrown in jail these days. But this Bobby Bowden is everything that Bobby Bowden isn't.
This Bobby Bowden began his criminal career with a conviction for common law robbery on February 26, 1973. He began his seven year sentence the same day. According to the NC Department of Corrections Offender Public Information website, Bowden's projected and actual release date was one and the same, June 11, 1978. But somehow he found time to kill Larry Lovett and Normal Ehrhart in cold blood on August 7, 1975.
What does it even matter that such a discrepancy is possible? All that matters is that Bobby Bowden has argued that his sentence is complete and that he, along with everyone we've discussed, is ready to set up housekeeping on your cul-de-sac.
What a fine neighbor he will make. That is, as long as your idea of a fine neighbor is an antagonistic, foul-mouthed vandal. Bowden's prison record includes them all. He damaged either state property or that of a fellow inmate in 2003. Bowden was caught with weapons in 1980 and 2003. He possessed unauthorized funds in 2005, which could've resulted from any sort of unseemly transaction. And during the first eight years of his murder sentence he cussed out everyone in sight and steadfastly refused to follow orders.
Let's go to the scorecard. All told the North Carolina Department of Correction may soon unleash ten convicted rapists, seven of them first-degree rapists, on the general public. All ten, obviously, will have to register as sex offenders, which sheriff's deputies will have about as much chance of monitoring as the Washington Nationals have of winning next year's World Series. Five of those ten rapes involved kidnapping or otherwise abducting the victim and three of them involved the sexual assault of a minor.
Ten first-degree murderers will join them. One of those murderers was fleeing from a bank heist at the time of the killing. Two other murderers killed their victims while committing robberies. Another inmate, not content with a simple killing, committed murder in the course of both an armed robbery and a rape. Last but not least, one murderer sexually molested his victim. Whether it was pre or post-mortem isn't clear. And who cares?
Most of these inmates had criminal records prior to their murder or rape convictions. And all of them have found trouble, although some offenses were relatively minor, while in prison. Barring unforeseen events these twenty men will be back on the street pretty soon. Like the Bachman Turner Overdrive song, “the boy's are back in town.”
With the Holiday season fast approaching you'll need to plan your parties and fill your guest lists. Look at it this way, politicians have done their part. They wrote the laws that could allow these violent convicts to leave prison. The least you can do is invite them to Christmas. You can decorate the tree with condoms and body bags.
Confusion on the meaning of charity
November 6, 2009
I say that America is confused on the meaning of charity. Let's go to the dictionary.
According to Random House, charity is generous aid given to the poor. In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law charity is “a gift for humanitarian . . . or other purposes beneficial to the public.” For something to be given it's understood that the act is voluntary.
I also say that America is confused on the meaning of slavery. Let's go back to the dictionary. Random House defines slavery as a state of subjugation. American Heritage reads, “the condition of being subject . . . to a specified influence.” Slavery grants a person no choice of options.
When a person contributes willingly to the benevolence of their neighbor they've established charity. It is spiritually pure and morally just. However, when one person is compelled via force to surrender the fruits of their labor for another's benefit there is no charity. When government wields that force a state of subjugation is established. It's neither just nor pure and dangerously similar to slavery.
Slavery need not be enforced with chains. Physical shackles do not typify its existence and no cotton fields are required. There is neither black nor white; there's no race, ethnicity, or heritage of any kind. There is only misery, poverty and servitude. American political culture has so perverted charity that it allows the taking of property from one party for the benefit of another, thus we've rendered charity synonymous with slavery.
At some point, in the not so distant future, we could find our nation right back where it started. Not only can slavery exist, but it won't be targeted toward any one group. It will encompass the whole of society, just as it did under the British Crown.
If we awaken as slaves in our own land, bound by the dictates of an oppressive, intrusive and unconstitutional government, who will we blame? Will it be the fault of the Democrats, or the Republicans? No, the prime author of our subjugation won't be a political party. They will have played a key role no doubt. But we can't place the blame solely on them.
Maybe we can blame Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or some other politician? Most have contributed to the demise of the American experiment. Most have used their power to expand the role of government in our lives and usurp our natural liberty and right of self-determination. But no president or politician, past or present, can take all the credit for our waning autonomy.
The Founding Fathers; they started this country. Can we blame them? Hardly. The Founders created a constitutional republic that limited the size and scope of the central government. The Constitution and its amendment process also established the means to end slavery as it then existed, although that didn't happen as fast as it should have.
Maybe we should blame God? Absolutely not! God made man to be free, to think and to reason. This is evident throughout the Bible, wherein God repeatedly grants a choice to man. No, we aren't compelled through divine authority to be enslaved, or to enslave one another. Nor are we compelled to think it charitable to force a person to serve the needs of their neighbor. Spiritual charity is inherently voluntary.
The blame for America's descent toward servitude lies directly on us, the electorate. Not only have we ignored our impending chains we have openly embraced them. We have defined charity as government taking the production from one American and giving it to another. And we have lost touch with the practical definition of slavery.
We've become gutlessly apathetic concerning freedom and wholly ignorant of both charity and servitude. When we awaken as slaves in our own land the lion's share of blame will fall on no one but us.
Government fails a basic function, again
October 28, 2009
Ask people to name government's basic function and you'll get a multitude of answers. But ask people to name five basic functions of government and I'll bet the farm that keeping violent criminals in prison will appear on nearly every list. So why is that so difficult for government to do?
Politicians can find money to build a theatre for Dolly Parton's tenth cousin thrice removed. There are funds aplenty for tea pot museums, sports arenas, light rail systems and pork barrel vote buying. Laws are readily written to suck every expendable dime from your income, to steal your liberty, or to make it virtually impossible to dispose of your household garbage. Yet funds can't be found and laws can't be written to keep predatory vermin off the streets?
Get ready, here it comes again, if North Carolina releases twenty violent convicts as currently planned. A 35-year old sentencing law apparently defines life in prison as 80 years. Thus the twenty convicts--led by Bobby Bowden--think they have fulfilled their “life” sentence obligation.
Here's an oddity; all twenty are still alive, meaning they haven't served “life” in prison at all. Not a single one of those inmates has served even half of their 80-year “life” sentence. In fact, those 20 inmates owed the civil population 1600 combined years of prison time. Yet, if released as currently planned, they will have served only 644 total years. Somewhere, someone owes us 956 years in the jug.
There is an equitable solution. If politicians are unwilling to require violent offenders to do their time, perhaps those same politicians should do it for them. Obviously that's a pipe dream, so we're left to ponder where those missing years went.
Good conduct credits. That's why a convicted murderer's or rapist's 80-year “life” sentence is neither 80 years nor life. However, I'll bet that Larry Lovett and Normal Ehrhart don't see their sentences reduced one day. You see, both men died on August 7, 1975 when the aforementioned Bobby Bowden, sans judge or jury, sentenced them to eternity without parole. No amount of good behavior will pull their bodies from the grave. Concern for Bowden's eternal destiny is valid and admirable. Conversely, for government to have established laws that allow his release from prison is wholly irresponsible.
Now, back to this good conduct business. Even if Bowden isn't the worst inmate in penal history he hasn't been a member of the penitentiary scout troop either. Bowden has racked up 17 infractions since he hung out his shingle at Central Prison. He's been cited for disobeying orders, which could be of either major or minor significance, for damaging property and possessing weapons. But of course he is “reformed” and ready to assume his place in society. Yeah, right.
The other 19 inmates set for release are just as notorious as Bowden. Among their number are first and second degree murderers, rapists of women and children, kidnappers and armed robbers. Every one of them has found trouble in prison, too, ranging from simple possession to fighting to sexual assaults on fellow inmates. They are hardened criminals, not people who have paid their debt to society.
In fairness to elected and appointed officials, passing laws won't prevent criminal behavior when a person has determined to act criminally. However, it is the prime duty of government to ensure that such criminals can't repeat their offenses. The fact that the inmates in question can be released is substantive proof that government is fundamentally incapable of performing this basic task.
Worse still--and the greatest indictment against our intelligence--is how the politicians who write our unwieldy and ineffective laws, and create the unmanageable bureaucracies that administer them, can convince us of their insight and understanding each and every election year.
Shouldn't we be just the least bit tired of their continual malfeasance and campaign pandering?
Apologizing for convicted murderers makes no sense
October 21, 2009
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can get warm and fuzzy over convicted murderers and tell the whole world how wonderful those people have become.
Admittedly, a person can change. They can adopt a different attitude and a new personality. But does that excuse murder? Or, have people who murder another person--the most heinous act one human being can commit against the life, liberty and happiness of their neighbor--forfeited nearly all expectations for mercy in a human court?
Faye Brown is just such a convicted murderer. She is now 56-years-old and has spent more than half her life in prison. Brown earned her living arrangements in 1975 when she and two accomplices robbed a bank. During their escape state trooper Guy Davis was shot and killed. Brown didn't pull the trigger. But she was willingly and directly involved in the entire incident. She isn't innocent.
Yet, the fact that Brown was directly involved in the death of Trooper Davis is apparently inconsequential. According to “Wanda Short,” which may or may not be the actual name of Brown's supporter, Faye Brown has rehabilitated. She has finished college and even pays her room and board. She has become the ideal person and far more valuable to society outside of prison rather than inside.
Wanda Short just can't believe that anyone could be so short-sighted as to deny this deserving woman, Faye Brown, her freedom. One mistake shouldn't define a person's entire life, according to Short. Everyone has baggage. Faye Brown just made a bad choice.
But there are glaring problems, Wanda. Faye Brown didn't just make a bad choice; she made several. She chose to drop out of school and run with the wrong crowd. Yes, many good people made similar choices. But few allowed those choices to culminate in bank robbery and murder. Faye did more than make a “bad choice” and she is carrying more baggage than a 747.
Faye Brown may or may not be the same woman who robbed that bank in 1975. But that doesn't mean the bank wasn't robbed. Brown played an integral part in that crime and in the death of Trooper Davis. Wanda Short may like the current version of Faye Brown. But she's missing the point.
Whether or not Faye Brown has rehabilitated is immaterial. The fact is that Trooper Guy Davis never got the chance to live his life. Davis faced no jury, received no trial and gets no parole. He's dead and his family had to learn to live without him. His right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were taken by Faye Brown and her accomplices. Therefore, she has forfeited her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Faye Brown didn't commit a simple crime. She didn't just tell a lie. She didn't just cheat on her husband. She made a conscious choice to take part in a robbery the end result of which was the death of another human being. I'm sure her family loves her. But why should she be entitled to the very thing she helped deny Guy Davis?
Perhaps Faye Brown won't commit any type of crime once released. Maybe she'd be a model citizen. But if Faye Brown does commit another crime will Wanda Short take responsibility for Brown's actions? She seems quite convinced of Brown's character. Will Short take Brown's place in prison? Will she bet her freedom, her family, or her life on someone who willingly took a life, or was party to that death?
I would almost bet my last dollar that Wanda Short would say yes to every question. She might even sign a document to prove her faith in Faye Brown. However, I would absolutely bet my last dollar bill that, if faced with having to fulfill the pledge, Wanda Short would fight it tooth and nail, all the while apologizing for the convicted murderer.
Who was Margaret Sanger?
October 11, 2009
Mention Margaret Sanger and you'll start a debate, perhaps a heated argument. Sanger is the greatest heroine since Florence Nightingale to some people and the worst villain since Attila the Hun to others.
So, what could produce such diametrically opposed opinions of the same person? Let's look and see.
Sanger's supporters refer to her nursing work with poor women on New York's Lower East Side during the early part of the 20th Century. They see compassion in her attempts to help poor women prevent the unintended pregnancies that so often produced family poverty. From this perspective, Margaret Sanger sounds fit to be Mother Theresa's big sister.
Detractors consider Sanger a racist, atheist and eugenicist. Oh, and we'll toss in adulteress at no extra charge. They point to her very writings for their evidence. Supposedly, Sanger referred to blacks and immigrants as “human weeds.” She advocated an application and licensing system for child-bearing and promoted birth control as a tool for creating “a race of thoroughbreds.”
Sometimes it can be difficult to separate truth from fiction. Sanger was certainly an advocate of “family planning” and no opponent of abortion. She also wrote in the May, 1919 issue of Birth Control Review that women with large families most often became “unfit breeders of the unfit.” Her writings in The Point of Civilization add to her reputation as a eugenicist.
Conversely, Sanger's other writings support the idea that abortion, while not necessarily life-threatening for the mother, isn't the no consequences decision that today's pro-choice activists claim. That's certainly true. Few women who've undergone abortions live without the emotional scars. Yet alleged feminists and family planners, most notably Planned Parenthood, treat abortion with the same indifference as taking out the household garbage.
Whether or not Margaret Sanger would approve the contemporary Planned Parenthood attitude toward abortion may be debatable. But the fact that she founded the organization isn't debatable. Let's see what her brainchild has become.
Planned Parenthood clinics have become America's go-to guys when it comes to abortion, and they do it with your tax money. According to the Christian Examiner, $305 million tax dollars went to Planned Parenthood in 2006 despite the organization having turned a profit of $900 million. They were receiving bailouts when bailouts weren't cool.
The family planning federation didn't fare badly in its 2008 fiscal year, either. According to Planned Parenthood's annual report the organization produced total revenues of over $1 billion, “excess revenue over expenses” of $85 million and year end net assets of $1.014 billion. Not too shabby for a non-profit, huh?
To be fair, Planned Parenthood provides more services that just abortions. Their clinics perform cancer screenings and STD treatments. Pregnancy tests are also conducted. However, pregnancy tests can be had at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, too. And you won't find a CPC providing the 305,310 abortions that Planned Parenthood performed in 2007, which was an increase of over 15,000 from the previous year.
At a median price of $625 per first trimester abortion, Planned Parenthood brought in a gross receipt of more than $190 million in one year from abortion alone. Do we see why they so defend the procedure?
What's more, Planned Parenthood's claim of adoption referrals, while technically correct, is misleading. The organization boasts, on page eight of its annual report, that adoption referrals increased 100% from 2006 to 2007. According that report, only 4,912 adoption referrals were made in 2007. That's 62 abortions for every single adoption referral. Read it for what you will.
You can decide for yourself whether the late Margaret Sanger was some kind of misunderstood saint or deranged societal engineer. However, she created Planned Parenthood, an organization that is anything but saintly. In fact, it has become a monster of the first order.
What should we make of Columbus?
October 10, 2007
Note: This column was written two years ago in response to the anti-Western Civilization rhetoric that flames up each year at Columbus Day. There seems to be more opinions on Columbus than there are days in the year. Hopefully, this will help people to judge his successes and faults appropriately.
On October the 8th government employees paused in honor of Christopher Columbus. The rest of us continued on business as usual, except for the banks of course. I took the occasion to reflect on what Columbus was, and I use “what” purposely because his legacy is more than a single man.
I recall some of my grade-school history concerning Columbus. He grew up poor and spent his youth sailing and studying what little was known about geography. Columbus didn't develop the idea of a spherical earth or of sailing west to reach the East. He did, however, desire to prove each theory and gain some fame and fortune for himself.
Columbus didn't gain the fortune he sought and died in poverty within 15 years of a discovery he never realized he had made. He certainly gained fame, but he didn't prove the idea of sailing west to reach India. In fact, he thought the New World was India. By modern standards Columbus would be an ignorant failure. However, he didn't live in modern times.
For his day he was certainly a great navigator and a pioneer explorer. He discovered an area unknown in his world and found his way back home. How many of us can't find our way out of the two-acre forest behind our homes? He made his voyage with sailors who believed the sea serpent-filled Atlantic Ocean had no end and the equator was so hot that the ocean boiled. Considering the circumstances, Columbus' achievement was remarkable.
Yet there's another side to Columbus, and each anniversary of his landing brings renewed scorn to his memory. Not only do his critics point out his failures, as if that were a new discovery, they charge him with raping the Utopian paradise that was the Caribbean.
Antagonists charge Columbus with establishing a genocidal pattern of murder and slavery that quickly exterminated the Arawak tribesmen. Columbus' critics maintain that the entire era of European exploration and settlement exploded into a slaughterous inquisition and that Genoa's famed mariner lit the fuse.
However, the idea that the New World lived in peace and harmony before Columbus is somewhat naïve. Yes, the Spanish abused the Taino Arawak tribe. But Columbus' critics accentuate his violence only, never mentioning that the New World had a native brand of brutality.
The Taino were rather peaceful. But the Caribs were a warrior tribe that was pushing Tainos from their land before Columbus arrived. They made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), made necklaces from a vanquished enemy's teeth, and may have practiced cannibalism. Perhaps Caribs had decimated the Ciboneys, said to have populated the Caribbean 5000 years ago, before the Spanish arrived to finish off both tribes.
The Ciboneys apparently descended from a prior culture that was nearly exterminated by yet another people. Brazil's Tupinamba Indians practiced a warrior form of cannibalism whether the Caribs did or not. And each of these tribes came from the mainland meaning that they themselves were explorers and not indigenous to the Caribbean.
I'll neither praise nor scorn Columbus and his successors. But keep in mind that most known civilizations came from somewhere and displaced someone else along the way, likely by force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered and lost since Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden of Eden, and it will continue as long as man survives. Is that preferable to living in peace and mutual respect? Certainly not, but it's reality nonetheless.
One commenter summarized Columbus thusly, “It is not history that is good or bad--history merely is. It is human nature that is good or bad; and we are all a part of it. Let's celebrate it whenever we can, each in our own ways.”
We must judge Columbus' contribution, both good and evil, on the standards of his time. To condemn him in retrospect, by modern standards, is an injustice.
How to save media news? A bailout, of course.
October 3, 2009
The most equitable way to determine successes and failures is a free market. Free markets reward efforts that meet or exceed the customer's need. But in a socialized market goods and services are taxed and regulated until producers can no longer compete with the subsidized competition.
A producer's funds are confiscated and used to prop up failing industries that have long since stopped pleasing their customers. Success is forced to relinquish its return so failure can receive reward. Furthermore, customers who won't willingly patronize the failing industries are forced to subsidize them, too.
There's nothing fair or equitable about it. Subsidies allow the government to choose winners that would lose if let to their own devices. It's an utterly corrupt process.
Nowhere is the failure to please customers better exemplified than in the national news media, where the industry leaders have little more than contempt for their customers. So far the news media hasn't been subsidized, if you don't count public broadcasting. That could soon change.
Dan Rather has become a cheerleader for a subsidized media. It's his view that the government should create a commission to establish innovative media business plans and preserve journalism jobs. This is necessary, according to Rather, because a free and independent press is the heartbeat of freedom. He has unwittingly revealed a fundamental reason for the public's waning interest in his profession.
Hasn't it occurred to Dan Rather that government involvement in the media is the antithesis of a free press? The purpose of the free press, as constitutionally protected, is to monitor government. When government is involved with the press, via subsidies or otherwise, the press is no longer a guardian of freedom but a tool of tyranny.
Thus far, President Obama has expressed some interest in a media bailout, at least for the print portion. But a bailout for one segment of the media would invariably lead to a bailout for all.
Not only would government subsidies force certain news customers to pay for a service they now reject, it would also be a deal with the devil for the media itself. Media personalities have their biases, which are apparent even when concealment is attempted. How much worse once government is funding the enterprise? The “free” press would become an overt tool for swaying public opinion, which would further disintegrate the public's waning confidence in journalism. Ironically, Rather's biases were instrumental in cultivating the public's distrust for the media.
I respect a person's right to their beliefs. But an opinion is just that, an opinion. When opinion comes packaged as unbiased reporting, well, news viewers and readers aren't as stupid as media potentates seem to believe.
When will Dan Rather--and Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Andrea Mitchell for that matter--recognize the public's weariness of left-wing puppets disguised as news anchors, reporters and journalists? There's just so much mind-numbing propaganda that a reasonable person can take.
Similar bias is standard fare on the print media's buffet as well. Small wonder Americans are turning to British newspapers while the domestic media wallows in sanctimonious denial and loathsome self-pity. News customers are speaking with their remote controls and subscription payments, and in a free market they are rejecting the media status quo.
The news media--whether broadcast, print, or electronic--doesn't need to further prostitute itself to Washington in order to survive. The profession need only stop presenting spin as news. The majority of America really isn't as stupid as the high-minded media pundits believe. Indoctrination and reeducation isn't needed. Just report the news and spare us the alleged civics lessons. The First Amendment, journalism, media customers, and the prospects for a free republic will all benefit.
Democrats' “out” pitch becoming all too predictable
September 26, 2009
Successful pitchers have an “out” pitch, something that can be thrown for a strike in a tight situation. It could be something off-speed, like a curveball or sinker. It might be heat, like a slider, cutter, or a fastball that explodes through the strike zone.
The type of pitch really doesn't matter as much as the pitcher's confidence that his “stuff” can beat the hitter. But when the out pitch becomes routine the pitcher has a problem. If the out pitch is thrown to the same location in the same situation, time after time, it becomes predictable. Smart hitters adjust and the out pitch becomes ineffective.
Race has been the Democrat Party's out pitch for as long as I can recall. Whenever facts contradict their emotions, or they lack solid footing for their arguments, they resort to shouting racism. It has worked like a charm for years. Now they're throwing the race pitch to retire opponents of President Obama's push toward socialized medicine.
Jimmy Carter has declared that racism, overt or latent, is driving opposition to nationalized healthcare. Carter's race pitch seeks to accomplish two goals: to raise the specter of racism and provide top Democrats, Obama included, with plausible deniability.
Obama can now deny that racism is driving the opponents of a nationalized healthcare system, which he has done. Yet racism, the Democrats' out pitch, remains in play. It's the best of both worlds, isn't it? No more.
Democrats have so overused the race pitch that it has lost its effectiveness. Empty-headed ideologues lodging equally empty racism charges are no longer intimidating. It has been wantonly abused, without the first fact to substantiate the charge. The Democrats' out pitch has become a hanging curveball, just begging to be hit out of the park.
Opposition to nationalized healthcare is based on facts, not race. Taxes can be imposed on businesses and individuals whose insurance plans don't meet government approval. Wording does open the door to extending health insurance to illegal aliens. Fiscal concerns are legitimate. And no one from the White House or Congress has cited the part of the Constitution that allows the central government to provide, manage, or reform health insurance.
If that's not enough, let's reverse course and throw the race pitch back at the Democrats, mainly Jimmy Carter.
So, Mr. Carter doesn't believe that a white person can disagree with a black president on ideology or policy. Thus disagreeing with Obama is pure racism. Well dig in Jimmy. Let's see if you can hit the race pitch.
Allen West is a candidate for Florida's District 22 congressional seat. He blames government intervention for our ongoing economic problems and favors tax cuts and reforms. Mr. West is committed to a strong defense and to confronting the Islamic jihad. He fully supports the Second Amendment and domestic oil production while opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mr. Carter, would you vote for Allen West? Would you support him at all? If not, you're a racist based on your own criterion. Mr. West is black.
Bill Randall is running for Congress in North Carolina's 13th District. Like West, Mr. Randall supports the individual right to bear arms and a strong military. He considers the federal government fundamentally overbearing and fiscally irresponsible, preferring individual liberty and free markets to tyranny and central planning. Like West, Bill Randall is a black man.
What about J.C. Watts, the former Oklahoma representative? What about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain and Kevin Jackson? Mr. Carter, are you so racist that you can't support these men simply because all are black?
When a pitcher's out pitch becomes predictable he must develop a new strategy to survive. Likewise, Democrats should try to develop arguments that aren't emotionally charged and intellectually vacant. The race pitch has become too easy to hit.
Death can't deify Ted Kennedy
September 18, 2009
Decency demands a certain amount of respect for the dead. Therefore, it was appropriate to allow ample time for Ted Kennedy's family to grieve peaceably. I remember when Jesse Helms died. Hatred rained down on Senator Helms before his body had time to cool. Opponents celebrated his death and hoped for his eternal damnation.
Similarly, conservatives weren't fans of Sen. Kennedy. But few, if any, conservatives wished him to the fires of hell. Proper etiquette demanded that temporary silence.
That time has passed. Kennedy has been eulogized and grieved. So, unlike many Republicans who've fawned over Sen. Kennedy's 50 years of “public service”, I'll focus on why Kennedy was so disliked. You could say I've come to bury Kennedy, not to praise him. What's more, this can be accomplished without personal malice, relying solely on his activities. That's more than the late Sen. Helms received.
Obviously Ted Kennedy won several elections. But how did he gain the Senate seat originally?
JFK opened that seat when he won the presidency in 1960. But Ted was too young to become a Senator. That was a problem for the Kennedy political dynasty. What if someone with an eye toward winning the seat in the next election filled it in the interim? Ted's career could've been over before it began.
As luck would have it, Benjamin Smith--a Kennedy family friend with no political aspirations-- was available to keep the seat warm for Ted. It worked like a charm. Smith stepped out of the way in 1962; Ted won the seat and stayed there for life.
Such a ploy may not be illegal, unethical, or even immoral. But it does smack of the backdoor shenanigans that undermine the electoral process, which means Kennedy played dirty pool.
Friend and foe alike hailed Ted Kennedy as a role model. Perhaps that's understandable for his friends, who likely share his warped moral view. But I can`t comprehend why people who oppose the nanny-state that Kennedy championed sang his praises. He was anything but a role model.
“Here we go,” you say, “time to dredge up Chappaquiddick.”
No. I don't have to mention the C-word at all. Everyone who lives outside of Bin Laden's cave knows Kennedy couldn't drive or use a phone. But what about a night at the Kennedy's Florida compound in 1991?
The Senator woke his son and nephew for a night on the town. When the night was done Kennedy's nephew, William Kennedy Smith, faced a rape charge. Guilt wasn't proven and Smith was exonerated. However, rousting two young men from their beds for a night of drinking proved the Senator's lack of judgment beyond reasonable doubt.
Before his death Sen. Kennedy encouraged the Massachusetts legislature to change the process for selecting his successor. Current law requires a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat. Kennedy supported that law when enacted in 2004 because it would've prevented Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from appointing John Kerry's replacement had he defeated Bush.
Ted Kennedy lobbied to change a law he supported, and which was passed for purely political reasons, so Massachusetts' current Democrat Governor could name a Democrat replacement immediately and preserve the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority. Imagine the outrage if a conservative had displayed such “bipartisanship”.
Kennedy's policy positions were flawed, too. From abortion and gun control to illegal aliens and taxation, the Senator favored government largess to individual liberty and world opinion to national sovereignty. What's more, he railed against the “privileged class” when he himself personified of the term.
When Senator Helms died the left pined for his eternal torment. I bring none of that to Kennedy's death. In fact, I hope he has found eternal rest and peace. However, to suddenly ignore his blatant lack of character and the effect his “public service” had on our culture and liberty is nonsense.
Ted Kennedy was no hero. We don't have to relish his passing. But we don't have to praise a man who consistently worked to expand government and limit freedom either.
Taking the high road with Thomas Jefferson
August 27, 2009
Anyone who makes their opinions public, in print or online, can expect to receive periodic hate mail. That's how the game is played. Just as the columnist attempts to provoke the reader, so does the hate mailer desire a reaction from the columnist. It's tempting to oblige.
I received such an email recently. It was self-congratulatory and totally anonymous. I should've just let it ride, like I do the other occasional hate mails. But, for some inexplicable reason, I replied to the message. As stated, it's difficult to remain silent when a reader invites abuse.
For example, this hate mailer informed me that my “southern bubba ass” will soon be a minority and my sole source of income will be cleaning toilets with my tongue. According to my new fan, such work would be perfect for an “inbred miscreant” like me.
I replied to the sender, which was taken as a sign that he had “gotten under my thin bubba skin.”
Witty, no?
It would've been easy to use this space to settle the score. I could've pointed out that it was he who initiated the contact. Had I not gotten under his thin skin I wouldn't have heard from him to begin with. I could've pointed out that the use of “bubba” carries the same connotations when directed toward a white male as the word “nigger” has when used toward blacks.
Furthermore, I could easily prove that my mother isn't a prostitute. I could point to the simplicity of a mind that considers it an intellectual insult to “dedicate a big, brown turd” to me. And I could close with the obvious conclusion that “identifying” oneself as a long-dead Civil War general (William T. Sherman) is the same as remaining anonymous.
But as I prepared to write the column I had a change of heart. In an instant I realized my folly. I had forgotten one of my favorite lessons from Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson once said that a wise man shouldn't argue with a fool, a passing stranger might not know which one is which.
Remembering Jefferson's sage advice was like a sign from God, and perhaps it was. The easy solution, the easy reaction, would be to attack my attacker. But what purpose would it serve, other than to provide momentary satisfaction?
“General Sherman” had already done more to make himself look foolish than I could do in ten thousand words. In fact, rather than anger, I felt sympathy for the general. What a small man.
His response was typically shallow. Such is the leftist way. They rely on no fact; they rely on no principle. Their main weapons are sophomoric invectives and petty jealousies. It's sad, really. How can a meaningful debate occur when one side is armed with logic, reason and a rational outlook while the other resorts to talking points, sound bites and gutter insults?
There are two lessons to be learned from this episode. First, when confronted with ignorance the best recourse is remaining silent. Or, if silence is impossible, respond with sound arguments. It will surely confuse the hate mailer, likely sending him or her into a tail-chasing frenzy. Exchanging witticisms is futile. The hate mailer has no wit, no fact, no logic and little--if any--useful purpose.
Second, the left is actually quite pitiful. The rank and file leftist has drunk deeply from the kool-aid. They don't think; they feel and react as indoctrinated. Collectivism is their religion, which they will defend beyond all rational thought. And just as sure as if Jim Jones himself were leading them, they will devise their own destruction. But perhaps the saddest part is that such a large number of our neighbors have abandoned their intellect for the pabulum common to the leftist ideology.
Mr. Jefferson was correct. Never argue with a fool.
The Beltway Zone: where minds turn to mush
August 25, 2009
The beltway surrounding the nation's capital must comprise some paranormal force capable of melting a person's mind. Nearly all life that ventures inside loses memory, common sense and contact with reality.
Politicians forget their campaign pledges and how to reconcile financial accounts. Business leaders who become lawmakers forget the most basic principles of economics, like the implausibility of borrowing one's way out of debt. The worst examples--or the most piteous--are journalists.
Once journalists join the beltway media they exit the atmosphere of planet Earth. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne isn't the only example; he just happens to be the latest.
Mr. Dionne has a problem with guns at healthcare forums, especially Obama's. He wonders why conservatives excuse the gun-toting protesters at a black president's appearance and what they might've said if leftists had brought guns to Reagan or Bush appearances.
First of all, the presence of guns--right or wrong--has nothing to do with race. People have brought guns to white representatives' forums, too. It's not just the president. Also, someone did bring a gun to a Reagan appearance. He was shot, if you'll recall. Furthermore, there were movies and books about assassinating George W. Bush.
Drop the race-baiting, Mr. Dionne. It's an empty argument and beneath the dignity of a serious commentator.
Another of his peeves is the “jackboot politics” that opponents of government healthcare employ. If you're a vocal opponent of socialized medicine you're part of an “angry minority engaging in intimidation.”
Mr. Dionne, your memory is short.
When Bill Clinton was president and his administration botched the Branch Davidian raid, federal agents were called “jackbooted thugs.” Leftists came unglued. They fully supported Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, heaping scorn upon the “jackboot” comments. As for the “angry minority”, support for the plan to “reform” healthcare is trending downward. The “minority” you lament is actually a majority, one that's weary of being ruled rather than represented.
Guns aren't the basis of American liberty, Mr. Dionne argues. It is discussion, debate and free elections that produced our liberty; violence bypasses the rule of law.
Really? Try selling that notion to the Founding Fathers.
The Colonists presented the British Crown with petition after petition and grievance after grievance. All were rebuffed. The Declaration of Independence is the epitome of reasoned and rational argument. However, if I remember my history, King George ignored the Colonists' complaints. Monarchal tyranny was halted only at the barrel of the Colonial gun.
Freedom doesn't exist if mankind has no fundamental rights. It is the natural course of government to steal those rights one authoritarian necessity at a time. Without the ability to defend liberty our rights become privileges that can be granted or repealed at the ruler's whim. Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but armed citizens are the basis of freedom, if freedom is to have meaning.
As for violence, it's the totalitarian government's favored tactic. The Romans made sport of killing Christians. Oppressing the rule of law and human liberty drove Nazi Germany to exterminate six million Jews. The Soviet Union was even worse. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Viet Cong, Islamic revolutionaries, Castro, all have used force to suppress freedom.
Those rulers stripped people of all legitimate means for defending their rights. And if armed citizens make America appear “foolish and lawless” to the rest of the world, let's remember that the majority the world's governments are themselves authoritarian regimes of some sort. The idea of limited government and personal liberty often makes America look foolish to worldly tyrants.
Visions of a right-wing armed revolution are premature. We can peacefully overthrow our government at the ballot box. However, bearing arms against enemies both foreign and domestic is the cornerstone of liberty. Failing to recognize that fundamental truth proves that Mr. Dionne has been inside the Beltway Zone too long.
Swastikas, Nazis and congressional density
August 13, 2009
Are the Nazi symbols appearing at town halls meetings and congressional district offices a sign of racism? Representative David Scott (D-GA), whose district office was defaced with a swastika, thinks so.
"We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that's bubbling up does not win this debate," Scott told the Associated Press. He also claims to have received racially intimidating emails, some of which have called President Obama a Marxist.
Race-baiting is childish whether employed by a Klansman or a Congressman, such as Rep. Scott. But calling Obama a Marxist is something akin to calling apples, apples and oranges, oranges.
The Nazi symbolism has sparked outrage, but very little in the way of logical thought. There are several ways to look at this situation, each with its own degree of viability.
First case. Neo-Nazis could certainly capitalize on the current mood to express their warped and repugnant views. But before accepting the premise that opponents of socialized medicine are the racists that Rep. Scott claims, let's remember who the Nazis were. The German Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They considered people and industry to be state property, subject to dictatorial whims.
No Mr. Scott. Opponents of healthcare reform aren't trying to intimidate you with Nazi symbols. And they certainly aren't promoting Nazism.
Second case. Mr. Scott is correct in identifying the heated arguments surrounding healthcare reform. That being the case, who's to say that left-wing activists wouldn't paint a Swastika on the Congressman's sign, certain that the offense would be blamed on the opposition?
Leftists routinely likened Bush to Adolf Hitler. They called for his impeachment and execution, even writing books and making films about how to assassinate him. They toss unsubstantiated charges and labels-such as racist, sexist, homophobe, or xenophobe-at their opposition, attempting to discredit them without having to argue the facts. That is the heart of authoritarian dogma.
Now, is it impossible that people who utilize such tactics would paint a swastika on Congressman Scott's sign? Not by a long shot. But it's not a lead pipe cinch that the Left painted the symbol.
Frankly, opponents of government healthcare could've painted that swastika on Rep. Scott's sign. But, if so, the intent wasn't racial intimidation or promoting Nazism. He who has eyes let him see, and he who has a mind let him think.
Rep. Scott, how blind and dense can you be? If town hall protesters painted a swastika on your sign they did so not to promote Nazism but to call attention to the heavy-handed manner in which you and your colleagues are governing.
You and your party are promoting a healthcare plan that few of you have read. You and your party speak about the plan as if you're familiar with every aspect. Yet when questions are raised you simply deny their viability, never offering reasons for why antagonists are wrong.
The President, a man of your party, claims to want a spirited debate over healthcare legislation. Yet when the debate turns spirited he dismisses or trashes legitimate questions about the bill's language as misleading or false. His administration establishes a snitch line and encourages Americans to become White House spies.
Have people utilized Nazi symbolism to oppose nationalizing healthcare? No question. But if those people deface property, which isn't a proper response, it's not to promote racist ideas or Nazism itself.
Some Americans are just tired of federal diktat, Rep. Scott. Perhaps they're letting you know that Washington's actions are usurping private property, individual liberty, and our Constitution. Maybe they're letting Congress know that they realize what's happening and that they're not pleased with the way Washington is exceeding its authority.
An argument is missing in the healthcare debate
August 12, 2009
Since the House of Representatives unveiled its various versions of healthcare “reform” there have been myriad reasons given for why it shouldn't become law.
Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it's better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.
He's partially correct; such decisions are part of life.
Living wills convey a patient's wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren't synonymous with the Democrats' arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.
These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn't involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.
Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.
That's not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don't carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.
All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they're so hot to pass.
Despite this dereliction of a representative's fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren't so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.
Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?
But there's one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it's an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?
All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.
Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.
Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.
Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren't representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.
The Tenth Amendment hasn't been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren't kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there's nothing subversive about holding our representative's feet to the constitutional fire.
Pitting Americans against their neighbors
August 11, 2009
Divide and conquer. It's a strategy as old as human conflict. When one party can cause other parties to quarrel among themselves, victory is all but assured. President Obama is employing this strategy.
The White House has opened what can only be described as a snitch line. Americans who receive e-mail messages opposing healthcare “reform” should forward that message to the administration at once. What can the intent be other than to attain the email accounts, and subsequently the identities, of Americans who aren't getting with the program?
There's so much wrong here that it's hard to know where to begin.
Stalin often referred to “useful idiots.” A useful idiot was someone easily manipulated into promoting the party line. Such a person became a tool of the state, functional for promoting an agenda and forcing the incompliant to accept the continued erosion of their liberty.
“Useful idiots” were useful because they were too scared, ignorant, or just plain stupid to realize how their actions trampled not only their liberty but that of their neighbors. When the “idiots” were no longer useful, they were either tossed aside or eliminated.
The Obama administration is asking you to become its “useful idiot.”
What happened to candidate Obama's pledge to unite the country? It vanished, right along with the promise to end deficit spending and take the country in a new direction. The only “change” we've experienced is the increased proliferation of the collectivist state we've been inching toward for the better part of 75 years.
Asking Americans to spy on White House opponents is divisive to the core. Friends, we're not talking about calling the authorities when a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent rushes through the airport carrying a keg of gunpowder and shouting “Allah be praised.” This is asking Americans to turn in their neighbors for disagreeing with government policy.
Obama's snitch line legitimizes propaganda. Through the simple act of establishing an email account and encouraging tattling we're being told that the government line is the only acceptable position. There's no room for debate. When concerns are raised about the healthcare bill's text the White House merely declares the fears unrealistic and moves on, never having addressed the public's concerns at all.
Enlisting public assistance in compiling an enemies list based on opposition to policy has no place in a free society. Government is here to serve us. We are neither subject nor slave, but free citizens.
Such a request on the part of the White House, even if it's never utilized, inhibits the free exchange of ideas. It is an assault on the First Amendment, in spirit if not in letter. How can anyone feel at ease airing opinions that oppose government actions if there exists the means for the State to use those opinions for political purposes?
“Well,” you counter, “what about the war protesters?”
What about them? Their right to oppose the war was never silenced. Their anger was misplaced, their actions misguided and their attitudes contrary to the preservation of our republic. But the Bush administration didn't launch a “spy line” so Americans could tattle on their neighbor's activities.
The Obama White House's “domestic spying” program doesn't enlist the people's help in stopping the local Al-Qaeda cell from making bombs in a basement down the street. It's not interested in intercepting phone calls between foreign nationals in the United States and caves in Tora Bora. The White House is blatantly encouraging its “useful idiots” to spy on their neighbors, and to turn in anyone who opposes the party line on “healthcare reform.”
It's frightening to consider how many Americans will use this email link to do just that. Scarier still is how many will consider it the patriotic thing to do.
Thoughts on North Korea's prisoner release
August 6, 2009
Learning that the two female journalists were released from North Korean custody is welcome news regardless of who gets the credit. Even though they work for Al Gore, which means two more socialist votes in the next election, it is welcome news. Maybe having experienced how collectivist regimes operate they will have a change of heart about supporting such an agenda and about working for Captain Planet.
Regardless, I have a few thoughts to offer that no one else, at least to my knowledge, has put forth.
North Korea knows these women weren't spies. Anyone who pays but scant attention to America's journalistic corps knows full well they aren't about to spy for our benefit. And they certainly wouldn't spy against a “worker's paradise” like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
The reason Kim Jong Il's repressive regime arrested, charged and sentenced these women had noting to do with suspected spying. It was to make America crawl. Okay, we crawled. Maybe we had no choice. No one wanted those women to rot in a North Korean prison for twelve years.
However, their release meant breaking from past practice, one in which America didn't cave to heavy-handed tactics. What happens the next time an American is taken hostage in some third world hellhole?
Kim Jong Il and his merry band of communist cutthroats recognized an opportunity, much like Iran did a few months ago, to poke America in the eye and dance away scot-free. North Korea now stands tall in the eyes of other small dictatorships that share the DPRK's disdain for human liberty and the rule of an evenly applied law.
Ironically, one can argue that such notions have become archaic even in the United States. Our government is expanding, our individual liberty waning and our economic freedom deteriorating at fearful rates. But that's another matter.
Congratulations, North Korea. You identified an opportunity and capitalized on it. But use caution. Your success is eerily similar to the capitalist economic model you so scorn. Also, while you may appear the unbowed bulldog in the eyes of the world's other Chihuahuas, you are still a Chihuahua yourself. Sorry. That's just how it is.
As for the two journalists, I'm sure they're elated. I can't imagine what they experienced facing twelve years in a communist prison. Regular labor in such a regime is no picnic. What must “hard labor” be like? Even so, if I were they, I would've been a little nervous about that flight home.
Bill Clinton negotiated their release. Apparently, if not for the former president they would still be jailed. They owe their freedom to William Jefferson Clinton. They owe him. Women, let that sink in for a minute.
Euna Lee and Laura Ling were locked in a jetliner, 30,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, with Bill Clinton, for twelve hours. And they owed him. Prudence, not to mention chastity, would dictate they make other travel arrangements.
Bill Clinton has, shall we say, a wayward history in his relations with women. This is especially true when he has the upper hand, such as while Governor of Arkansas, or with young interns in the Oval Office, or when someone owes him a favor. Once the landing gear was up and with all that time to kill, Bill Clinton might have decided to call in his IOUs, if you know what I mean. Can't you just hear him now?
“You know ladies, if it wasn't for me you'd still be in that musty old North Korean dungeon. I helped ya'll out of a hard situation. Now old Bill needs help with a hard situation. What d' ya' say, ladies?”
Surely a former president would have better manners. But when the subject is Bill Clinton you just never know.
Tolerance for dissent depends on the dissension
August 5, 2009
The Left loves to toss around their right to dissent. They dissent against defending the country. They dissent against the Second Amendment. They dissent against private property. They especially love to accuse political opponents of stifling dissent whenever their views are rejected.
However, for the Left to appreciate and defend dissent it must conform to their approved criteria. In short, they dissent against dissent. Let's look at it.
Remember when protesting the war was the Leftist's favorite pastime? Protesters dressed in black pajamas, just like Hamas or Hezbollah militants, and flew the flags of our enemies. Mock graveyards adorned with red crescents were erected. US flags were set ablaze and used to burn effigies of American soldiers, which were suspended with chains.
When conservatives countered their lunacy with rational arguments we were accused of abridging the protester's free speech, of stifling their dissent. The charge was nonsensical. Free speech is simply that: the freedom to speak. It conveys no right of audience, agreement or acceptance.
Conservatives didn't close anti-war protests, we just disagreed. As long as the protesters didn't aid our enemies or deny other Americans their right to conduct their lives, they could have their say.
But the Left doesn't view conservative dissension with like tolerance, or with tolerance at all. Conservatives must be silenced. It's a lesson Loren Spivack has experienced firsthand.
Mr. Spivack operated the Free Market Warrior, a kiosk at Concord Mills Mall in Concord, NC. I use the past tense because his lease has been terminated and his small shop closed. No, his rent wasn't in arrears and his kiosk structure didn't violate mall policy. In fact, he was never given reasons for his eviction, only excuses. Each explanation mall management provided was fraught with inconsistency.
The Free Market Warrior's great offense was selling material unfriendly to Barack Obama and baby bibs that read “Thanks Mom and Dad for choosing life.” Such items were deemed offensive. Yet other stores at Concord Mills sell items promoting drug use, disrespect for parents, oral sex, masturbation and other sexual innuendo. As for complaints about Loren's “offensive” items, there were two.
This isn't a First Amendment issue, which Loren readily recognizes. Government didn't silence the Free Market Warrior just as government didn't silence war protesters, regardless of what the Left claims. Concord Mills, owned by Simon Properties, is a private entity and can regulate what is sold on its property.
Conservatives recognize such property rights even when used to our detriment. Leftists don't. And there's no questioning Simon Properties' left-wing bias. Just consider CEO Melvin Simon's history.
Melvin Simon contributes heavily to left-wing causes and political candidates. He has given to Democrat candidates, Democrat PACs and organizations such as Emily's List. Very few Republicans have received so much as a dime from Mr. Simon.
That's fine, it's his money and he can do with it what pleases him. But his history does lend credence to the argument that Loren Spivack was politically targeted, which wouldn't be acceptable if the shoe were on the other foot.
Equally contradictory is Mr. Simon's aforementioned wealth, produced through the capitalist entrepreneurialism that his preferred candidates vilify at every turn. Furthermore, Simon's contributions went to many staunchly anti-Second Amendment politicians. Why, then, doesn't Simon Properties find the large array of firearms sold at Bass Pro Shops--Concord Mills' anchor tenant--offensive? That one is easy; Bass Pro Shops generates more revenue than did Loren's kiosk.
As stated, Simon Properties can do as it will with its malls and its money. But you can bet the farm that if a conservative-minded property group evicted a liberal tenant for similar reasons all Hades would boil over. Yet again, “dissent” proves to be the Left's playground while conservatives are silenced whenever possible.
Lessons learned at Harvard
July 29, 2009
It's rare to begin a column with a disclaimer. This is one of the exceptions.
The truth is that I've never attended a single class at Harvard University, a record I'm confident will remain intact until my dying day. I've never even passed the ivy covered entrance to Harvard or driven through Cambridge. Yet I've learned some lessons from Harvard, lessons that are worth sharing.
Reality dispersed the fallacy surrounding Professor Henry Louis Gates' arrest just as sure as a drop of water disperses oil. That doesn't mean the incident didn't warrant an investigation. No one--regardless of their race--should be arrested inside their home without just cause. However, jumping to conclusions before facts become evident isn't a good excuse for speaking in ignorance either. That became the norm in the Gates episode.
Sgt. Crowley's account was corroborated by other officers--including black officers--and an eyewitness. Gates' version carried the weight of Harvard, a famous and venerable institution. These men aren't stupid; they are intelligent, professional and supposedly rational.
To have formed an opinion during the investigation's early stages indicates an undeniable lack of discernment. That's lesson one. Don't form opinions without facts, which brings us to lesson two.
The president displayed an alarming lack of wisdom. When asked about the Gates arrest President Obama was quick to concede his ignorance of the particulars. Yet Obama told the entire nation exactly what he thought of the situation despite having admitted his lack of knowledge. He said it was troubling for a black man to be arrested inside his own home.
I concur. But that didn't happen to Prof. Gates; he wasn't arrested inside his home. He was arrested outside after following the investigating officer to the front porch, his belligerent attitude in tow.
Prudence, especially in a president, demands that we keep our opinions silent until we have the facts. Obama would have none of that. He spoke publicly and authoritatively immediately after admitting his ignorance, displaying a disturbing lack of judgment.
A third lesson is where racism may exist. If Gates was the target of racist police tactics or profiling, where did it occur? The scene didn't unfold at a Klan rally or in a corner booth at Denny's. It happened at Harvard University, the school where Berkeley leftists learn liberalism.
Harvard is one of the most liberal outposts in one of the most liberal areas of arguably the most liberal state in the union. We're constantly told that such high-minded institutions are nuanced and intellectually superior to those of us in the great unwashed. Yet the alleged racism took place in the heart of leftist philosophy. Oh, say it isn't so!
Addendum to lesson three. With more facts now available concerning Gates' actions prior to his arrest it's becoming apparent that racism is indeed alive and well at Harvard. Can you figure out who was stereotyping whom?
Fourth lesson, what if the suspected burglary had been real? Suppose Officer Crowley had accepted forged identification from a genuine burglar. Had Crowley then left the burglar at the scene he would certainly have been labeled a racist. Do you believe for a minute that Gates wouldn't have accused the white officer of refusing to protect a black man's property?
The fifth lesson is that race shouldn't have become a factor. There's been no proof of racism, only the unsubstantiated rants from Gates, for whom life is all about race. Sgt. Leon Lashley, a black officer at the scene, supported Gates' arrest. And black Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson called Obama's imprudent comments racist and irresponsible, and accused the president of “causing deep irreparable damage to race relations in this country.”
Racism remains the Left's favorite political tool. They practice racism from one side of their mouths while accusing opponents of it from the other. That makes six lessons I've learned from Harvard, all without attending a single class.
More petals drop from Obama's rose
July 29, 2009
In late April I wrote a column titled, “What's in a poll?” I made the case that Barack Obama's popularity wasn't as high as some media outlets claimed. Furthermore, I pointed out that his approval ratings had steadily declined since Inauguration Day. It's a trend showing no signs of stopping.
Rasmussen Reports indicates that 40-percent of Americans now strongly disapprove of the President's job performance while 32-percent strongly approve, leaving him an approval index of -8. This indicates a steady decline since my April column. Just 49-percent of Americans somewhat approve of Obama's job performance, the first time such numbers have slipped below 50-percent. And an equal percentage of Americans somewhat disapprove.
Those numbers indicate a divisive governing direction from someone once hailed as capable of bringing the country together.
Seventy-six percent of voters now see Obama as politically liberal and 48-percent view him as very liberal. Both numbers have increased significantly since Election Day. Theories abound as to why America didn't recognize Obama's collectivist tendencies last year. But they're recognizing them now, and the news only gets worse for the 44th President.
Three-fourths of Americans believe that government spending will continue to rise under Obama while just 12-percent expect a tax cut. This means most people think the President is lying when he regurgitates his claim that taxes won't increase for 95-percent of all Americans. Compounding the bad news for the administration, a wide margin of likely voters think tax cuts, not spending hikes, will spur the economy. Obama's snake oil isn't selling like before.
Speaking of the economy, Americans rate our economic condition as the nation's main problem. Alright, so you knew that without the aid of polling data. But only 29-percent trust Obama to make appropriate decisions concerning the nation's future economic growth. Small wonder consumer confidence is eroding.
On the trust meter, less than 40-percent see Obama as more ethical than other politicians and just 32-percent see him wearing the magical mantel of bipartisanship. Perhaps more disturbing for Obama is the overall mood of the country.
Six in ten likely voters say the nation is on the wrong track. That number is actually slightly better than recent weeks, but still represents a steady decline in public confidence since the week ending May 10. It's worse news for the Obama administration than it appears on the surface.
Obama didn't receive 61-percent of the vote in the last election. Some of the people who voted for him apparently don't think he is providing the hope and change he promised. In fact, it would appear that people are now associating him with more of the big government, free spending politics that have soured our economy, circumvented our Constitution and compromised our liberty.
However, Republicans shouldn't see these numbers as cause for jubilation. A majority of Americans still blame Bush for our economic state. And despite the public's growing skepticism of the Democrat's socialized medicine and cap and trade scams, Republicans have garnered only a slight lead in the generic congressional ballot.
Maybe that last tidbit of information is our ray of sunshine. A solid majority of Americans trust their own economic instincts above government meddling. That's good news. People exchanging voluntarily in the free market make economies grow, not Washington politicians and bureaucrats regardless of their party affiliation.
Now, will America act on its disgust with the two major parties, which differ mainly in the degree of tyranny and socialism they are wiling to impose on us? Or will we continue to allow congressional charlatans to steal our liberty and compromise our future?
The petals are falling from Obama's rose, revealing the sharp thorns that were beneath the bloom from the beginning, while freedom's fruit is ripening. Let's pick the fruit and leave the fading flower to wither on its thorny stem.
To preserve our freedom, revisit the "Three R's"
July 22, 2009
Whatever happened to teaching, learning and practicing the “Three R's?” In schoolhouse terms the "Three R's" were “reading, `riting” and `rithmetic.” Of course, that's somewhat of a misnomer. Everyone knows that only one of the "Three R's" actually begins with “R.”
I raise this point so the English teachers of my distant past won't consider their efforts wasted or their work futile. That said, and as mislabeled as the classic version of the "Three R's" may be, there exists “Three R's” that are spelled correctly. They are essential to a capitalist, free market economy and a liberty-oriented society.
These "Three R's" have become increasingly unpopular over the last 70 years and are now belittled or ignored outright. Yet without these basic, core principles there can be no liberty and prosperity will be determined through government decree, not according to an individual's contribution to society. These “Three R's” are risk, reward and responsibility.
There's an old saying, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Perhaps that's not the technical definition of risk, but it's a good start. Risk means to place what one has in jeopardy in order to realize greater satisfaction later on. America was built on risk takers large and small.
Our earliest settlers placed their very lives at risk to achieve a higher level of personal and religious freedom. The Founding Fathers risked their lives and fortunes to pursue independence. Pioneers braved disease, weather extremes, hostile Indian tribes and a host of other perils to seek new fortunes on the Western frontier.
Investors risk their time, monies and reputations in pursuit of invention and innovation. Risk is as intertwined with the American experience as automobiles, baseball and apple pie.
Risk naturally brings reward. The greater the risk the greater the potential reward may be, which manifests either positive or negative. Obviously, a positive reward is the desired result of risk. No one takes a chance without the possibility of reaching their desired outcome. But positive results aren't guaranteed.
The negative reward can also be a valuable experience. Thomas Edison once said, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” Edison took risks and his rewards in failure were many. But his rewards in success shaped our world.
Whatever the outcome, good or bad, there's no reward without risk and no risk without reward.
The third “R” is responsibility; the most important of the three. Risk cannot be taken unless the responsibility for the reward is accepted personally. A free person cannot demand the responsibility for their risk be placed upon their neighbor. Such an attitude is a grave injustice, yet it has become the norm in modern America.
Quasi-capitalists love the positive rewards that their risks generate. But how do such “capitalists” fare in accepting responsibility when the reward for their risk is negative? Trillions of dollars in bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare and government co-option tell the story.
Low achievers do likewise. Their risk is found in their lack of preparation and effort, or in making unwise decisions. The reward is often poverty. However, many such people aren't shy about selling their vote to politicians who promise to foist responsibility onto unrelated third parties. The result is a federal budget bloated with unconstitutional entitlement programs, quota systems and various personal subsidies.
People will readily take the risks inherent in smoking, sexual promiscuity and sundry vices, savoring the positive rewards associated with instant gratification. But when the reward is negative--such as cancer, pregnancy, or AIDS--responsibility falls on everyone but them.
The "Three R's" are essential to preserving our liberty and our republic. Remove one and the others will crumble. Risk, reward and responsibility are to freedom what reading, writing and arithmetic are to intellect. For as long as we deny that basic truth we'll continue our slide toward servitude.
Climate change doomsayers reach a fevered pitch
July 16, 2009
I'm a traitor. That's right, I've committed treason. And we're not talking about the run-of-the-mill, sell-out-your-country kind of treason. That stuff is for amateurs like Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs. I've sold out the entire planet.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says so, therefore it must be true. The Times certainly wouldn't print false information now that Jayson Blair is gone.
In fairness to Mr. Krugman his treason charges were aimed at congressional opponents of the cap and trade bill, not at obscure web columnists such as me. But no doubt his target is anyone with the audacity to question man-made climate change and the omnipotent government it promises. Mr. Krugman, climate change science is anything but settled and consensus does not make science.
Mr. Krugman points out that MIT research predict a nine-degree temperature escalation by 2100. That's a compelling assertion; MIT is a prestigious and respected institution. However, Richard Lindzen takes a different view. He says the fears of man-made global warming are silly and amount to children hiding in dark closets trying to scare each other.
“So what?” you say. “Who is Richard Lindzen anyway?”
Oh, didn't I mention that he's a professor of atmospheric science at MIT? Excuse my oversight.
Of course, one dissenting voice could simply be the crazy uncle in the attic. But lunacy isn't a qualification for a professorship at MIT. Eccentricity maybe. But not lunacy. Professor Lindzen is neither loony nor alone in his assessment.
Ian Plimer is a professor and geologist at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He says our climate is changing just as it has always changed and there's nothing humans can do about it. He likens human-induced global warming to a religion whose prophet is Al Gore.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, takes a similar view, calling man-made global warming a “scam.” Coleman says that within 20 years the fallacy of today's climate change argument will be apparent. By then, if we continue trying to “save” the planet, the change in our lifestyles and the damage to our personal and economic liberty will be irreversible.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year declared that global warming was real and the science was settled. However, 650 scientists disagreed, many of whom had previously supported the IPCC position.
Other knowledgeable scientists who don't believe man's activities are contributing significantly to climate change include Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, Sherwood Idso of Arizona State and Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Speaking of Mr. Seitz, his Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures from global warming skeptics. Obviously, merely signing a petition means nothing. Any unqualified person, someone like me, can sign a petition. But Seitz's petition doesn't include any old Tom, Dick and Harry.
Each signer is reviewed and well qualified to render opinions based on climate data, including more than 9000 PhDs. These global warming dissenters range in expertise from atmospheric and environmental sciences to physics, chemistry and general engineering.
The point isn't what I know or don't know about climate science. The point is that plenty of intelligent, qualified scientists don't buy the “consensus” of their peers. That means the science isn't settled at all and the consensus could well take us in a direction we don't want to go.
Cap and trade forces us to sacrifice our individual and economic liberty to combat a problem that may not exist and is even less likely to be our fault. And it's based on forecasting temperatures 100 years down the road when we can't even predict the temperature in Manhattan two weeks from next Tuesday.
Indeed there is scientific opposition to the idea of man-made global warming. Those who claim otherwise are the deniers. They may be the ones guilty of treason, too.
Time for the NBA to “look like” America
July 9, 2009
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has again been overturned by the very court on which she seeks to serve. That makes four out of six reviews in which the high court has reversed her opinions.
This case involved four white, New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied due promotions because no minorities scored high enough on the required test. Sotomayor's ruling supported the town's decision. She held that preparation and achievement should take a back seat to quota systems and racial bean counting. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
There was a time when I would've hailed the Court's decision as a step toward the truly colorblind society that everyone demands in theory but scorns in practice. My mind has now changed. Preferences and quota systems based on race, age, or disability are entirely appropriate in certain situations.
With that in mind I forfeit my college eligibility and declare myself available for the 2010 NBA draft. What's more, I expect to be picked. Otherwise a discrimination lawsuit is coming. And I've counted all the beans necessary to prove my claim, especially if Sotomayor is confirmed.
In 2009 only 18-percent of NBA players were white while whites have averaged about 75-percent of the total population over the last three census estimates. Blacks, conversely, are 12-percent of the population. Yet 77-percent of NBA players are black. Isn't that appalling?
The NBA doesn't “look like” America. It needs more white players in order to be racially balanced and representative of the population. Let change begin with me.
“But Hager, you can't jump,” you argue.
Well, I'm not fast or quick either. I also can't dribble or sink three-pointers and I'd probably curl up in a ball if I had to shoot a free throw in front of 15,000 screaming fans. So what?
“You're not qualified for the NBA,” you continue. “You have nothing for Lebron James. You'd be embarrassed.”
That's quite true. Again, so what? Being unqualified is a prime qualification in the world of racial quotas. And I can ease my shame with each trip to the bank.
“Wise up, Hager. You'll be forty-five before draft day.”
Yes I will. No NBA team will draft an earthbound 45-year-old who hasn't played competitive basketball at any level in 30 years. But age discrimination is also a fertile field for litigation, and my lack of vertical elevation is a disability.
With the right team of lawyers there's no reason why this case can't become a class action suit. Let's achieve diversity. Not only can the white, the aged and the gravitationally challenged join the suit, but other races, too.
Hispanics and Latinos are 15-percent of the U.S. population but only 3-percent of NBA players. And what about Asians? Asians are 4-percent of the population but only 1-percent of NBA players. If Yao Ming's injury forces his retirement, Asians can join the suit, too. Let me explain.
The way I see it, any group can join the suit as long as they're underrepresented in the NBA by three or more percentage points related to their representation in the overall population. If three percent is a proper margin of error in polling data it should work for bean counting, too.
For the NBA to achieve racial parity and properly represent American diversity its players should be roughly 72-percent white, 12-percent Hispanic, 9-percent black and 1-percent Asian.
Oh, you don't think people will pay $50 a ticket to watch the pitiful product such racial manipulation will undoubtedly produce? Neither do I. Too bad, isn't it? Looks like the federal government will have to nationalize the NBA.
This most certainly sounds ridiculous, especially the part about me joining the NBA. But it's the racial quota reality. All I've done is provide a mirror image of such programs.
Now, how much of a signing bonus should I demand?
A response to a Tea Party detractor
July 7, 2009
In an attempt to promote the Independence Day Tea Party I posted a short invitation on an Internet forum dedicated to Lincoln County, NC. I received this reply from an anonymous respondent:
“Sorry, I was so busy that day and could not attend. I have a family, and a life to live and enjoy. Due the real purpose of the 4th of July Celebration, I can do that. Unlike your fan club of supporters, it has nothing to do with the real meaning of Independence Day.”
Really? Actually, you've missed the entire point. Everything in your post points to you. "I" was too busy. "I" could not attend. "I" have a family. "I" have a life to live. You have 364 days to do exactly what you want to do, thanks to what the Founding Fathers accomplished in Philadelphia in 1776 and on through Yorktown in 1781. Yet you can't spare a few minutes to take a stand for liberty, if indeed you understand the term?
You, and others like you, may someday find that you have “zero” days to do what you want to do, and no private property or wealth to do it on or with.
Just so you'll know, here's what a guy like me did on Independence Day. A guy who--you apparently believe--has neither a life nor a purpose, and therefore plenty of time to “waste” on such an event.
I spent nearly three hours at my church, at a project I helped create, praying to Almighty God for the present and future condition of America. Or, if you prefer, I prayed to He whom Thomas Jefferson referred to as “Our Creator.” I asked His divine guidance, that we will shun dependence on government, defined as the odd view that freedom means the opportunity to appoint rulers who will take from one American the fruits of their labor and grant them to another. I asked that He will grant Americans the spirit of liberty that burned so brightly in our Founders.
With that task complete I went to a small cemetery at the intersection of Brevard Place Road and Old Plank Road in eastern Lincoln County. Major General Joseph Graham is buried there. He served the Colonial Army during the American Revolution and was wounded in battle near Charlotte, NC in defense of the “grounds first consecrated by the glorious Declaration of American Independence.” Those words, barely legible 173 years after his death in 1836, are engraved on his stone.
I don't know that God allows knowledge of such things in His glorious kingdom. But in case He does, I think I can spare a few minutes of my time to remember what Major General Graham and did to establish this nation. If, in his eternal rest, Gen. Graham is allowed some degree of satisfaction in one obscure man's remembrance it is certainly no waste of my time.
After visiting the General--and offering an apology for what an apathetic, selfish people have done with what he fought to attain--I went to the Charlotte Tea Party. While there I spoke to several people who are interested in returning America to its Constitutional principles. I agreed with some, debated with others and discovered both strength and flaw in the purpose, which is to be expected with anything touched by man's hand. What we do will never be perfect.
Overall, the mood at the Tea Party was somewhat subdued, perhaps more so that I would have liked. A little more revolutionary spirit would've been welcome. But above all the crowd was quite respectful. I saw no vulgar slogans on T-shirts and heard little profanity. What did occur was tame compared to what you'll hear on Comedy Central. The participants didn't trash the park. There were no drunks in evidence and I saw no one hauled away in handcuffs, which is par for the course at a Leftist oriented rally.
After leaving the Tea Party I still found time to go swimming with my boys and have my family over for barbeque.
Yes, I think I have a pretty fair understanding of Independence Day. I realize that it isn't all about me, just as I realize that other American holidays aren't about me. Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Thanksgiving Day; they aren't about me. Christmas and Easter surely aren't about me.
Independence Day is about a group of people determined to be free from tyranny. In that pursuit they declared independence from the mightiest empire that existed in their world. They fought in faith and valor and established a new direction for mankind. One in which a citizen has the expressed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If I can't surrender a few hours of my time to reinforce those principles, even in some small way, then I have no one to blame but myself when I watch those principles continue to decline.
From your comment I doubt that you have an understanding of liberty, or the purpose for which America was born. May the God of our Creation instill in you the message of freedom and independence He placed in our Founding Fathers. Indeed may He instill that message in all of us, before it's too late.
A look through Obama's crystal ball
July 3, 2009
Barack Obama promised change for America. He went to the White House with an agenda that had been partially concealed in the flowery slogans “hope and change” and “Yes we can.” But to the observant, the promise was more government, less liberty and an ideology that makes Jimmy Carter seem like Ronald Reagan.
Now everyone can peer through Obama's crystal ball and see his vision for America's economic future. It isn't hopeful; it's change for the worse. He wants America to emulate California.
He has praised California's history of “energy efficient” mandates. California is producing jobs, according to Obama. And their economy is on pace with the rest of the country while consuming less energy.
Why is it that every time Obama speaks about producing or “saving” jobs the unemployment rate rises? And California's economy is keeping up the rest of the country? Congratulations, I guess.
“Wait a minute,” you say. “What's wrong with California? It's warm, sunny. It has big trees, mountains and Hollywood.” All true. But California's economy is nowhere near as attractive. Reasons abound why we should want no part of Obama's “California Dreaming.”
First, Obama's portraits of California are either misleading or downright false. The state's budget is $26 billion in the red and their credit rating is the worst in the country. There've been no dreaded tax reductions, yet California has seen a steep drop in revenue. That's because less people are working and more people are leaving.
California's unemployment rate is 11.5-percent, fifth highest in the country and 2.5 times that of Nebraska and North Dakota. One-fifth of their manufacturing jobs had disappeared before the current recession began and their “dot com” boom was a bubble.
The state has suffered from the housing bust, too. Open space and anti-sprawl initiatives previously drove housing prices sky-high. Prices have now plummeted, eliminating more than $1 trillion dollars in private wealth. And yet homes remain unaffordable for most people. The great economic model that Obama would have America imitate is driving people out of the state.
California has become the land of population flight. People are leaving for other states faster than they're coming in. And it's not an anomaly; it's a trend.
What's driving people out of the Golden State? It's a combination of things. Traffic congestion doesn't help. An eroding school system and unchecked illegal alien infiltration are problems, too. But among the best reasons to leave California is their exorbitant tax rates. State income taxes are among the highest in the nation and property taxes on a three-bedroom house can run $4300. But the state's broke. Go figure.
You might also recall California's blackout and brownout problems, which were blamed on the state's deregulation of utilities. However, wholesale energy prices were deregulated while retail prices and power production were capped and controlled. Power companies were forced to buy electricity from other states, on the open market, and sell at a loss on a controlled market. Some deregulation.
This government manufactured situation prompted then-Governor Gray Davis to say, “Never again can we allow out-of-state profiteers to hold Californians hostage.” Better to be held hostage by the state, I suppose. Davis even threatened to commandeer the utilities and run them himself. Now, doesn't that remind you of the Obama administration's acquisitions in the automotive and financial sectors?
This is Barack Obama's vision of economic prosperity? Contentment is high levels of government manipulation, rising unemployment, financial insolvency and an exodus of productive people. Housing prices should drop precipitously while remaining over-inflated, taxes should rise and every state should welcome an unbridled influx of illegal aliens. Oh, and we'll enjoy these benefits with the occasional electrical brownout. This is preferable to liberty and self-determination.
That's California as it exists today, Obama's shining example for what America should be. Mr. President, put away your crystal ball.
Character matters, regardless of party
June 29, 2009
Another politician has been caught with his pants down--literally--and it's becoming tiresome. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is the latest to think the grass is greener on the other side of fidelity. So, instead of exploring a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination he'll be playing pinochle with John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter.
However, Sanford's adultery isn't the prime reason to dismiss his political viability. Even the staunchest of evangelicals knows that an affair doesn't necessarily prevent someone from fulfilling a governmental obligation. Look at Israel's King David.
David committed adultery with Bathsheba. He then manipulated his subordinates in a failed attempt to conceal his transgression. Eventually, his deceptions would have Bathsheba's husband eliminated.
Talk about political intrigue. It seems our apples aren't falling far from an age-old tree. Yet David retained his throne and to this day remains one of Israel's most revered leaders.
It's up to South Carolinians, the Sanford family and Sanford himself to determine his fate as governor. Neither the national media nor the main political parties should make that call. Even so, Sanford's White House aspirations disappeared on a flight to Argentina, and not because of adultery alone.
Personal character does matter. It is indispensable in assessing presidential timber. Sanford's indiscretions felled his tree. Beyond violating his wife, children and staff, Sanford violated his office. He vanished without properly delegating his authority or communicating his location. That's selfish and irresponsible.
Elected officials are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sound harsh? Not at all. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” Contemporary politicos may argue with that point, but I'll side with Jefferson.
Mark Sanford may be a private person. But Gov. Sanford is public property and he owed South Carolina better than he gave.
However, a word to the wise is in order. Democrats should tread lightly in using Sanford's infidelity as a political tool. They'll only end up with egg on their faces.
Bill Clinton had numerous affairs while Governor of Arkansas. Yet Democrats defended him to the White House and beyond. It was all about sex, if you'll recall, and everyone lies about sex. Thus Democrats have no case against Sanford's adultery. They must either defend his infidelity as irrelevant, like they did Clinton's, or admit that adultery matters to them only when it's politically advantageous.
Conservatives do believe that Sanford's unfaithfulness--to both his wife and the governorship--matters. We're not ready to sweep it away for convenience's sake. Yet it's disappointing to see his star flame out, not just for him but for the republic overall. He's one of the few governors who properly understands the relationship between the states and the federal government.
Most governors grovel for federal funds, even though all federal funding is taken from their states to begin with. And they'll gladly accept any federal diktat to get their paws on the money. Sanford correctly recognized that the “stimulus” money Washington promised had rightly belonged to his state first and could be used as the state saw fit. It is the proper federal-state relationship, and few there are with the guts to support it. That's why Sanford was a rising conservative star. Not anymore.
For conservatism to regain its popularity, which the GOP has effectively squandered, its proponents must remain consistent. We didn't excuse Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevy, Elliot Spitzer, or John Edwards. All were exposed and examined. Sanford is no exception regardless of whether or not he remains in office.
If we don't demand character in our public officials it indicates a lack of character in our private lives. We shouldn't excuse politicians who dishonor their office. And if we learn nothing else from all this philandering we should learn this: we cannot and should not look to politicians--who can't even keep their pants up--to solve our problems.
We're all human and humans fail. But it's high time we established character as a prerequisite for public office. It's high time we make it a part of our lives, too.
Act and consequence apply, even to homosexual parents
June 25, 2009
Robert Bork wrote about our society's moral decay in a book titled Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That slouch has become a dead run.
Eric Mongerson is a divorced man who wasn't allowed to share his children's visitations with his new love. Eric's “new love” is a man. Okay, big surprise, right? It goes farther. Eric dumped his 20-year marriage and his four children to pursue his homosexuality. And it wasn't the first time he had engaged in such relationships.
During the divorce the wife argued--with apparent success--that Mongerson had engaged in adulterous homosexual affairs on several occasions. It was also argued that he and his partner had exposed the four children to inappropriate behavior during a trip across state lines. Thus the court prohibited him from sharing his visitations with his partner.
That has changed, thanks to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling. And the Associated Press account of the ruling sounds like it was written by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. It was nothing short of an endorsement of the “gay rights” movement, which makes great use of false bigotry allegations to force society into accepting unnatural attractions.
The AP story lamented how Mongerson was unable to take his kids to his home while his boyfriend was there, even though the wife once brought her boyfriend to his daughter's concert.
Friends, there's quite a difference between a heterosexual couple taking children to a public area, such as a concert, and a homosexual couple taking them to a private area, such as a home. If you can't make that distinction you might as well stop reading now. You're too blinded by your heterophobic bigotry to see the big picture.
Also note the phrase, “his daughter's concert.” It's as if the wife doesn't exist. Excuse me, but I believe the correct phrase is “their daughter's concert.” It's doubtful that the AP's wording is accidental.
Fact is, Eric Mongerson made his bed. If he was so concerned with spending time with his kids why did he ditch his family? His visitation problems were the direct result of his choices. Yet moral issues are but a part of the equation. There are several interesting aspects of this tale that are worth examination.
Let's concede--for sake of illustration only--that Eric Mongerson was born homosexual, as gay advocates regularly argue. He spent 20 years in a matrimonial, sexual, relationship with a woman--a woman to whom he had no attraction. He was, as activists claim, living the lie.
Under these circumstances it is logical to question why he wants to see his kids at all. Their presence resurrects his experiences within a heterosexual relationship. Each time he sees their faces he is confronted with the intimate moments he spent with their mother. Logically speaking, why wouldn't he avoid those children and the constant reminder of heterosexual relations they represent?
Another question is why this matter is such big news? What if the shoe were on the other foot? If it were a straight man in a visitation dispute with an ex-wife concerning his activities with a girlfriend there would've been no bold headline and little media attention. But since it involves homosexuality it fits the approved news template. It fit's the politically correct narrative. It advances the agenda-driven propaganda that much of today's “free” press embodies.
Lastly, the Mongerson situation is indicative of how we've compromised both the natural law and common morality. It shows that we may not be slouching toward Gomorrah, as Bork wrote, but charging there full tilt.
This case shouldn't have been debated much less adjudicated. Should Eric Mongerson have visitation rights? Sure he should. No government has authority to separate a parent from a child sans a criminal offense. Eric helped make those kids whether he enjoyed it or not.
However, that doesn't necessarily grant him the right to include his homosexual friends. When moral lines are blurred to the extent they've been blurred in our society, situations like this are bound to arise.
Actions have consequences. It was Eric Mongerson who walked out on his family to be with another man. He made that choice knowing full well it would hinder his relationship with his children. It's obvious from his actions that his homosexual interests meant more to him than anything else.
There's no discrimination when someone makes a free choice. Unless his preference is now bisexual, Eric Mongerson can't have it both ways.
Boxer demands fealty, not respect
June 23, 2009
Proper etiquette once invited respect and using “Sir” and “Ma'am” was considered reverential. The insult arose when the words were warranted but not used.
Within the military structure referring to a ranking officer as “Sir” or “Ma'am” still represents proper protocol. In fact, it's mandatory. For example, a subordinate can use “Sir”, “Ma'am”, or rank while addressing a superior officer and remain soundly within the realm of civility.
Such courtesy once worked in the Halls of Congress, too. That was before self-absorbed lords such as California's Barbara Boxer assumed royal authority in Washington.
Boxer chastised Brigadier General Michael Walsh during a recent Senate hearing. The video is everywhere and you can see it for yourself. However, to summarize for clarity, Walsh addressed Boxer as “Ma'am” instead of “Senator” and you'd have thought he called her the “C” word.
She promptly informed the General that she preferred to be addressed as Senator Boxer because she had “worked so hard to get that title.” How can anyone simultaneously be so arrogant, narcissistic and insecure?
Mr. Walsh showed proper respect for both Boxer and her office with the term “ma'am.” “Ma'am” is a contraction of “madam” and refers to a woman of refinement. It's a compliment. And it's arguably more than Barbara Boxer deserves.
Boxer must be extraordinarily insecure in her person and inordinately proud of her power to have taken offense. She just couldn't resist calling attention to herself and shoving her credentials in someone's face. It's a trait of outward arrogance that also indicates inner weakness.
Maybe her insecurity arises from the possibility that becoming a Democratic Senator from California isn't overly difficult. Daffy Duck could run as a Democrat and defeat a Republican in a state-wide race. It's just no great trick for a Leftist to win a general election in California.
Even winning the Democrat primary isn't as monumental a task as Boxer claims. How hard is it to promise more government, more spending and more of everything to 51-percent of the population at the expense of the other 49-percent? And whatever your Leftist opponent may promise, double the offer. What's so difficult?
Who is Boxer to claim that she “worked hard” for what she has anyway? Americans work hard to attain success everyday. They use their talents to please their neighbors, customers and clients. Yet Boxer has no qualms with disrespecting such commoners, or with redistributing what they've earned. They are, after all, the winners of life's lottery.
Now she has the gall to demand acknowledgement of her hard work? Forget it!
By the way, the silver star Michael Walsh wears doesn't mean he's the Marshall of Dodge City. And he didn't get it from a Cracker Jack box. In fact, I'll wager that Walsh worked harder to attain the rank of Brigadier General than Boxer did to win a Senate seat. I'll also wager that he wouldn't be mortally offended if a subordinate called him Sir.
Boxer's condescending attitude is born from an odd marriage of inner weakness and insecurity with an outward sense of royalty and unmitigated authority. It's time her highness faced the reality of her contradictions.
No one is forcing women back to the barefoot, pregnant, cookie-baking days with the use of ma'am. Boxer's offense at this traditional term of respect reflects both a hollow personality and a shallow intellect.
Attaining a Senate seat is a rare accomplishment; there are only 100 Senators at a time. She can be proud of her office. But public office grants her no right to demand fealty from another American citizen, especially a Brigadier General. Barbara's panties were wadded over nothing.
Boxer's childish demand didn't enhance her authority nor command anyone's respect. She merely proved that arrogant insecurity isn't an oxymoron and that she's undeserving even of the obeisance she received, much less that which she demands.
A clunker of a bill on several fronts
June 20, 2009
The “Cash for Clunkers” bill passed Congress with strong bipartisan support. No, that's not great news. In fact, it explains why it has become so hard to distinguish Republicans from Democrats. So much is wrong with this legislation that it's hard to know where to begin.
The bill's constitutionality should be the starting point. No part of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to spend public money to subsidize the trading of personal merchandise. Of course, constitutionality is but a minor problem for Congress; they simply ignore it.
It's not that hard, insomuch that we've become a nation governed by whims and whines rather than laws, checks and balances. Let's put that troublesome Constitution thingy aside and focus on other lamentable aspects of Cash for Clunkers.
Isn't it government officials who are always telling us that it's government's job to help the poor? Well, this bill accomplishes just the opposite. The wealthy and connected auto dealers will fare quite well. But poor drivers will be left to walk or ride bikes.
What will happen to the price of used cars when government guarantees up to $4500 in trade allowance per vehicle? If you say the price of used vehicles will increase, take a gold star.
Car dealers support the measure because it could bolster their sagging sales, leaving people who can afford only a clunker out in the cold. The cars they could once afford on the open market become unaffordable in a government subsidized trade market.
Environmentalists support Cash for Clunkers, too, on the premise that old smoky will be taken off the road. That's debatable.
For more than 35 years automobiles have been equipped with pollution control systems. Leaded gasoline was banned and seasonal formulations were mandated, which is worth remembering when rising gas prices accompany the arrival of warm weather.
Since those mandates, according to Federal Highway Administration and EPA statistics, auto emissions have fallen significantly related to miles traveled. The only exception is nitrogen oxides. And according to a 1998 EPA study even those emissions dropped during their ten-year control period.
The world may not be pristine. But you aren't likely to keel over when a 1985 Buick rolls past.
The most discouraging aspect for conservatives is the number of Republicans who voted for the bill. Fifty-nine allegedly free-market Republican lawmakers voted for Cash for Clunkers. They cast their lot with Nancy Pelosi and proved that many elected Republicans have no more intention of shrinking the size and power of government than do their Democrat counterparts. No Republican can claim to be a limited government, free-market conservative with their name attached to this bill.
The funding for the Cash for Clunkers trade-in allowances is said to come from the recent stimulus package. No it won't; there's no actual money in that stimulus package. It's just a sack full of government IOUs, quite like Social Security and Medicare, both of which are hurtling toward insolvency.
We're already awash in red ink. The national debt is approaching $11.5 trillion and some estimates claim government's unfunded liabilities exceed $100 trillion. With GDP at $14 trillion per annum it would take more than seven years for the American economy to produce what Washington has promised to spend. And that's if no further promises are made and every cent of economic production were applied to the liability.
Cash for Clunkers represents everything that's wrong on Capitol Hill. It's chock full of fiscal irresponsibility, power brokering, favoritism, vote-buying and contempt for our liberty, our Constitution and our intelligence.
The money for your trade is being stolen from your grandchildren. Each car purchased under this law should come with a tag that reads: “I'm spending my children's inheritance . . . and their birthright.”
Stupidity and perversion go hand-in-hand
June 16, 2009
If you read my columns regularly you now that I don't toot my own horn very often. But I recently wrote an editorial about how the sexual relationship has been devalued. I can now bolster my claim, with the added bonus that perversity is exceeded only by stupidity.
When I first heard about a man hiring someone to rape his wife I thought it was a tasteless joke. At least hiring someone to kill your wife makes some sense. But why hire someone to rape your wife? That's even more pointless than it is cracked.
When it became obvious that the event took place my first thought was of some twisted fantasy in which the wife was involved. Then, when the fantasy became reality the wife realized that it wasn't erotically invigorating and changed her story.
I know what you're thinking. But such warped role play isn't as uncommon as we might hope.
There was a story several years ago about a married couple's mutually agreed “rape fantasy”. The wife was to leave the door unlocked upon going to bed. The husband would leave work on the specified night, conceal his identity and “rape” his wife. To each their own, I suppose.
On the big night the woman awoke to a hooded man standing over her. She struggled and protested initially, then submitted to her “attacker”, fully enjoying the simulated assault. When all was through the attacker left as planned.
The husband returned later, causing her to question why he was still in costume. Guess what? He hadn't been home that evening. It seems he had bragged about what he and his wife had planned and one of his buddies beat him to the punch.
That's not funny, although you sometimes get what you ask for. But it turns out that the woman in the current episode was truly unaware of her husband's plans.
This woman--God bless her--became the unwitting victim of her husband's twisted perversion. He hired a strange man to come to his home and sexually assault his wife, in his bed, while he watched. There's nothing understandable or redeeming about it.
However, as nefarious as this act was, the stupidity exceeds even the perversity.
When someone answers an Internet ad like this one it makes reasonable people wonder how dumb our neighbors are. We don't need to address what a creep the husband is; that's evident. But he never considered the danger someone so twisted as to answer his ad could pose? Please!
The hired rapist could have robbed the home. He could've killed the husband, wife and the children, who were home at the time. What if he had pulled a gun and decided to take a turn at the husband? What would hubby have thought of the “rape fantasy” then?
The alleged assailant, Rodney Liverman, is just as bad if not worse. Even if he was told that the wife would be a willing participant could he not see his own danger? Suppose the husband became jealous; what defense could Liverman offer?
Liverman was in a stranger's home, doing a stranger's wife while wearing a hood and holding a knife. Hubby could've filled him with lead, and unless the wife spilled the beans no jury in America would've convicted him. Furthermore, how stupid must he be not to realize that the wife wasn't in on the game once it began? And Liverman himself could've been setup for robbery or rape.
Political correctness has taught that one person can't judge another's actions, especially when it comes to sex. Thus we've become desensitized to the level of degeneracy that surrounds us. Small wonder our decadence has reached the point where a man hires his wife's rapist.
We needn't address this matter's depravity. It is obvious. Unfortunately, it's not surprising. What's surprising, and perhaps more frightening, is that people so stupid walk among us.
Pray for Independence on Independence Day
June 13, 2009
We don't celebrate the 4th of July on July 4th. We celebrate Independence Day. Our Founding Fathers, having grown weary of their subjected status, tossed the shackles of tyranny and declared independence from the British crown. Ultimately they established a government wherein people are largely independent of both their fellow man and their government.
This presents a quandary for the human spirit. While mankind naturally desires freedom, we are a somewhat dependent creature. Therefore, independence from man and government demands a substitute, a dependence on a higher authority. That authority is our preeminent Creator, as recognized in our glorious founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
Only when our reliance rests on God can we be fully free of mankind's oppression and government tyranny.
The Founding Fathers certainly didn't intend to create a Christian theocracy. That idea doesn't even make sense. Christianity is a personal commitment to faith, a relationship with Christ. Therefore authentic Christianity cannot be spread through force, coercion, or other manipulative method. In fact, any faith or religious practice that can spread in these ways is, at best, weak and meaningless.
There is a difference between America being a Christian theocracy and being a Christian nation. There is no law through which Americans are compelled to become Christian, neither today nor in our infancy. There's also no law through which Americans are prevented from being Christians, at least not yet.
However, it is true that our nation was founded upon Christian morality by men who received guidance predominantly from the Christian faith. It is, therefore, not only legitimate for Christians to influence our society, it is imperative.
Whenever people, individually or collectively, abandon their dependence on their Heavenly Father they will naturally substitute for that dependency. Government or humanism (man-made morality) is more than ready to fill that void. The liberty we once enjoyed quickly succumbs to the tyranny of man, which usually manifests in larger and more oppressive government.
That doesn't mean that all government is a substitute for God or that government is altogether unnecessary. Certainly a government of just laws enacted for the purpose of protecting liberty is based on sound doctrine. Rules that expose and restrain the invader and plunderer are essential to liberty. Such rules, ironically, are found throughout the Pentateuch.
Just as human liberties are self-evident, as our Founders knew so well, independence is also self-evident. Somehow we've lost sight of that conviction. We've shunned our dependence on our Heavenly Father in favor of dependence on man-made institutions, such as government programs in various forms.
We're unquestionably witnessing the result of our dependence in the decline of the family unit, increased government bureaucracies that usurp the natural role of the charitable church and sundry welfare programs--both personal and corporate. We cannot remain a free people under these circumstances. We can only retain the delusion of freedom, wherein liberty exists in our mind but not in reality.
Isn't it time we recaptured our Founding Fathers' visionary spirit? Let's embrace liberty once more. And let us forever acknowledge the source of our freedom. Liberty is the inalienable desire of the human spirit, engraved eternally on our hearts by the hand of the Heavenly Creator.
Without regard to contemporary historical revisionism, our Founding Fathers recognized God's hand in freedom's establishment. They discussed and debated the concept in their parlors, town halls, taverns and yes, even their churches. The voice of liberty should again ring in those churches.
Let liberty be rekindled in dependence on the Sovereign and Almighty God. And on Independence Day let's fill our churches with a prayerful spirit. Let's show America that God's people are serious about reclaiming our dwindling birthright.
Jed Clampett: A Hero for the ages
June 10, 2009
Children can benefit from emulating the positive qualities found not only in their parents but in public role models. I had such boyhood heroes, too, one for each season.
During the winter months I idolized Tarheel point guard Phil Ford. Yes, I'm telling my age. But growing older beats the grave, so here goes.
Ford was the consummate floor general and a ball handler extraordinaire. I can still see him splitting the zone and dishing a quick backdoor pass to a cutting Walter Davis. I so wanted to be Phil Ford . . . until spring.
Beginning in April and throughout the summer months I wanted to be Yankees catcher Thurman Munson. Not only did Munson play for my favorite team, he was also the captain. He helped resurrect the Yankee mystique, which had been dormant during my childhood.
Munson led the Yankees to three American League pennants and two World Series championships. His name sounded cool and his moustache is the reason mine has been shaved only twice in 30 years.
When the summer surrendered to autumn baseball gave way to football. My hero worship turned to Oakland Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler. I thought “Snake” was as cool as they come. He had a scruffy beard and hair that curled from beneath a sinister silver helmet.
On the field Stabler was unflappable and appeared unconcerned with his surroundings. A blitzing linebacker? Hah! He'd stand defiantly in his face. A charging tackle? He never appeared to notice they were there. At the last possible instant Snake's left hand would strike, delivering a perfectly placed pass to Fred Biletnikoff.
He would get hammered for his nonchalance. If the hits fazed Snake he never let on. In fact, He seemed to thrive on the punishment and the defender's exasperation.
Those three athletes were at the top of their respective games and they provided me with memories that remain fresh even today. But they're no longer my heroes.
Ford has battled some personal issues and I just don't like basketball like I once did. Stabler was just too much of a partier. What else can you say about a guy who John Madden kept in line by making him responsible for keeping John Matuszak in line?
And Thurman Munson, God rest his soul. It's not easy for a 14-year-old to learn that his favorite ballplayer has died in a plane crash. Thirty years have passed and it seems like yesterday.
It's also plain that--at age 44--I'll never be the athlete those men were or that millions of young boys dream of becoming. But I had another childhood hero, and I still look up to him. That hero is Uncle Jed.
Yes, that Uncle Jed; Jed Clampett. I know he was a fictional character, and my reasons for admiring him have changed over the years. For example, I know I can't shoot flies on the wing or skeet with a rifle. It's unimportant that Jed was a multi-millionaire, and I certainly don't admire Jed because he “moved to Beverly.” Jed Clampett is my hero because of the type of character he was.
Despite his good fortune--somehow a man who could shoot flies missed a gopher--Jed never changed. Glitz, glamour and status didn't interest Uncle Jed. He wasn't afraid to be himself.
He wasn't an educated man, but he possessed common sense, logic and wisdom that far-exceeded his wealth. He was honest, capable and dependable. Those virtues are in short supply these days.
Jed was the epitome of self-reliance and charitable to a fault. He sought peace whenever possible--no easy task with Granny for a mother-in-law--but never shied from a necessary confrontation.
Living up to Jed Clampett's example is a tall order. However, it's worthy of a man's best effort. In fact, our world would benefit if more people wanted to be like Uncle Jed.
Abortionist's murder is enigmatic for pro-lifers
June 3, 2009
Self-defense excluded, are we--as mere human beings--empowered to defend the innocent by taking a life without the benefit of trial? Let's consider a couple of scenarios.
First, let's assume that a serial killer is on the loose. You have reason to believe the killer is your neighbor. Quite correctly, you contact the authorities. But the subsequent investigation doesn't produce enough evidence for a conviction and the suspected killer walks free.
You remain convinced that the neighbor is guilty and will kill again. Are you within the bounds of righteousness to take that life in order to spare the future victims?
Now let's consider a second scenario.
Suppose you were a guard assigned to Auschwitz during World War II. You witness the daily atrocities Josef Mengele commits on the Jewish children imprisoned there. You've seen his brutal murders and his ghastly human experiments. And there's no legal way to stop him.
Is it proper for a just person to kill Mengele, thus preventing the maiming and murder of untold numbers of men, women and children?
In the first scenario there's no firsthand knowledge of wrong-doing. There isn't sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but the possibility for a legal remedy remains. There's also the old argument that two wrongs don't make a right.
Even though killing your neighbor may preserve an innocent life, there are legal avenues for dealing with the suspect that haven't been exhausted. Therefore, unless you are attacked, you cannot legitimately pronounce yourself judge, jury and executioner.
Conversely, if you were the Auschwitz guard no one would've condemned you for killing the Nazi “Angel of Death.” There was no other viable option for stopping his barbarism.
Applying these scenarios to the killing of abortionist George Tiller--a man responsible for killing thousands of unborn babies--presents pro-lifers with some interesting questions.
Did the shooter commit an act of murder? Did he take a life without the benefit of a legal decision in a society where such a verdict remained possible? Or, did the shooter's act preserve innocent life, like the Auschwitz guard's imaginary killing of Josef Mengele?
We must conclude that Tiller's death fit's the first scenario. As troubling and divisive as abortion on demand is, there is still the opportunity to deal with the issue through legal channels. Therefore, the shooter violated both George Tiller's right to life and the pro-life message itself.
However, just as surely as two wrongs don't make a right, another old argument applies here. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Tiller's murder is no reason for joy by any means. Yet his life and medical practice weren't cause for celebration either. Tiller's practice was directly responsible for at least 250 late-term abortions each year. For those services Tiller received over a million dollars. And that doesn't include the number of “normal” abortions performed at Tiller's clinic.
Pro-abortion activists have eulogized Tiller as if he were Albert Schweitzer. They even called for a national day of mourning in his honor. But their praise is an empty talking point. And it exemplifies their scorn for the thousands of unborn babies who died at Tiller's hand.
George Tiller was no Dr. Schweitzer. In fact, he had more in common with Josef Mengele.
Tiller's murder presents an interesting enigma for proponents of innocent life. On one hand, Tiller will not render his “services” again. On the other hand, the way he was stopped violates the core principles of the pro-life message. Yet it is entirely consistent for pro-life organizations to denounce Tiller's murder while refusing to defend his life.
Pro-abortion activists face a deeper conundrum. They must reconcile their outrage over George Tiller's murder while defending his daily regimen of death.
Even in this complex situation the pro-life message remains far more consistent and much easier to defend.
It's the Silence of the Left when government tracks American citizens
June 2, 2009
I can't understand why the so-called champions of privacy have been silent for the last month. Wasn't it just a year ago that their howls of protest over “domestic eavesdropping” echoed from dorm halls and student activity centers from sea to shining sea? Yet they are silent about a District 4 Court of Appeals ruling in Madison, Wisconsin.
Actually, it is quite understandable. There isn't a Republican in the White House. So, the threat to our liberty and Constitution doesn't exist even though it does, and to a far greater degree than any other time in recent history.
The court ruled that police can attach a GPS device to an American citizen's automobile-and thus track their movements-without a warrant, without reasonable suspicion and without probable cause.
Is this a bid deal? Certainly government has better things to do than monitor a mother of three as she drives to the tanning bed or the grocery store. But, if that mother or her husband run afoul of political correctness--perhaps by home-schooling their children, joining the NRA, or voting third party-they could become a target of politically-motivated surveillance.
Such snooping is nothing new. Major American cities are full of street cameras that monitor daily activities. Our bank accounts have been open to government scrutiny since the early 1970s, when Washington passed legislation requiring banks to report single deposits above $10,000.
Red-light and speeding cameras observe traffic and mail citations to an offending automobile's owner. This occurs without regard to who is actually driving the car at the time of the infraction. Government can condemn private property via imminent domain in the pursuit of increased tax revenues (thank you Kelo decision). And now government can track our automobiles without any reason whatsoever.
As stated, police have better things to do than track every Tom, Dick and Harry who drives down the street. But it's still a troubling concept. Police states aren't unprecedented in human history. In fact, they're the norm. It is freedom that is the exception.
While the appellate court's ruling is disturbing, the reaction from Leftists is even worse. They've said nothing about how such monitoring of US citizens violates individual liberty. I could find no mention of this case on Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, or MoveOn.org.
It would appear that the Left considers government surveillance intrusive and threatening only when exercised on foreign terrorists. Perhaps they believe that constitutional principles apply more to al-Qaeda members than to US citizens.
Warrants must be obtained to eavesdrop on some Muslim extremist, likely here on a student or work visa, who's conveying the evils of the “Great Satan” to his uncle Amir in Waziristan. Otherwise the rights of all Americans are in jeopardy. There's nary a word when the targets of government surveillance are American citizens to whom constitutional protections truly apply, like someone sporting a Ron Paul bumper sticker.
If government has domestic monitoring authority it should be used to target foreigners who are, or could be, members of a hostile international operation. Yet, somehow, American rights are endangered when government performs its prime function of defending the nation against unfriendly entities. But the Left apparently sees no problem whatsoever with having police watching our every move via street and traffic cameras or GPS devises.
It doesn't bother me when government monitors the actions and movements of foreigners, whether they're here legally or illegally. That's part of defending the nation against external threats. But I care a great deal if government monitors an American citizen's daily movement without warrant or probable cause.
American Leftist's have proved once more that they care nothing for liberty, privacy, the Constitution, or the idea that government is our servant, not our master. They care only about politicizing issues, regardless of what the outcome may be.
To the Graduating Class of 2009
May 31, 2009
Life can be summarized as the continual pursuit of milestones. Some milestones lead toward greater accomplishment. Others are reached and soon forgotten. Without regard to their overall importance, milestones open new doors.
Your first accomplishments, or milestones, were walking and talking. These were reached at a young age and aren't likely remembered. You can, however, remember your first day of school. It was your first landmark moment, and it opened the door to more accomplishments in later years.
Sometime following your first day of school you brought home an “A” on your report card. You scored your first run, touchdown, or goal. You completed elementary school and became a teenager. Not long after came the first boy or girl who made you sweat more than presenting an oral book report.
At some point during your childhood you began to anticipate your 16th birthday. Since birthdays are somewhat a milestone themselves, what made that one special? I'm betting that it wasn't high school algebra. When you turned 16 you were able to drive, and it was a time you'll never forget.
However, like every important moment since the first day of school, driving was more a rite of passage than a milestone. Nearly anyone can get a driver's license, and if you don't believe it just try driving in rush hour traffic. You took driver's education, passed your test and you were on your way. There are far more important achievements.
For you, Graduate, a true milestone is at hand. The culmination of 12 years of classes, homework, book reports, club meetings and ball practices are here. Thousands of you will receive your high school diploma. This is more than a rite of passage. It is a monumental event that opens a new chapter in your life, drawing you to higher accomplishments.
It's true that your diploma doesn't guarantee your success. However, it does mark a significant transformation. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man (or woman), I put childish ways behind me.” You're now an adult and it's time to act like one.
Prayers and advice will accompany the cards, gifts and letters from family and friends. Many of them will encourage you to hold fast to your dreams. They mean well; they really do. But their advice is inadequate. Far better for you to establish goals, then pursue them doggedly.
No effort is required to dream. Anyone can dream, for dreams demand neither plan nor action. Dreamers too often become wishers, hoping for an outcome they haven't pursued. It is a recipe for frustration and failure.
I don't suggest that you hold onto dreams. Instead I urge you to change dreams into goals, becoming more than a dreamer. Goals compel you to act, for they won't attain themselves. Define your goals, aiming higher than you think you can reach. Then, even if you fall short, you will have accomplished more than otherwise possible. And when you reach a goal, set a new one. To be content is to be thankful; to be satisfied is to be stagnant.
Pursue all ends with honor and integrity. And despite the best efforts of political correctness, the Ten Commandments are both valid and viable. Discover God's purpose for you and ground your life on that knowledge. When you're knocked down-and you will be, more than once-get up. Self-pity produces nothing. And never, ever, listen to people who say you can't.
The door is opening and it's time to step through. Transform those little boy and girl dreams into mature man and woman goals. If you rely on dreams you will someday look back and wonder why you've accomplished nothing. Establish goals and you'll look back with amazement at how far you've come.
Congratulations, Class of 2009. God Bless each of you.
North Korean missile story is always the same
May 30, 2009
Whenever you read a news story about North Korea's nuclear program, you must experience what Yogi Berra termed “déjà vu all over again.” It's the same story every time.
Kim Jong Il waddles to the nearest state controlled microphone to announce the launch of his odd regime's latest bottle rocket. He declares to the world that his isolated, starving country will take on anyone, anywhere at anytime, especially the West and the United States in particular.
That's when the newswires break out the standard story that runs each time North Korea goes ballistic--pardon the pun. There's no reason to waste time writing a new article; the script is the same each time. Just rearrange a paragraph or two and you're ready for print.
The North Korean dictator blusters and puffs about defending his people against the joint and imminent South Korea-United States invasion. The world counters with its compulsory “strong condemnation,” replete with the typical empty phrases. The media then dusts the cobwebs from the time-old story and reports the “latest” developments from the Pacific Rim.
The story always begins with the world's acknowledgement that it must “stand up” to the North Korean threats. Next is the recognition that the nuclear test or missile launch poses “a grave threat” to world peace and security. Then everyone will “strongly condemn” the communist regime's “reckless actions.”
Of course, Pyongyang's aggressive actions and rhetoric “violates North Korea's own prior commitments” and invariably becomes “a blatant violation of international law.”
Surely after 15 years of seeing this little red outpost renege on every vow and promise we no longer expect them to honor their commitments. And if anything means less to Kim Jong Il than keeping his own word it is honoring international law.
The “news story” includes the always bland and toothless remarks from the United Nations. North Korea's missile launches and nuclear blasts inevitably “fly in the face of UN resolutions.” Close behind follows the call for “stronger international pressure.” Finally, the story concludes with the Western world--the world Pyongyang desperately wants to intimidate--issuing a pledge to “stand up to this behavior.”
It has become all too predictable. North Korea threatens and bluffs. “The world” dons a frown and condemns their actions with strong words and a presumed joint purpose. Leaders come together to wag their collective finger in Kim Jong Il's face and tell him what a bad boy he's been. In the process we give him exactly what he wants.
Each nuclear test, each missile launch, is a “Hey, look at me! I matter,” moment for Kim Jong Il. And the world jumps each time he pulls its strings.
Am I advocating ignoring North Korea's nuclear ambitions? Of course not. Every nation, especially the United States, should be prepared to counter the North's provocations. However, that doesn't mean that we should legitimize this pathetic little dictator's hollow screams for relevance.
A new direction is needed. We've kowtowed to this communist regime long enough, especially since the implementation of the “Carter doctrine” in 1994. Carter cut a deal with North Korea to abandon its then infant nuclear program. “The world” breathed an unwarranted sigh of relief.
The North, conversely, gained the attention it desired. It received its legitimizing cover and began to systematically violate the Carter agreement from day one. Once this became evident “the world” pronounced condemnation once more and the process started anew. Isn't it time for a different approach?
Why not monitor North Korea's nuclear program covertly while ignoring them publicly? It's certainly possible with modern satellite technology. Perhaps that's not as accurate as firsthand monitoring, but North Korea has expelled nuclear inspectors anyway. And there's certainly no interest in confronting the matter directly.
At the very least the media would have to write a new story.
Obama, Sotomayor promise to remove Lady Justice's blindfold
May 26, 2009
One of the key tenets of American jurisprudence is the notion of equality before the law. All citizens of a free nation should expect--no, make that demand--an impartial judiciary.
No symbol better illustrates our nation's devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.
Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it's the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.
No doubt that's idealistic, and blind justice isn't invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.
Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they're very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another's interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.
However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter's replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama's choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.
His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who's unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama's mind Lady Justice's blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.
If a conservative employed Obama's judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.
No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.
Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn't work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person's economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person's day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?
Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another's expense isn't law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren't just; they are preference, plain and simple.
So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She's stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn't hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.
Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won't force him to reveal his birth certificate.
Class envy and the selective war on success
May 19, 2009
There was a time when one generation wanted the next to achieve higher levels of success. Successful people served as role models for youth, a living testimony to the opportunities that freedom held. Somewhere along the way that became unfashionable. We now want to punish achievement, but only when it's politically advantageous.
Remember when the Big Three auto executives flew to Washington aboard corporate jets? Congressional representatives roasted those CEO's. It wasn't entirely without cause, but not entirely just either.
The Big Three created a public relations nightmare no doubt. With the exception of Ford, they jetted to Washington and begged Congress to save their companies with an unborn generation's money. Had the criticism ended right there it would've been warranted. Naturally, it didn't end right there.
Those executives were held to represent anyone who has achieved a level of success that the anointed Left has deemed unfair. Soon it wasn't only the Big Three's jets but any corporate aircraft that was taboo. Leftists railed against private jets with the lusty zeal generally reserved for tax cuts.
The sentiment spread like wildfire. Despite a litany of logical arguments supporting corporate owned aircraft their existence was demonized as exemplary of greed and excess. It was a case study in political pandering. Unfortunately, it plays well to people who have recently lost jobs or are facing financial straits.
Why does anyone “need” a private jet? Why does anyone “need” a 25-room house? Does anyone “deserve” an eight-figure salary? Somewhere along the banks of the River Styx, Karl Marx must have felt vindicated.
Such class envy was born of a time when “the rich” were clearly defined. They were comprised of everyone who didn't work at an hourly job, especially a unionized hourly job. Most people defined “the rich” as anyone appearing to have reached a greater level of success than their own. It was wrong, but at least understandable. Now even that line has been blurred.
Media reporters and political speechmakers excoriated any company or individual that owned a private jet, or had attained an unapproved level of success and wealth. They used the impression of automotive and banking miscreants-along with a recession rooted in the political manipulation of the mortgage and housing markets-to tar and feather achievers.
Instead of encouraging low and middle income people to adopt the attitudes of the successful, Leftists called them greedy crooks. Now, why aren't those same people criticizing Oprah?
The talk show queen is one of the richest women in the world. She has a $42 million private jet. Luxury homes, fine cars and ornate jewelry aren't strangers to Oprah. What's more, she isn't shy about liking the perks she has attained. In fact, she says it's great to have nice homes and a private jet.
Where are the Leftists? Where is ACORN, the Rainbow Coalition and every other organization dedicated to eradicating success and private wealth? Why aren't they shouting and protesting Oprah's extravagant lifestyle? Their silence is deafening and their reason is plain. Oprah shares their political views; therefore her wealth is accepted, not reviled.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not condemning Oprah at all. She was truthful. She's not ashamed to enjoy her posh lifestyle. This is one of the few moments in which I agree with Oprah, and I respect her honesty. I only wonder why other achievers don't adopt her attitude.
No one who earns wealth through legitimate means should fear offending others. They shouldn't have to defend their success against the pandering, power-seeking dogma of political hacks, talking head news anchors, or meddlesome activists.
We once considered high achievers and risk-takers to be icons of the American experiment. We now determine their legitimacy based on their political viewpoints. The rest must apologize for their performance, if only to soothe our petty jealousies.
No respect remains for sexual relations
May 14, 2009
It was almost unbelievable to learn that Craig's List, the sell anything website, was under investigation for alleged prostitution advertisements. I mean, who would be so brazenly stupid as to publicly post flagrant ads for services that everyone knows are illegal? And who would be desperate enough to answer the ads knowing that their “date” could be an undercover cop?
As a service to you, the reader, I checked out Craig's List. Sure enough, ads for such services exist.
Now, I understand that prostitution isn't a new idea. After all, when participants in the world's oldest profession--farming--needed a break they had to do something. Along came the world's second oldest profession--prostitution. It's also true that “escort” and “modeling” services frequently use the Internet to further their entrepreneurial ventures.
However, further searching of Craig's List unveiled other personal offers--absolutely free of charge--that make the prostitution ads seem as innocent as a church picnic. Oh how little respect remains for sexuality. The misuse of the otherwise useful Craig's List is but one example. We have so celebrated “sexual freedom” that it has come to mean that anything goes, anytime, anywhere and with anyone.
Last year a British woman and her vacation sweetie were caught having a fling on a public beach in Dubai. Another British couple engaged in a sex act on a crowded London commuter train, in plain sight of the other passengers. And such occurrences aren't unique to Britons.
Also last year a couple of Iowa football fans found love in a Metrodome restroom--to cheers from drunken bystanders--while their spouses settled for the action on the field. More recently a 22-year-old San Diego woman auctioned her virginity to pay for her college education, apparently seeing the sale as no big deal.
Closer to the family living room, teenagers are increasingly comfortable with trading erotic pictures and videos via camera phones. Women and girls can't board an airplane without some freak pawing them. And “mainstream” commentator Whoopi Goldberg laughs about her promise to “do” not only Nancy Pelosi's husband but Nancy herself, which says nothing for Whoopi's taste in women.
These are mere signs of a time that has been 40-plus years in the making. According to government statistics only 5.3-percent of births occurred out of wedlock in 1960. By 2004 that number was 35.8-percent. What was once taboo, if not shunned outright, is hailed as the norm, as an alternative lifestyle, or as freedom itself.
Thanks to a well-crafted re-education campaign we now treat promiscuity, adultery and homosexuality as superior to a heterosexual, monogamous relationship. Sex has become no more than a bodily function.
I'm no prude; I understand that sex is about more than procreation. It's meant to be enjoyable and exciting. Our forebears--the Greatest Generation--respected such sexual relationships. However, subsequent generations have corrupted what should be a privately uninhibited activity. Credit the sexual revolution for our contemporary confusion.
“But our parents were sexually repressed,” the baby boomer argues.
Bull! How anyone can arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion is beyond me. The “sexually repressed” World War II generation produced the baby boomers. Our parents and grandparents didn't come home from the war and begin looking under cabbage leaves to find all those kids, you know. They were prolific, not repressed. But they were also respectful.
Throughout human history individuals--and occasionally entire cultures--have corrupted the sexual experience. However, Western Civilization once treated sex and sexuality with the reverence and intimacy it warrants. It's now celebrated with the public fanfare of a walk-off homerun in Game 7 of the World Series. What once was a private encounter has become a spectacle.
Pope Benedict XVI lamented the trivialization of sexuality during his New Year's Eve service in 2007. He's exactly right. I cringe to think about the next wave of depravity the nuanced notions of the “sexually liberated” will demand that society approve.
As usual, the “tolerant” Left tries to silence dissent
May 13, 2009
Carrie Prejean is learning firsthand how little love the dissent loving Left actually has for free speech. Leftists are all for the First Amendment when they're expressing their warped vision for America. But when someone has the audacity to offer a thought that they haven't approved all tolerance is gone and it's Katy bar the door.
Prejean joined the hit list when she gave her opinion about gay marriage and then followed her words with action. Of all the gall! If there's anything that riles the Left more than a dissenting view, it's someone who's willing to act on that dissent. Her antagonists are leaving no stone unturned in dredging up dirt on Miss California, Carrie Prejean.
She is said to have made controversial statements regarding homosexuality at the Miss USA pageant in April. Since then, in a blatant attempt to discredit Carrie, her adversaries have adopted a scorched earth policy to smear her reputation. Her breast enhancement surgery has become big news (pardon the pun), as well as her having posed topless.
First of all, the only thing controversial about Prejean's conviction that marriage is a male-female institution is that it's controversial at all. She was asked her opinion and she gave it. If Leftists actually gave a hoot about the free exchange of ideas the case would be closed. But the case isn't closed, which confirms the Left's disdain for any speech or opinion that doesn't meet their approval.
As for the beauty queen having received breast augmentation--so what!
Over 355,000 women have breast implants annually. It's not uncommon for women in Carrie's position to have surgery on their breasts, hips, thighs, lips, or any part of their anatomy. Breast enhancement doesn't violate the Miss California pageant rules or Miss Prejean's Christian beliefs.
There's the rub, those pesky Christian beliefs. It was those principles that landed Carrie in hot water with the speech police. But what about her topless photos and her Christian morals?
In an effort to bring you an informed opinion I assumed the thankless job of examining Carrie's topless pictures. I analyzed those photos from top to bottom several times to ensure that I covered every angle. It was a grueling task, but one that had to be done.
The photos that sparked the “topless” controversy featured Prejean in pink panties and her breasts unexposed. Granted, the lingerie wasn't the kind your Aunt Mabel would wear, but it wasn't a thong either. The picture was nothing uncommon to a lingerie advertisement. You can find similarly exposed women in a department store catalog.
Other photos have now emerged where Carrie is indeed slightly exposed. In those pictures, unless they've been digitally altered, she certainly appears to have violated her principles. Then again, neither she nor anyone else can claim perfection. Christians fail, and sometimes even try to excuse their actions. But they don't celebrate their sins while demanding that they be accepted as pure and righteous. That's exactly how Leftists treat their immoralities.
Ranting and raving over her photos--whether topless or not--is nothing more than the Left's hypocritical attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint on homosexuality. If she had her mind “right” about gay marriage her photos wouldn't matter a hill of beans. But she didn't say the “right” thing. Therefore, she must be discredited if not destroyed outright.
The same people who now smear Carrie Prejean will blindly accept air headed rants from Hollywood activists. They will celebrate pornography, promote salacious sexual activities and advocate all manner of provocative dialogue. But they will feign offense at a barely exposed breast from a previously obscure photo shoot in order to silence an opposing voice.
There's no love for dissent among the Left. There's room only for their agenda and a healthy dose of destruction for anyone who dares deviate from their approved opinions.
Flu pandemic? Seems like we've heard this before
May 8, 2009
Remember the little boy who cried wolf? He overstated the threat so often that when the time for action arrived no one paid attention. If only he'd have warned that the wolf's presence was possible instead of imminent he may have preserved a modicum of trust. It's a simple story. If only health officials would become reacquainted with the little boy who cried wolf.
Ever since the H1N1 virus began to spread the word “pandemic” has been tossed around ad nauseam. Its very sound creates anxiety, especially when referred to in such ominous terms as “Level 5” or “Level 6”. Pandemic describes a prevalent outbreak of a disease over a large geographic area. Essentially, it is an epidemic on steroids.
I understand that the swine flu is--if you'll pardon the pun--nothing to sneeze at. There's nothing imprudent in monitoring its progress or in raising public awareness. However, there's a distinct difference between warning the public and creating terror. With “pandemic” accompanying every press release regarding H1N1 and the World Health Organization (WHO) predicting 2 billion infections worldwide the hysteria is exceeding the threat.
As of May 8, the WHO reports 896 cases of swine flu in the United States and 2500 cases worldwide. The CDC reports 1639 cases of swine flu in the US, with two deaths. Considering that the US population is over 300 million and the world population is 6.7 billion, I can't see where it's time to crawl into a hole. Recent history supports such skepticism.
The same dire forecasts we hear about swine flu now were made about bird flu in 2005. The WHO predicted that bird flu would kill millions and disrupt the global economy. Experts preached viral doom and face masks, even instructing people to call the CDC if there was a dead bird in their front yard.
Just two years before the bird flu we were introduced to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SARS spread via close contact, primarily through minuscule droplets from coughs and sneezes. Face masks were the order of the day as affected countries took heed of the WHO's predictions for widespread infection and death.
Despite the grim prophecies of a worldwide SARS pandemic barely 8000 people became ill and only 774 died. Those numbers are statistically insignificant and hardly the nightmare that was forecast.
When was the last time you gave bird flu or SARS a second thought? Neither disease turned out to be catastrophic. Considering health expert's recent track record in accurately foretelling pandemics we're compelled to believe that swine flu is as overblown as bird flu and SARS.
Whenever an exotic flu strain develops it's billed as certain death for millions upon millions. If health officials so need a pandemic to justify their existence why don't they look at the plain, common flu? According to the CDC there are more than 36,000 flu-related deaths annually in the US alone.
Yet the common flu rates barely a whimper and is accepted as a mere fact of life. It's just not as terrifying as an exotic flu strain. It doesn't induce public panic and it doesn't demand media drama. Therefore, not being useful, it is largely ignored.
I'm not advocating a Dark Ages response to the swine flu, or pig flu, or H1N1, or whatever passes for the politically correct terminology. The public should know that an unusual flu type exists, that it's possibly dangerous and that it's being monitored. However, experts have ginned up anxiety where--to this point at least--none need exist.
Each and every crisis that turns out not to be a crisis weakens the public's trust in health officials, politicians, or whoever happens to be issuing the warnings. By the time a genuine threat arises there may be no one listening.
A tale of two cartoonists
May 6, 2009
I admire cartoonists. Not only are they gifted artists but they are also able to convey a wide-ranging point within a limited space. This is quite different from the restraints an opinion columnist faces.
Most newspaper editorials run between 600 and 800 words. It can often be a struggle to say what needs to be said within that limited space. I'm more fortunate than many writers in that regard. I'm not so in love with my words that I can't bear to part with a few. Therefore, after several rounds of editing, cutting and revising I can generally make my point in less than 650 words.
That sounds economical until the op-ed is compared to the editorial cartoon. Most editorial cartoonists make their points in a single pane strip. Brevity, as they say, is the soul of wit. Yet brevity doesn't necessarily equate to accuracy. This truth is perfectly exemplified in a tale of two recent editorial cartoons.
Both works of cartoon art addressed the Tea Party protests held recently around the country. Both cartoonists made their points without wasting time or space. However, the opinions offered were as different as the publications in which they ran. Furthermore, only one of them offered an accurate portrayal of why the tea partiers gathered.
One cartoonist--whose strip appeared in a known left-leaning publication--missed the Tea Party's point entirely. In fact, after reviewing the cartoon you have to wonder if the artist had paid any attention to the protests at all.
This work depicts protesters carrying signs reading, “Let the banks fail,” Where's my pink slip?” and “Breadlines not bailouts.” One man, holding a “No Medicare for Mom” sign, explains to a bystander that the Tea Parties are opposed to excessive government spending. This cartoonist has based his opinion on a false premise if not on downright ignorance.
The gist of his work is that opposing an exceedingly wasteful and unconstitutional federal government equates to opposing bank solvency, economic advancement, self-sufficiency and proper medication, among other things. It's as if there's no possibility of security or happiness apart from a government program. Not only is this thought erroneous, it's dangerous.
Believe it or not success and contentment did exist before Washington became absolute dictator-for-life over our economy, finances and individual needs. In fact, the pursuit of happiness is much simpler without government's meddling, although attaining happiness remains difficult.
The second cartoonist saw the tea parties in a different light. His work depicted modern Americans aboard a Colonial-era sailing ship. All along the deck men and women are tossing boxes of tea into the ocean. Also tossed overboard--dressed in the suit and tie uniform of the typical Washington legislator--are a donkey and an elephant. The symbolism is blatantly obvious.
If you know why the Tea Party movement was organized you'll also understand that this artist caught the essence of the Tea Party participant.
The national media portrayed the protests as a collection of anti-government zealots, neo-Nazis, racists and mad bombers of every stripe. That's not quite the case. In fact, it's as far from the truth as the East is from the West.
The people who attended Tea Party rallies are your relatives, friends and neighbors. They are people who are fed up with the shameless attitudes and excessive spending promulgated by both Democrats and Republicans. They are taxpayers who are tired of seeing pandering, vote-buying politicians get reelected by reallocating tax monies under the guise of an unattainable social betterment. They, like our Founding Fathers, have had enough.
The second cartoonist captured that image perfectly.
In purely artistic terms both cartoonists remained true to their craft. They conveyed their opinions with brevity that a columnist can only dream about. But only one of them bothered to portray the truth in the process.
Obama administration blunders: almost as if they're planned
April 30, 2009
Weren't we told that Candidate Barak Obama was a highly intelligent man? And aren't we told that President Barak Obama is the smartest man to ever occupy the Oval Office? He's surely smarter than his juvenile cowboy predecessor, right?
Air Force One's cruise through the New York City skyline belies that image. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the typical New Yorker's reaction to such a sight. A large aircraft careening across town at skyscraper level, sharing the Big Apple's airspace with F-16 fighter jets and no one at the White House realized the imagery? Please!
Even Sen. Charles Schumer called the stunt “sheer stupidity.” Obama himself claimed ignorance and promised such incidents would never be repeated. It's beginning to appear that every time the administration blunders Obama will disavow knowledge and blames others.
The fact is that Obama owns everything that happens related to the White House. For him to be ignorant of where the presidential aircraft is on a given day is laughable. What's more, it turns out that the federal government knew exactly what was happening in New York and threatened sanctions against the secret service and NYPD if word leaked out. It makes you wonder if the ill-conceived flight actually unfolded according to plan.
The low-flying jet sparked a degree of panic, as you might expect. New Yorkers evacuated buildings. They called emergency dispatchers, thinking that their city was under another 9/11-style attack. Then Obama steps forward to furiously condemn the entire episode and appears the voice of reason in the midst of disorder.
It's a modernized version of the old bait and switch. What better way to distract public attention from his no-holds-barred attack on free enterprise and private property than to create radical imagery then deny all knowledge of the event? Before you dismiss this thought as conspiratorial nonsense, understand that this isn't the first time such an incident has taken place.
Timothy Geithner was said to be the only man capable of deciphering credit and banking deficiencies. Obama nominated him for Treasury Secretary with full confidence. When it became known that Geithner had tax problems Obama took the moderate stance and blamed his staff for a lack of vetting.
Janet Napolitano topped them all. A study released through the Department of Homeland Security--the agency she manages--generalized conservatives as right-wing nutcases and potential enemies of the State.
Did you vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin? You're a possible subversive. Oppose abortion, high taxation, or illegal immigration? You're a greedy racist and a religious fanatic who warrants government surveillance. Own a gun? You're the worst form of threat, right along with our Founding Fathers.
If that's not enough, Napolitano declared that entering the United States illegally isn't a crime at all. The bureaucrat whose job it is to preserve national security flatly refuses to acknowledge Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, which plainly states that entering the country illegally is a crime. Again, such inexplicably idiotic statements from Obama's underlings provide him with opportunities to position himself to the right of Left.
Even Obama participates in the act. Washington is now trading bailout capital for voting stock in the banking and auto industries. This comes after numerous speeches declaring that no plan exists to nationalize the banks and that the government has no interest in managing the auto industry. He paints himself as a moderate, but governs like the quintessential socialist.
It's unsettling to think that a U.S. President would so manipulate subordinates for political positioning. It's more unsettling to think that he has so little knowledge of administration activities. But it's downright scary how Obama can use flowery phrases and staged events to distract attention from his agenda to “remake America.”
What's in a poll?
April 29, 2009
A poll by any other name would smell of manipulation, for pollsters can easily slant questions to produce a desired result. That's why individual polling data can--for the most part--be safely ignored. I must thank a recent email message for bringing this truth into stark focus.
The sender asked me to grade Obama's performance for an Internet poll conducted by MSNBC. My first thought was, what's the point? An MSNBC survey will surely grant Obama an “A” grade. Considering that some polls show the President with approval ratings near 70-percent, a thoroughly supportive result would be expected. Imagine my surprise when 37-percent of the 2.9 million respondents gave him the expected “A” while 39-percent say Obama is flunking. That's right, flunking with a capital “F”.
This survey doesn't indicate that the country is turning on its 44th President, at least not entirely. People can vote multiple times in such Internet based polls and email campaigns can drive people to MSNBC that otherwise wouldn't go near that network, people such as me.
However, this survey does indicate that Barak Obama is far from the unifying influence he is portrayed to be. In fact, it can be said that he's downright polarizing. Furthermore, the numbers in this unscientific poll are similar to scientific data compiled at Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index (PAI) shows Obama with a plus-5 rating. The index is determined by combining “strongly disapprove” ratings (31-percent) with “strongly approve” responses (36-percent). The difference produces a positive, negative, or equal PAI.
While Obama's approval rating is stronger than his disapproval rating, the responses do seem to verify the grades he received in the MSNBC online poll, at least to a degree. Obama isn't as universally popular as his supporters and apologists would have us believe. Furthermore, his PAI has remained at plus-3 to plus-6 since early March. Again, the numbers indicate a favorable rating for Obama, but nothing that can be considered sweeping support for his radical makeover of America.
As stated earlier, it isn't the individual polling that matters most, if polling indeed matters at all. Trends paint a more accurate picture, and polling trends at Rasmussen have been less than kind to Obama thus far.
His PAI has reached double figures only once since March 6th and is down from plus-30 following his inauguration. His overall approval ratings have dropped nine points, to 55-percent, since January. But more troubling for the Obama administration, his “strongly disapprove” rating has climbed 17 points (to 31-percent) over the same period.
If his approval numbers are in a slow but steady decline while his disapprovals are rising, where is his mandate to “remake America”, as he so ominously promises in his speeches?
Fans of perennially losing baseball teams understand the phrase, “hope springs eternal.” For the rest of you, it means to think positive until the reality of the season sets in. That saying rings true for Barak Obama, too. His approval ratings skyrocketed between Election Day and his inauguration, when he wasn't doing anything. Obama's PAI jumped from plus-8 to plus-29 as he won support from previously disapproving voters, and his overall positive image jumped 17 points to 69-percent.
But the season eventually begins, and a baseball team has to win to maintain the fans' faith. Likewise, Obama had to govern. Going by the numbers, a growing portion of the American population doesn't see the Obama administration as a winning team.
Polling trends are far more valuable than individual polls in determining public attitudes. Trends point out flaws in both the person and their policies. The rosy love fest that followed Election Day is gone and Obama's direction belies his campaign of “hope and change.”
Rasmussen's trends indicate that a growing number of voters recognize Obama's “change” as the exponential escalation of 2008's big government, bailout mentality. Thank God, fewer people are buying into it.
Perez Hilton elevates stupidity to new heights
April 23, 2009
Most people are ashamed of ignorance, although ignorance itself isn't shameful. It simply means that you lack knowledge about a subject. Then there are people like Perez Hilton, who will nurse a small spark of witlessness into a raging inferno of stupidity, seemingly on purpose.
The self-serving, “heterophobic” Hilton used the Miss USA pageant as his personal soapbox. But he got more than he bargained for from Miss California, Carrie Prejean. When Hilton asked Carrie if more states should follow Vermont in legalizing gay marriages she told him what she thought. Her response was candid and respectful, and certainly not the answer the flaming Hilton expected.
Prejean wasn't angry, insulting, or critical. She simply said that she thinks marriage is exclusively a male-female relationship, which is a suitable and polite answer for the question Hilton asked. Carrie Prejean gave a forthright reply and for her trouble Perez Hilton slammed her in a video posted on his website. He called her a “dumb bitch” with “half a brain” and vowed that, had she won, he would've stormed the stage and snatched the tiara from her head.
Ah, the attitude of the envious. Could Hilton be motivated by jealousy, since Carrie looks better in a bikini and evening gown that he ever will? It's more likely he would've snatched her bald and scratched her eyes out.
When it comes to dumb and half-brained, Carrie Prejean has a long way to fall before she dips below Hilton's idiocy.
Perez quickly sought celebrity confirmation for his tirade, conjuring pro-gay marriage statements from Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus. Now there's a stellar combination for you.
Spears may be the only woman in America who can make a porn star appear chaste. Isn't she the one who shaves her head on a whim, considers marriage a one night stand and strategically reveals her panty-less crotch to the paparazzi, then complains about their having invaded her privacy? Cyrus isn't there yet, but appears well on her way.
If I had daughters I wouldn't want them emulating either the pitifully unstable Spears or her budding protégé. And if I wanted to prove a point, that pair would be far down on my list of consultants.
In reality Hilton shouldn't have raised the gay marriage issue at all. But whenever such a controversial topic is addressed the inquirer had best be prepared for an undesired answer. Hilton thought he could predict her response and he was dead wrong. Now he's guilty of stereotyping Carrie Prejean, something the Left allegedly frowns upon.
Hilton saw a young, hip, blonde California woman and assumed she would have the customary, politically correct position on gay marriage. When she unabashedly spoke her mind he huffed off to his website to post his childish, thoughtless, vitriolic diatribe. In other words, he behaved like the stereotypical Leftist.
Carrie Prejean is a heroine. She not only refused to compromise her principles but she struck a blow for free speech, for which the Left holds nothing but hostility and contempt. Now it appears that her honesty lost the Miss USA title, a fact Hilton essentially admitted on Larry King.
Normally I don't care for lawsuits. However, if Carrie's loss was politically driven she should sue the heterophobic Miss USA organization for discrimination and for violating her First Amendment rights. What's more, she should sue Hilton for slander. She should take him for everything he has, including that putrid, puke-green jacket he wore to the pageant.
Miss Prejean doesn't regret her answer, nor should she, and considers the entire event God's way of testing her character. I'd say she passed the test with flying colors.
It was the “mainstream” Perez Hilton who practiced intolerance. It was Perez Hilton who spoke from both sides of his mouth. And it was Perez Hilton who represented the perfect fool.
McCarthy would've loved today's useful idiots
April 22, 2009
Senator Joseph McCarthy caused quite a stir in his day. What arguably began as the legitimate scrutiny of communists or communist sympathizers dissolved into something akin to the Salem witch hunts. Soon anyone who so much as wore a red t-shirt risked being labeled a subversive and hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Undoubtedly there were genuine card-carrying communists and Soviet spies among those McCarthy targeted. There was a committed communist party within the United States at that time, just as there is today. However, McCarthy's dragnet entangled hundreds if not thousands of people who were no more communists than Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.
Of course, there were communists who avoided identification, just as there were people wrongly accused. But a person's allegiances are generally identifiable through their relationships. Birds of a feather, you know. With that in mind it may be said that McCarthy's greatest problem, other than his overzealous nature, was being born 60 years too soon.
McCarthy would've thought he'd found the mother lode in seven U.S. legislators who recently visited Cuba. This imprudent entourage returned to the United States singing Fidel and Raul Castro's praises as if the two communist thugs were the greatest advocates for human liberty since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Rep. Barbara Lee hailed Fidel Castro as “energetic” and “clear-thinking.” According to her reports Fidel considers President Obama “smart, intelligent (methinks Fidel is redundant) . . . and good for America.”
Somehow it just doesn't calm my soul to hear a despotic tyrant who has made a habit of jailing and killing political enemies praise Obama as “good for America.” I think it's safe to say that Fidel Castro has historically been far more concerned with preserving his power than with advancing Cuba's liberty and prosperity, much less with what's “good for America.”
Rep. Lee also had similar glowing compliments for Fidel's brother and current Cuban overlord, Raul.
Rep. Bobby Rush was just as pathetic if not worse. Did he condemn Cuba's 50-year history of abusing the communist regime's opponents? Not at all. Instead he focused on the “plight” of Cuban spies who were captured in Miami, one of whom was involved in the deaths of four pilots who were shot down by Cuban fighter planes while ferrying defectors out of Fidel's worker's paradise. All the while Rep. Rush gushed over Raul's “basic human qualities.”
Such fawning praise for communist dictators is nothing new. Left-wingers used the same approach during arms reductions talks with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Soviet leaders promised all manner of dialogue with no topic off limits, just like Cuba promised these seven gullible representatives. But we were the ones who invariably made the concessions.
Agreement with the Soviets meant abandoning technology that we had perfected but that the Russians didn't yet possess. Some agreement. It was akin to dropping your gun while allowing the burglar in your bedroom to keep their knife.
Ironically, it was Stalin who coined the most accurate moniker for people who are easily duped into serving another's purpose. “Useful idiots,” he called them. I can't imagine a more fitting description for this doting collection of congressional saps. Sure enough, as soon as Lee and her associates finished praising Cuba's rulers, Fidel and Raul tossed them under the bus.
Indeed you can determine a person's affinities by the company they keep. That said, Joseph McCarthy may have been ahead of his time. If he were alive today he wouldn't need to peek behind doors and peer under beds to find his communist sympathizers. An afternoon walk through the Halls of Congress should do the trick. He'd at least turn up a few useful idiots.
Poor media coverage is a badge of honor
April 17, 2009
The late Dale Earnhardt once said that it didn't matter if you were cheered or booed as long as people knew you were there. If you attended the Tea Party you were booed inside the Beltway and in the “mainstream” media. That's fine; it was expected. In fact, we should consider their virulent tantrums complimentary.
Look at it this way. If you and a perpetual opponent suddenly agree then you've likely compromised your principles. If they ignore you, you've done nothing noteworthy. But if they attack you, you know you've hit them square in the mouth. Considering the vengeful retaliation from political and media elites, the tea parties must've landed a vicious blow.
CNN's “reporter” Susan Roesgen antagonized tea partiers in Chicago, verbally assaulting one protester over the content of his sign. Admittedly, picturing Obama as Hitler adds little to our argument. But Roesgen did no reporting, she propagandized. Then, immediately after her “interview” she belittled the entire tea party movement, displaying either a total ignorance of the event or her personal hostility toward its true goals.
She then turned the broadcast back to the studio because she considered the tea party scene inappropriate for family viewing. The talking head anchor in the newsroom promptly sympathized.
It's funny how Roesgen found no offense whatsoever when Katrina protesters likened Bush to Hitler (Bush was no great shakes either, but he wasn't Hitler). Furthermore, CNN had little to say about the profanity laced, window breaking, pepper spray dispersed protest of Tom Tancredo's speech on illegal immigration at UNC-Chapel Hill.
UNC's chancellor apologized to Tancredo. But protest organizer Tyler Oakley said he was proud to have silenced opinion that he deemed inappropriate. What a fine example of the high regard the Left actually has for dissent.
Nancy Pelosi got into the act, too (Yeah, big surprise!), branding the movement an artificial and politically motivated tool organized and equipped by the Republican Party. Basically, she says we're a collection of duped phonies. Rep. Jan Schakowsky called the events “despicable and shameful.” And that's not even the worst of it.
The Weekly Standard reports a document circulating among congressional staffers on Capital Hill. According to that document the tea parties aren't about the average citizen's disgust with wasteful spending and extended federal power at all. Instead they are about racism, neo-Nazism, and separatist militias. And actress Janeane Garofalo called us crazy racists who are “hating a black man in the White House.”
These allegations are obviously unfounded, insulting and foolish. The typical response to such idiocy is to become angry or to shrink from the name calling. However, for wise people to argue with fools is a hollow exercise. Running from lunacy isn't valid, either.
How about we adopt a third option? How about embracing the Left's nonsense and capitalizing on their unfettered hostility, just like Dale Earnhardt embraced the taunts from his antagonists?
An event drawing hundreds of thousands of people to 750 separate sites cannot be ignored, not even by a media that's hostile to the cause. However, if media outlets had not tried to discredit the event's purpose, and had politicians not tried to downplay its significance, and had the loons not came out to squawk at the moon, that would've been far worse than their insults.
I say we have accomplished something special. We have focused a nation on the need for a fiscally responsible and constitutionally restrained central government. We've reestablished the idea that Washington exists to serve the people and the states instead of becoming the master of both.
It is but a toehold at this point. But if it weren't true the Left wouldn't be so hopping mad. If we were the insane racists they claim we are would we not destroy our selves, removing the need for their Animal Farm totalitarian tactics? Let's build on that toehold, realizing that our opponent's insults speak not of our intelligence but of their own vacuous intellect. Ours is a righteous cause.
In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor Admiral Yamamoto said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” The reaction from Leftist leaders and their useful idiots reflects an uncertainty similar to Yamamoto's. It's up to us to keep that fear alive.
Veterans, our oath remains and our duty is clear
April 13, 2009
For one group of Americans, supporting the Tea Party movement extends far beyond reason or choice. It is an obligation. That group is military veterans, of whose number I am honored to be a part.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy while still in high school. Six months after graduation I reported for basic training. That was 1984, and from then until my honorable discharge I did what the Navy asked of me.
Thankfully, I was never called upon to fight. Instead I served as a hydraulic and airframes mechanic and a flight crewman on the land-based TC-4C aircraft. There were no exotic ports or hunt-for-Red-October experiences for me. In fact, during my four years of service I never saw “the boat”.
There's no Congressional Medal of Honor or Bronze Star in my service record. I wasn't a SEAL or a member of an elite unit. Maybe that's why I have such great respect and admiration for those who have faced combat. But I did my part. The aircraft I crewed helped train bombardier-navigators for the A-6 Intruder, which was an integral part of our nation's air superiority in 1991's Persian Gulf War.
I left active duty having been faithful to the oath I swore on a cold January morning at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Charlotte, NC. My service obligation was fulfilled. But that oath remains, for it was taken in the name of a higher authority than Congress, or even the President. It was sworn to Almighty God.
If you're a veteran you took that oath, too. And that oath places a greater burden on us--the military veterans--to resist the unconstitutional powers that the federal government has claimed and is, in fact, exercising.
A soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine swears to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We are to bear faith and loyalty to the same. Nowhere in that oath did we pledge to defend any government, especially a federal government that has broken faith with its citizens and willfully exceeded its lawful restraints. Our obligation to obey the President, our superiors and the UCMJ ends with our release from active duty. Yet our vow to defend the Constitution can never wane, not if we desire to remain free.
In this light I call upon veterans to renew their commitment to the foundational American ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility, of self-government and self-determination. Veterans have stood in opposition to Marxist doctrine on foreign shores and distant seas. Likewise veterans have resisted the tyranny of Islamic radicalism, the inevitable result of which is slavery. Surely we must resist politicians who deny our Constitution, our liberty and our economic survival, establishing in their stead a tyrannical despotism.
Veterans have been first to fight in time of war and first to stand down in times of peace. We should be first to resist the escalation of domestic socialism or fascism, too. Whether it's attending a rally, blogging, editorializing, pressuring legislators, funding activities or supporting those who do, we must rise to the defense of our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's not only our oath and duty, it's our privilege.
Finally, a legacy for our 42nd President
April 10, 2009
It's difficult to imagine a more image conscious president than William Jefferson Clinton. The only problem was that he acted first, and then tried to reform his standing with various damage control measures. He was, in part, successful. Mainly because people expected him to lie and weren't shocked when he did.
Despite a political prowess that helped him maintain popularity throughout scandals that would've destroyed other presidencies, Clinton left office in search of a legacy. I think I've uncovered what should define the Clinton Administration. His legacy is now set in stone.
No one can reasonably argue that we aren't living in dangerous times. Iran is on the brink of joining the nuclear club. North Korea keeps launching its skyrockets into the Pacific Ocean. And we have a neophyte president racing around the globe apologizing for America's role in everything short of the Napoleonic Wars. Lost in the headlines is the Clinton legacy. As a favor to him I will bring it to light.
Few people have noticed China's new ASBM, or anti-ship ballistic missile. But you can bet that the U.S. Navy has noticed it. In fact, a US Naval Institute report described the Chinese missile as a “kill weapon.”
This missile can cover its 2000 kilometer range in less than 12 minutes. It is highly maneuverable and difficult to track by radar due to its complex guidance system. That guidance system grants Bill Clinton the legacy he's so desperately sought over the last eight years.
Not long ago China's missile technology was the rough equivalent of what North Korea's is today. Chinese missiles were either highly inaccurate or they exploded before reaching their destination. That all changed when Clinton was president. It's beyond debate that the Clinton Administration was slow to react to revelations concerning Chinese espionage at the US nuclear facilities at Los Alamos during the 1990s. But that was only a part of the problem.
Clinton made it easy for American companies to sell missile technology to the Chinese Communist government, which included missile guidance systems. He ignored advice from his own cabinet and approved the technology transfers without proper intelligence reviews.
Why would Bill Clinton, then a sitting president, do such a disservice to America? Why, for the same reasons other politicians sell out their country, its Constitution and their oath of office: money and reelection.
The American companies that directly benefited from this open door intelligence sharing policy were major contributors to Clinton and the Democratic Party. Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics gave $2.5 million to Democrats during Clinton's first term ($1 million to Republicans). Furthermore, Loral's CEO was the Democrats' largest single contributor. Even the Chinese government gave to the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996.
A Pentagon investigation eventually determined that this transfer of missile technology to the Chinese government had compromised the United States' national security. The technology used in China's new ASBM may not be the same as that obtained during the Clinton years. But it's certainly reasonable to think that China's newest development is a derivative of that knowledge.
It turns out that the Democrats were correct. Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for Lewinsky-gate. He should've been impeached for selling military technology to a potential adversary, and a communist adversary at that. There's your legacy Mr. Clinton. It's one born from a selfish disregard for the country you led.
If on some future date a U.S. carrier goes to Davy Jones's Locker due to a Chinese ASBM your legacy will become one of treason. I hope it's all you thought it would be.
Rep. Myrick, you are government
April 10, 2009
It will be a bright day for our constitutional republic when we fill Congress with outside-the-beltway thinkers. Unfortunately, once elected such reformers become part of the beltway establishment. Government continues to grow and liberty erodes. Rep. Sue Myrick's recent column in the Gaston Gazette profoundly illustrates this truth.
Rep. Myrick is quite correct on a wide array of issues ranging from abortion to gun control and illegal aliens to tax reform. I have supported and voted for Rep. Myrick. However, her editorial reveals that she is no longer the reformer of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Instead she is just one conservative cog in an ever-expanding federal machine.
During Ronald Reagan's first term I began to believe that a Republican president with a Republican Congress could return the federal government to its constitutional limits. That dream became reality during Bush 43. And while I didn't expect to reign in the federal behemoth overnight, I did anticipate perceivable progress. It turns out that I was wrong and Mrs. Myrick's op-ed partially explains my error.
Now that Republicans are again the minority it appears that Rep. Myrick is regaining that AWOL, outsider spirit. Her editorial tackles Washington's desire to tax “everything under the sun” from a third party view of government, like she's again the Quixote-like crusader determined to tilt the federal windmill.
Mrs. Myrick, you aren't an outsider; you are government. Where was this attitude when Washington's authority and spending expanded so greatly between 2001 and 2006, while your party--my party--was in control? Why weren't you screaming from the capital dome when the Bush administration created the huge entitlement program known as Medicare Part D? Why did federal involvement with education increase on our watch even though declining academic standing has coincided with increased federal involvement?
She rightly declares that “normal” Americans face penalties and harassment for tax omissions and form errors. However, tax evaders have routinely been offered cabinet posts in the present administration. And one of those cheats is now in charge of the IRS.
I understand that Rep. Myrick's office has no say in the Obama administration's cabinet nominees. But if Republicans had governed conservatively--like they were elected to do--Obama might've remained an irrelevant junior senator from Illinois.
Tax reform is on Rep. Myrick's radar also. She supports the Fair Tax, which would replace the income tax with a consumption tax and abolish the IRS. Sounds like a great idea. But it's nothing new. Similar tax reform plans have been around for years, including Steve Forbes's flat tax.
Tax reform and small government, as well as Medicare and Social Security reform, were key planks of the Republican's rise to power 15 years ago. Yet little to nothing was done about the tax code, which remains as bad as or worse than ever, and entitlement programs are still charging headlong toward insolvency. Now the idea of tax reform is promoted, when it has as much chance of surviving as does an ice cube in the River Styx?
Rep. Myrick's own column shows that not even the double taxation known as the estate tax could be abolished without a sunset period. Since Republicans “phased out” the death tax, instead of ending it outright, it's likely to remain law.
Sue Myrick is decidedly conservative on most fiscal, philosophical, cultural and societal issues. She's by no means a tax and spend leftist. Furthermore, the perfect candidate doesn't now and has never existed. Rep. Myrick will likely--and in most regards, rightly--remain a reasonable representative for her conservative district.
However, conservative voters who spurred the Republican Party to its former majority status have every reason to be ticked over what was received in return. Rep. Myrick, is it too much to ask that when Republicans next gain legislative power that the party govern as a majority the way it talks as a minority?
Stop the slaughter, loosen the gun laws
April 8, 2009
Whenever there's a senseless, unexplainable act of violence the first thing we do is try to make sense of it and search for an explanation. The reaction is almost as pointless as the slaughter that invariably preceded it. Still more pointless are the illogical and vacuous suggestions for preventing future occurrences.
Review recent headlines or tune in the news and you have to be horrified. If not, you're probably the most heartless person on earth.
In Carthage, NC a lone murderer strolls into a nursing home and shoots eight people to death. Seven of the victims were elderly residents who were in no position to resist or put up a defense of any kind. Another maniac kills 13 at an immigration services office in Binghamton, NY. Shootings have also occurred in California, Alabama and Washington; the list could go on and on.
It's been no better for the police. A fugitive parolee suspected in the rape of a 12-year-old girl kills four Oakland officers and the local community treats him like Audie Murphy or Sgt. York. Four Pittsburgh officers die while responding to a domestic disturbance.
Each case is as senseless as it is unexplainable. Unfortunately, there will be people who will attempt to prevent future violent behavior with emotionally charged remedies instead of logical thought. We'll soon be inundated with banal, insipid calls for more gun control laws. In fact, that call has already begun.
The Brady Campaign--America's leading hard-on-guns, soft-on-criminals organization--is already demanding enactment of previously failed infringements on liberty. On their website the group ponders what horrid bloodletting will be required for Congress to enact their version of “common sense” gun control.
This is the point where Second Amendment defenders get, well, defensive. Not this time. I'm tired of hearing anti-freedom; anti-Constitution zealots tell gun owners that we're responsible for the acts of heinous murderers, and that we must relinquish our basic liberties to compensate for crimes we haven't committed.
If there's blood on anyone's hands--other than on the hands that actually pull a trigger without just cause--it's on those of the gun control activist. There is blood on the hands of Sarah Brady and her political puppets such as Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin. They've worked tirelessly to leave Americans cowering before the criminals that they themselves refuse to blame.
Certainly the people who squared off with the police knew they would face armed resistance. But violent criminals overwhelmingly prefer unarmed, defenseless victims. The rampaging murderers in Carthage and Binghamton fit that description perfectly. These shootings, among many others, prove that the answer to preventing such atrocious mass killings does not rest in more gun control.
Had gun control activists not been so successful in stigmatizing and outlawing the open carry of firearms and their use in self-defense the carnage in Carthage and Binghamton wouldn't have been as terrible. Armed staff or visitors to the Pinelake Rehab or the immigration center would've had both means and opportunity to halt their assailants.
No one can honestly claim that the recent attacks would've been prevented. However, the death toll certainly could've been lower, if only by one or two. Maybe that seems insignificant to the overall picture, but to the people who would still be alive and to their families it's very significant. In fact, it's everything.
If you have no right to defend your life you have no right to life at all. Gun control laws grant to violent, aggressive predators the right to determine if you live or die. I find that prospect, as well as the utter disdain that gun control advocates have for life and public safety, thoroughly unacceptable if not downright criminal.
Wage controls take us where we don't want to go
April 4, 2009
Conservative commentators have editorialized against the government established minimum wage from every angle. Generally, those editorials were spent analyzing the economic detriments of such mandates.
Minimum wage laws tend to harm the people they're ostensibly designed to assist. Young, uneducated, and inexperienced workers become less attractive to businesses when legislation mandates a higher wage than their abilities command. Quite often their jobs disappear, or they're passed over for more experienced prospects during the hiring phase. Furthermore, relatively few families are living on minimum wage jobs, and those families don't remain there forever.
But the best argument, aside from Congress having no constitutional authority to create wage floors, is the precedent that government mandated wages create. I've previously contended that a government that can mandate a minimum wage can also mandate a maximum wage.
It sounded like one of your crazy uncle's loopy conspiracy theories, one that flew in aboard a black helicopter. America would never go for such a collectivist, Bolshevik idea. The prophecy doesn't sound so crazy now, and we're charging toward such restrictions at full tilt.
Just like animals prey upon the weak and the lame, so do politicians increase their power over the governed. Washington has tossed billions of dollars at struggling companies, even coercing some firms to accept the handouts. With those handouts businesses also accepted a new, Big Brother business partner. The crunched firms became the lame wildebeest to the federal government's pride of lions.
Politicians know all too well that public outrage is their greatest asset. They can accomplish almost any usurpation of liberty if they can play upon resentment or anger. Voters are ablaze over the bailout bonuses, and Washington is dousing that fire with gasoline.
Our government, the entity at the heart of our economic problems, has manipulated the matter for gain. Emboldened by the public's misdirected anger the Obama administration has moved for a maximum wage.
For now, the administration insists, that cap will apply only to companies that have received bailout funds. But with Timothy Geithner's desire for more autonomy in seizing private firms that he deems unsound, how long before all businesses face a maximum wage?
The White House and Congress are taking full advantage of the situation, and of you in the process. They believe that resentment and jealousy rule the day, and will translate into support for their heavy-handed activities. Their manipulation is aimed directly toward a middle class that feels trapped, forced into supporting welfare bums from the outhouse to the penthouse. You might think twice before allowing your emotions to grant them support.
Government manufactured the authority to create a minimum wage for the many. Now, via the crisis mentality, it is creating a maximum wage for the few. It will only expand. If government can determine a minimum and maximum wage it can also determine a median wage. Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class, do you want Congress deciding what your wage will be next week?
It's only a matter of time before government will choose the “fair” salary for nurses, carpenters, truck drivers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. Once that happens, what good will it do to complain?
Give the matter of dictated wage controls a serious second look before granting the government favor in its devious undertaking. Once a regulatory avenue is opened it is seldom closed. Once a freedom is lost it is seldom regained.
Incrementalism is a dangerous device. Legislators realized that votes could be gained via the minimum wage. Now they see the same opportunity in a maximum wage based on the government-funded bailouts combined with public envy and resentment. Ultimately, under the guise of fairness, Washington will establish control over all wages, including yours. Are you sure that's the “change” you voted for?
The political Left is America's home for racism
April 1, 2009
Many people thought we'd driven a stake through racism's heart when Barak Obama was inaugurated. Here we have the nation's first black president, elected with surprisingly strong showings in traditionally conservative voting blocs. Surely, observers thought, we can finally move beyond the typically shallow racism charges. Fat chance.
Simply recognizing that a black man received the most votes and sits in the Oval Office isn't enough to avoid the racist label. You have to agree with his policies, too. You must believe his spin, you must accept his doubletalk, you must drink deeply of his Kool-Aid, or you're a racist. Actress and model Angie Harmon is learning this the hard way, and battling with tactics doomed to failure.
Harmon says she's tired of being called a racist because she doesn't blindly adopt Obama's viewpoints. She insists that her opposition is based solely on Obama's political theories and that she isn't a racist. That's where Angie makes her two critical mistakes.
First, the worst response to an unfounded racism charge is to become defensive; it makes you appear guilty. Second, it does no good to employ reason and fact while arguing with a Leftist, for their opinions are based on rhetoric and emotion.
Let's tackle the second issue first.
Two of Harmon's peers--Mandy Moore and Debra Messing--are profound examples of vacuous intellect. Their support for Obama is based on a half-dozen sound bites rolled into one gigantic talking point. From Obama having inherited the economic problems to his speaking prowess to the wonderful team he has assembled, it's all there. But each of their points is refutable without mentioning race at all.
Obama “inherited” nothing, and it's beyond childish to make such a claim. One, he sought the presidency; no one dumped it on him. Two, Bush had been a lame duck since 2006.
It was Obama's Democratic Party that held Congress for the last two years. It was Obama's party that thwarted efforts to address the mounting lending problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were foundational to our current situation. Furthermore, Obama was a member of that Congress, when he wasn't too consumed with his presidential ambitions.
An articulate speaker? Apart from the teleprompter he's prone to gaffs. When honoring our war dead at a Memorial Day speech Obama said that many of them were in the audience. Another time he mentioned having visited 57 states. On a recent Leno appearance he joked about his “Special Olympics” bowling. What if Bush had said those things?
Sure, these were misstatements. Obama was speaking about service members both living and dead. He knows there aren't 57 states, and his Leno joke was an ill-timed and poorly conceived attempt at self-deprecating humor. But these are unpardonable sins for a man who's entire persona is built around his perceived intellect and speaking prowess. And how many of his “good team” turned out to be tax cheats or other hypocritical charlatans?
Such arguments are wasted on void craniums like Moore's and Messing's, whose minds are made up, period.
Now to the second point.
It is liberal Democrats who are the racists. It's been the big government doctrine, proliferated by Democrats, that has decimated the once strong black family. Liberal policies have convinced far too many blacks that they can't survive without affirmative action or other racial quota program. It's liberal Democrats who defend as “black culture” the idea that academic success is “acting white”.
Over the last forty years liberal, white elitists have done more to keep blacks on the plantation than the Klan did in the 100 years prior. You want to find racists? Look in the upper echelons of the Democrat Party.
No one need apologize for opposing Barak Obama's socialist agenda. And no one need play defense against charges of racism emanating from the mouths of hypocritical fools.
Jefferson's wisdom remains salient two centuries later
March 31, 2009
Ask any American if they remember Thomas Jefferson and the answer will be yes. His accomplishments are renowned and his intellect is unquestionable. Jefferson was an eloquent and prolific writer, a skilled architectural engineer and our nation's third president.
Of course, Jefferson had his contradictions. All humans do. The Louisiana Purchase, although a shrewd buy, conflicted with his views on enumerated federal powers. His ownership of slaves contrasted with his personal view of slavery. Writing in Notes on the State of Virginia (1781) he called slavery a “great political and moral evil.” Even so, Thomas Jefferson's insights on 18th Century liberty and tyranny remain a relevant lesson for modern society.
Americans may indeed respect Jefferson's memory. But how many of us would respect his views on government? How many of our countrymen understand the nature of tyranny? Does 21st Century America comprehend power's intoxicating affect on both individuals--such as presidents--and groups, such as Congress? Jefferson knew the matter well.
Commenting on British abuses prior to the Revolution he wrote, “History has informed us that bodies of men as well as individuals are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny.” Does it sound like Jefferson was describing our political situation? I should think so.
If our eyes were as sharp and our minds as keen as Jefferson's we'd have noticed our nation's slow and steady decline toward collectivism long before now. It didn't begin with bailouts for banks, insurers and automakers. It didn't begin with a president who essentially commandeered a private company (General Motors) and fired its CEO (Rick Wagoner) while claiming that government has no desire to control the auto business.
American liberty has gently eroded over the course of the last 75 years. The slide has spanned administrations from both major political parties, encountering only a few brief detours along the way. All the while we were opposing the Soviet Union we were incrementally adopting similar collectivist policies.
Jefferson recognized that singular usurpations of liberty would arise periodically, prompted by erroneous and temporary trends. Yet a methodical march from one tyranny to the next (such as we've experienced), “pursued unalterably thro' every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”
I hate to sound conspiratorial, but Jefferson's warning is undeniably prophetic.
That's not to label all law as tyranny; nothing could be farther from the truth. Certain laws are indispensable in pursuing a more perfect union. As contradictory as it sounds rules are established so liberty can flourish. A society must adopt law in order to restrain and punish those few citizens who would deny their neighbor's freedom, and to reflect the character of the citizenry. Does our law stop at these purposes, or has it extended far beyond its legitimate boundaries?
Jefferson realized the value of law. Yet he also recognized that man's morality served as a superior restraint. Law is a pound of cure whereas morality is an ounce of prevention. When deciding between the excessive and despotic laws of European monarchies and the unwritten, human conscience law of the American Indians, Jefferson preferred the latter.
The moral: excessive law denies liberty just as sure as too little law fails to protect it.
We have descended to our current state from having lost sight of the principles that Jefferson long ago outlined. If we are to protect our selves, and future generations, from the predictable culmination of our government's excess we must paraphrase and practice one of Jefferson's most memorable and radical statements: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the votes of patriots and the seats of tyrants.
Gay marriage debate occurring where it should--in the states
March 28, 2009
North Carolina State Senator James Forrester opened the gay marriage can of worms in a big way. In fact, his proposal to amend North Carolina's constitution to ban gay marriage not only opened the can, it dumped the worms in our laps (no pun intended). Predictably, Sen. Forrester has taken some heat for his efforts. However, he's addressing the issue at the state level, where it belongs.
There exists no constitutional authority for Congress to intervene, one way or the other, in the institution of marriage. Therefore, by nature of the Tenth Amendment, authority over marriage falls to the states and the people. Sen. Forrester's proposal, whatever you think of it, is based on the sound principle of enumerated powers.
Deciding controversial issues, such as gay marriage, in state legislatures or via voter initiatives is infinitely reasonable. People have greater influence over their governments at lower levels. Therefore, their visions for a more perfect union are likely to be enacted in the states rather than at the federal level.
In a perfect world there's no reason to support a “gay marriage” amendment to the U.S. Constitution, whether it legalizes or outlaws such unions, for the very reasons stated previously. Yet I would support a similar amendment at the state level. It helps prevent federal courts from imposing one state's practices on another. That's entirely consistent with the doctrine of enumerated federal powers. But, it will surely make me a homophobe, right? Not really.
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of the State's business. Homosexual men and women must justify their choices before their Creator, not Raleigh or Washington. Private affairs are just that--private. However, the subject of marriage makes private relationships public, and that changes the equation.
The main idea behind gay marriage isn't equality or civil rights. It's attaining a public stamp of approval for what has long been held as an immoral and unnatural attraction. And yes, societies can exercise authority over what is and isn't publicly acceptable; we do it all the time.
This raises the question of what constitutes an unnatural attraction or activity. Cannot a monogamous, married, heterosexual couple engage in the same basic activities in which homosexuals participate? Again, the propriety of those activities--even between heterosexuals--must be reconciled with their Creator, not with the State. Yet whatever their interaction, the basic male-female attraction is purely natural.
It's true that sexual relations are meant to be enjoyed. But the debate takes a different turn when we admit that the basic purpose of sex isn't recreation; it's procreation. No matter what else a heterosexual couple may do they can always engage in that activity which produces life. Homosexuals can do their thing until the cows come home and never approach perpetuating our species.
“What about Thomas Beattie, the Oregon man who gave birth?” you ask.
Let me answer with an example. Suppose I drive up in a new Lamborghini. But you notice that every part, except the body, was made by Chevrolet. You might rightly declare that while my car presents the outward appearance of a Lamborghini, it is actually a Chevrolet.
Thomas Beattie is similar. While she appears a he on the outside, she's as much a she on the inside as the shapeliest Playboy bunny. It was the old she inside, not the new he outside, who bore the child.
Opposing the public endorsement of homosexuality dressed in the camouflage of gay marriage is a legitimate position. And addressing that matter in the states is the correct avenue. In fact, during an age when the outrageous is celebrated, it's refreshing to see the commendable defended through traditional means.
Senator Forrester has been lampooned for his proposal. Yet we seldom find a politician willing to do the right thing via the proper channel. Instead of being ridiculed, he should be applauded.
Revolution? Or just a lawn party?
March 26, 2009
A rebellious murmur is rising across America. It began in Chicago with Rick Santelli's lament over Washington's disdain for the free market. Now, in the spirit of the moment, prudence demands a review of the original action for which this movement--these contemporary “tea parties”--is named.
Most Americans know the story of the Boston Tea Party. Our colonial forefathers boarded tea-laden merchant ships on December 16, 1773 and dumped their offending cargos into Boston Harbor. However, the colonists weren't prompted by egregious taxes alone, as most assume.
While previous British taxation had ignited colonial anger, Parliament had actually reduced the tea duty. This meant the colonists would get their tea cheaper than before. So why were they upset, and why did they take such bold action? The tax reduction was Parliament's ruse, and our Founders saw through their treachery.
The real issue wasn't the tea or the amount of the duty; it was the precedent they established. Had the colonists accepted the reduced-duty tea they would've acknowledged the British right to impose taxation on an unrepresented people. Rather than surrender to that authority, the colonists forsook their pleasure to defend a basic principle. Are we ready to take such a step?
I would say that our Congress behaves much like that British Parliament, only worse. Legislators depend on sleight of hand, shady orations and outright lies to deceive a gullible population. Those tactics didn't work on our Founding Fathers. Let them not work on us.
I became acquainted with the tea party movement via an email message. This particular message wasn't affiliated with the various organized events, but was intriguing nonetheless. To participate you need only to mail a teabag to the White House before April 15th.
It seemed like a great idea. But then I considered the security measures put in place after 9/11. A lumpy envelope won't reach a political staffer, much less an elected official. In fact, it may invite a domestic terrorism investigation. There's a better way.
Why not write a letter to your representative, senators and the president? It needn't be eloquent. A simple message--such as “courtesy of a patriotic constituent”--on your letterhead along with tags from a half-dozen teabags will suffice. When the letter is opened the tags will fall out on the staffer's desk. Imagine the impact of millions of such letters arriving on Capital Hill.
Indeed it's past time to remind government that our liberty is inalienable. Our rights flow from our Creator, not from the halls of Congress. Thus it is appropriate that we gather at organized tea parties. It's essential that we stand for liberty, free market capitalism, our republic and our Constitution. Otherwise there may be nothing to stand for tomorrow. But let us not take this step tepidly or flippantly.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of revolution. No other term can do it justice. It was a poke in the eye to an unresponsive and unjust government. If today's tea parties serve only for airing grievances, sipping tea, or making the evening news, we might as well stay home. This movement must have teeth and it must have legs.
Therefore it is imperative that we take this attitude to the ballot box. No longer can we tolerate politicians who extend their power via the federal treasury. We can't excuse charlatans within our own parties while condemning those in the opposition. Tyranny is tyranny, be it spelled with a “D” or an “R”.
Furthermore, a brief and dying movement won't get our ruler's attention. It must continue. It must have life. Why not hold events and mail tea labels on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and on through Election Day, 2010?
Above all, let us hold true to the spirit that our forefathers exemplified. As long as liberty's ember glows in us the opportunity exists to reignite freedom's fire.
Pitchforks and torches are in order, but you have the wrong house
March 19, 2009
Our congressional representatives--if you can call them that with a straight face--are targeting AIG's bonus payments with the zeal of a charging army. They're going to get that money back and protect you, the taxpayer, come hell or high water. Isn't that wonderful?
These benevolent legislators are going to do this just for you, never once having considered their personal gain or perceived populism. Your $165 million will be retrieved from the swindling robber barons at this inept insurance company whether by hook or by crook. You can count on it.
Let us erect a shrine to these compassionate legislators, these tireless guardians of the public treasury. Only Congress stands between us and the evil greed of AIG and other capitalistic titans. It's enough to make a rational person puke!
These elected hacks are blaming capitalism for AIG's bonuses, and making political hay in the process. But here's a fact. Had capitalism reigned there would have been no bonuses at AIG because AIG would have received no public money. Capitalism would've forced AIG to forego bonuses and change course or cease to exist. Government encouraged AIG to continue operating irresponsibly when it gave the company bailout funds with no strings attached. And our legislators are surprised and offended? Come on!
It was socialism that perpetuated the shady tricks that capitalism inevitably punishes. Now legislators--recognizing a prime opportunity for political pandering--are riding in on their white chargers to save the day. How can any intelligent person swallow this tripe?
My friends, that $165 million dollars is nothing. It's like a drop of water in Lake Superior. And Congress' lie about protecting the taxpayer would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic and ingratiating. It is a sad attempt to conceal their own fiscal malfeasance rooted in a deep contempt for your intelligence and attentiveness.
There are more than 306 million citizens in the United States. Simple math determines that AIG's $165 million tax-funded bonanza cost each American about 54 cents. But rest assured that your government is on the job. Your government will work tirelessly, shredding the Constitution page-by-page, to return that 54 cents to you.
Of course, there are a few things you'll have to overlook in order to fully enjoy the tyrannical actions Congress is taking in your name. First, you must dismiss the fact that $165 million represents about 17 minutes worth of congressionally approved federal spending. That's right. Before you can watch a rerun of the Beverly Hillbillies your government will have spent every penny that AIG paid in bonuses, maybe more.
Second, you can't notice that your righteous defenders have helped rack up a federal debt that tops $11 trillion. Divided out, that comes to $36,000 per citizen. If you're still angrier at AIG for costing you 54 cents than at Congress for costing you $36,000, well, all hope may be lost.
Where does Congress get the gall to criticize any private sector entity for financial mismanagement, no matter how fraudulent and inept that business might be? Government arrested Bernie Madoff for fraud while it operates Social Security. Government chastises the use of corporate jets while Nancy Pelosi flies around on military aircraft. Such actions demand hubris of the highest order.
These hearings were pure chicanery, conducted by the lowest of charlatans. The sole purpose was to create dependency, deflect attention from government's derelict activities and conceal Obama's declining poll numbers.
Go ahead. Wave your pitchforks and torches; they are warranted. But, if you're waving them in any direction other than Washington you've missed the point. And if you're falling for Congress' dog and pony show then you're as much a part of the problem as they are.
Factors ignored in the sex education equation
March 17, 2009
Mathematics was never prevalent in my skills set. These days--twenty-five years since I last sat in a classroom--my math is limited to the basics, and that can be adventuresome without my calculator. It's been so long since I used algebra and geometry that I can't recall even the simplest terminology. And don't even mention calculus or trigonometry. They may as well be the evening news broadcast from Saturn's 13th moon.
Despite my fading memory coupled with an understanding of higher math that would make a seventh-grader laugh I do understand one thing. If you ignore a factor in an equation you'll reach an erroneous and undesirable outcome. The same principle applies when the discussion turns to unwed pregnancy.
One of the hottest buttons in that debate is comprehensive sex education versus an abstinence curriculum.
Critics of the abstinence approach claim it fosters unrealistic expectations. Teenagers, they argue, always have and always will have sex. Therefore they need to learn the ins and outs--pardon the pun--of “safe sex”. That argument sounds reasonable, but only to a point.
Condoms aren't foolproof despite claims to the contrary. Pregnancy and STDs remain a possibility. According to the Food and Drug Administration condoms fail to prevent pregnancy 10 to 20-percent of the time. Prescription contraceptives are more effective, but do nothing to prevent disease.
It cannot be argued that a person who practices abstinence until marriage isn't safer from unwanted pregnancy and disease than a condom user. Therefore, any sex education class must center on that theme or it is misleading.
Look at it this way. Suppose your son or daughter was active in Russian roulette. Would you remind them to play with only one loaded chamber? While that beats playing with five loaded chambers, it's not a safe alternative. A responsible parent would teach their child to avoid the hazardous activity, not teach them to minimize the risk.
Of course, this argument hinges on the idea that government schools and bureaucrats should teach sexual matters at all. That is a huge question, and a possible source of the missing factor in the sex ed equation.
A critical error occurs when the discourse focuses solely on teens. The fact is that unwed pregnancy is far more common among women of all ages than it once was. According to figures from national vital statistics reports, 34-percent of births were out of wedlock in 2002. Contrast that with 1960, when the number was only 5-percent.
For forty-plus years we taught abstinence, worshiped condoms, hailed the sexual revolution and lampooned traditional morality as prudish and irrelevant. Almost every factor has been included in the sex ed equation. Yet, by definition, almost doesn't mean all, and the missing factors have altered the sum considerably.
Intimacy and respect have long since been removed from sexual relations. Sex was once meant to be private, something that should occur behind closed doors between married adults. That's no longer the case.
Sex is now celebrated like a walk-off homerun or a last second touchdown pass. Television is filled with ads hawking Viagra, Levitra and myriad other pharmaceutical miracles concocted to pull your string. Entertainment treats sex like a bodily function, as if it's a simple trip to the restroom. Two generations of American children have grown up under this influence. And we wonder why the sexual relationship isn't esteemed and why unwed pregnancy has escalated? Are we stupid?
No one should be so naïve as to think that abstinence based sex education will mean that all youth will grow up to be virgin brides and grooms. But comprehensive sex education advocates should be honest enough to recognize that teaching teenagers that they can't overcome their desires, and shouldn't even try, has been a dismal failure for nearly 50 years.
When respect and intimacy were part of the sexual equation unwed pregnancies were far lower than they are today. We've ignored those basic factors and, quite predictably, arrived at a wrong answer.
Nancy Pelosi: The face of the ruling class
March 12, 2009
It's been only four months since the Big Three's CEOs gathered in Washington to grovel before Congress. When it became known that each arrived aboard their company's corporate aircraft, well, the hearing became more of an inquisition. It was as if those executives had broken the dam on the River Styx and the molten river was flowing through D.C.'s streets.
In reality, corporate jets serve many useful functions. However, sometimes public relations serve a greater role. All three CEOs--and their companies--depend on salesmanship for their survival. Each understands the value of marketing and public image. Thus Ford, GM and Chrysler should've realized that jetting to Washington aboard $36 million aircraft to beg for tax money would prove a public relations boondoggle.
Even so, Congress had no moral authority to grill these executives for following policies established by their respective company boards. If Congress considered their flights such deadly sins, instead of just foolish PR, why did they hand over our cash? And why aren't they upset when one of their own does the same thing, only worse?
According to a Judicial Watch report, Nancy Pelosi considers the U.S. Air Force to be her fleet of corporate jets, prepped and ready at the time of her choosing. Apparently, it's not at all unusual for Mrs. Pelosi's office to appropriate military aircraft to ferry her, her colleagues and her family to various destinations around the world. When it comes to unmitigated hubris, the Big Three CEOs can't hold a candle to Pelosi.
When informed that a particular aircraft may not be at the Speaker's disposal for a Memorial Day weekend a staffer became quite agitated. “The Speaker will want to know where the planes are . . . We will have some very disappointed folks, as well a very upset Speaker,” the aide complained.
Let us remind the aristocratic Pelosi that those aircraft do not belong to her. They belong to us, you and me, the taxpayers. While it does make sense for Pelosi to utilize military aircraft at times, she should not expect those planes to be at her beck and call. I don't care if she's the Speaker of the House or the sweeper of the floor.
Furthermore, as much money as the automakers are losing they can't approach the flood of red ink Pelosi's Congress is generating. Automakers measure deficits in the billions of dollars. For their mistakes they face bankruptcy. The federal government measures deficits in the trillions of dollars, and for their malfeasance America faces bankruptcy.
It's unimaginable that the leader of the Congress that produced this financial disaster and who expects the Air Force to base their flight schedule on her travel itinerary has the gall to criticize CEOs for their excesses. Talk about arrogance!
Nancy Pelosi is treating taxpayers like ignorant peons. We are the vassals who must grovel at her royal feet. Worst of all, she needn't worry about her public image, like corporate executives must. She need please only her district in San Francisco. And she's obviously Stalinist enough to meet that criterion. Unfortunately, the entire country suffers for their lunacy.
Let me assure San Franciscans that most Americans don't care to emulate their Marxist utopia by the bay. They may claim to be champions of civil liberty and human rights, but they support a woman who's satisfied with nothing short of absolute privilege and total dominion. Or, perhaps she reminds her constituents of the good old days, and through her they're attempting to recapture the Summer of Love and the good trips of a bygone era.
Nancy Pelosi and her congressional minions can inflict pain on the population in ways corporate CEOs can't imagine. She can confiscate your wealth. She can confiscate your property. She can then use that wealth to buy the votes of your envious countrymen, solidify her authority and satisfy her pomposity. And if you object too strenuously she can toss you in the jug, then fly away in a military jet that you helped purchase.
Princess Pelosi has proven her disdain for anyone and anything that doesn't bow to her presence and cater to her desires. She is the consummate elitist, a theoretical Marxist, and the very face of the ruling class mentality.
America's bailout mentality isn't surprising
March 10, 2009
Remember when businesses were the guardians of the free market and the defenders of capitalism? That no longer appears to be the case. Corporate America has become so cozy with bureaucratic government that it's increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two.
It's easy to point to the bailout packages given to banks, insurers and automakers over the last year to emphasize this point. Those bailouts have been so extensive and pervasive that they've prompted critics to proclaim that businesses can't favor capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down. Wow, has that statement become old hat these days!
But these bailouts are a symptom, not the disease. Blaming our descent into socialism entirely on recent events is to ignore the years spent co-mingling the genes of big business and big government. The two have almost become one, a marriage made somewhere other than heaven.
The relationship is solidified in the “public-private partnership”, which rears its head whenever center-city revitalization and smart growth activists discover a project to their liking. It's equally apparent--or more so--when municipalities attempt to lure new industry to their areas or retain existing ones.
Now the question becomes, why do allegedly free-market companies seek such quasi-socialist relationships? There are several possible answers, and none of them are wrong.
Taxpayer-funded incentives help offset the cost of high taxes and regulatory burdens. They also divide the capital risk between the business and government, which lessens the company's exposure. But I think there's a much deeper reason that's seldom, if ever, explored.
A Profile of American College Faculty, Vol. 1: Political Beliefs and Behavior cast a new light on these public-private cabals. Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg--both noted scholars, researchers, and writers--compiled and published this study for the Institute of Jewish and Community Research.
Their research found that college and university faculties are predominantly leftists, even those who claim to be independent or moderate. Faculty members consistently support international organizations above American self-interests and are highly critical and skeptical of business and capitalism.
It's true that the lion's share of such ideology dwells in the predictable departments, such as the social sciences and humanities, which is no surprise at all. But the researchers also found that only one-third of business department faculty were conservative to any degree. That should send up a red flag, especially in light of the increasing intimacy between the private sector and government.
You can bet that nearly all corporate executives are college educated. And where did they receive that education? If you said from the business colleges where two-thirds of the instructors are skeptical of--if not downright hostile toward--free markets and capitalism, take a gold star.
I'm not making a blanket indictment of higher education. It's a valuable asset, and sometimes indispensable. If I need an operation I don't want my surgeon to have honed his cutting skills at the corner meat market. I want a surgeon who has graduated from medical school. However, the study does raise questions about how leftist professors have influenced the thinking and ideology of today's business leaders.
The prevailing attitude among college faculty took a left turn in the 1960s. It hasn't veered from that course since. This left-leaning faculty has molded the thinking of an entire generation of business students. Is it a surprise they're more comfortable with bailouts, tax-funded incentives, public-private partnerships and regulatory relationships than were past generations of business leaders? It shouldn't be.
The power of suggestion, altered realities, and recessions
March 4, 2009
The power of suggestion is a mighty weapon. Throughout human history people have used such persuasion to garner a comfortable living. If you don't believe it, consider the hypnotist.
Hypnotists were a staple of carnival side shows, vaudeville stages and TV variety shows. Via the power of suggestion the hypnotist would place a thought in the subject's mind. That thought would become reality for the hypnotized person.
Of course, such displays were open to manipulation and many stage hypnotists were frauds. Yet there are professional, reputable hypnotists who can plant a thought in a willing subject's mind, making that thought a reality. Our current economic reality is recession.
“What does that have to do with hypnosis,” you ask? More than you'd think. Americans have been effectively hypnotized. The power of suggestion, over time, has been utilized to cloud our economic perception. So please bear with me.
Economists are debating the current downturn's inception. Some claim it began in mid-2008 while others point to the fall quarter of 2007. Either way, the results are readily apparent.
Unemployment is increasing as the demand for goods and services declines. Businesses and families are focused on cash preservation. Delinquency is rising and the GDP is shrinking, falling more than 6-percent in 2008's fourth quarter. It's not pleasant and it's not fun. It's also not unprecedented.
Recessions happen every so often. Although current statistics indicate the deepest downturn in 25 years, this nation has endured worse economic circumstances. That's little comfort to people who've lost homes or businesses, but it's a fact nonetheless.
There are many reasons for our malaise, too many to address in one short column. Let us focus instead on a dual element: propaganda from the national media and manipulative politicians. This duo spent six years preaching economic stagnation before it existed.
When America was rebounding from the economic consequences of 9-11, which were severe, there was cause for optimism. Yet the Democrat Party and their lapdogs in the major media outlets denigrated the state of the economy. “Recession,” they cried. When economic statistics didn't support their lie they changed boats in midstream.
Democrat leaders and media talking heads grudgingly admitted that the economy was, in fact, growing. But they quickly developed a new spin. The growth was driving a jobless recovery. Then the job market began to heat up. Unemployment was statistically nil and the mantra had to change once again.
The job market was quickly labeled as substandard. Wages were shrinking and the good jobs were going overseas. Per capita income was declining, saving was non-existent and poverty was escalating. Democrat politicians and the evening news programs were a constant drumbeat of negativism. Remember the power of suggestion?
We're now experiencing the recession that's been six years in the making. Congratulations! But it still isn't enough; the doom-saying continues. We're fed a steady diet of gloom, despair and agony.
Every bailout, stimulus and rescue package is declared essential to avoiding certain calamity. Capitalism is pilloried, the State is elevated, and our economic liberty is flying out the window with a sonic boom. It's the power of suggestion at its most grim, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We shouldn't be so naïve as to believe that a little positive thinking will make our problems disappear. Our debt is uncontrollable, our spending insatiable and our currency but a mere promise. Yet these pertinent problems are dismissed with an arrogant smirk.
Politicians and their media lackeys have done a great disservice to America. They spent the better part of a decade trashing positive economic news while glossing over substantive problems, all for the sake of furthering their political position.
Now the same hacks are proposing solution after solution, each centered on an expanding government. They deserve our scorn as much as the fraudulent hypnotists of yesteryear. They've certainly earned no praise.
Banning “assault” weapons defines Democrat insanity
February 27, 2009
Albert Einstein defined insanity as repeating an action while expecting a different result. Are Democrats destined to confirm that definition?
Do you remember the 1994 Republican Revolution? Bill Clinton was a first-term president at the time, having been elected on a promise of change. Sound familiar? Two years later he had all the change he wanted. His leftward lurch produced embarrassing Democrat losses in both houses of Congress.
Clinton's agenda mobilized gun owners like no other president in recent history. Even he credited NRA members--and gun owners in general--with the Democrats' sweeping defeat. The cornerstone in rallying those gun owners was his “assault” weapons ban.
The “assault” weapons issue was phony to begin with. Military style rifles were never used in a high percentage of crimes. They don't shoot harder than other centerfire rifles, nor do their bullets fly farther. Finally, they aren't machineguns. Now, if you still consider the assault weapons ban a “common sense” gun control measure you're refusing to think.
Did you notice any difference in crime, or in life in general, while the ban was in effect or after it expired in 2004? I'll bet you didn't, unless you wanted to buy one of the banned rifles of course. The ban made for sensational media but it was worse than worthless as a crime fighting tool. The possibility that Democrats will resurrect this onerous law is distinct, and for even worse reasons than before.
At least the Clinton lie promised that banning “assault” weapons would make America safer. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder made a similar claim-with no explanation as to how-but seemed more concerned with Mexico.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum,” Holder told ABC News, responding to Mexico's allegations that drug cartels are receiving weapons through U.S. channels.
Now, I have to ask, who cares about Mexico? Don't we have enough problems of our own? Mexico's police and military are neck deep in the drug trade, which means their enforcement efforts are little more than a turf war. Why should we surrender our freedom to cover their corruption? A better use of Mr. Holder's time would be devising methods to secure and enforce our existing borders, not promoting ways to undermine our liberty and Constitution.
Don't count on that happening. Instead, count on more distortions and outright lies.
The State Department says that Mexican officials face cartels that are armed with automatic weapons and grenades. Oh? Then how can reviving the “assault” weapons ban alleviate their problems since the law didn't address automatic weapons or explosives? Politically fabricated “assault” weapons and genuine assault weapons are totally different.
A semi-automatic weapon fires a round, ejects the case and loads a fresh round with each trigger pull. The trigger must be released and pulled again to fire the next round. Full-automatic weapons-real assault rifles-will fire until the trigger is released or the weapon is empty.
Assault rifles are machineguns, and have been highly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. To legally own these weapons you must undergo an extensive background and inspection process and obtain a Class III license from the federal government. These firearms are prohibitively expensive, too.
Equating semi-automatic rifles with full-auto assault weapons is duplicitous at best. It is an attempt to separate Americans from their freedom based on false perceptions and ignorance. I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Holder and his boss that officials who employ such tactics are the very reason the Second Amendment exists?
Perhaps nothing has occurred to them, including the possibility of repeating Clinton's miscalculation.
A large number of Americans own guns and resent arrogant politicians and double-talking bureaucrats. If President Obama and Attorney General Holder insist on resurrecting Clinton's failed policy they may prove Einstein's definition of insanity yet again.
Are you feeling a little crazy, Mr. President?
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is another liberal red herring
February 16, 2009
Seldom is it worthwhile to comment on a letter to the editor. But the word seldom, by definition, isn't all-encompassing. Just such an exception to the rule recently caught my eye.
A reader of a local newspaper took Rep. Sue Myrick--a Republican from North Carolina's Ninth congressional district--to task for opposing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Apparently Rep. Myrick, herself a woman, doesn't believe women should receive equal pay for performing equal work. That allegation, as well as the premise behind Ledbetter, is utter nonsense. Allow me to explain.
The Ledbetter Act, the first legislation signed into law under the Obama administration, is named for an Alabama woman who worked for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. She spent 20 years as a supervisor before learning that she'd been paid less than her male counterparts. She sued, alleging that every paycheck constituted sex discrimination. However, Lilly Ledbetter lost her case because she didn't file suit in a timely manner, within the mandated 180 days of the incident.
The Ledbetter Act closes that time constraint. Now each time compensation is issued--be it wages, retirement, benefits, whatever--a new 180-day filing period begins. This sounds fair enough, but it actually creates a perpetual filing period. It's a real boon to trial lawyers but not much help to Lilly Ledbetter herself.
The law isn't retroactive. Therefore, to quote Ms. Ledbetter, “Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of.”
There's the real story. Was Lilly cheated? Did she produce at the same level as her male colleagues, in which case her claim is legitimate? Or, did she only fill the same job description, in which case her lower pay may have properly reflected her contribution to Goodyear?
She was paid less than male supervisors; that much is true. But not all of the men were paid the same, either. Can the lower paid men sue under Ledbetter, too? If not, then Ledbetter itself is sexist and contradictory. It violates its premise and perpetuates sex discrimination, the very act it purports to eliminate.
When the president signed the Ledbetter Act he said it upheld one of our first principles, that everyone is created equal. What he failed to mention is that “created equal” applies to a starting point only, not an outcome. It certainly doesn't apply to a physical condition. People are not physically equal, just as they aren't mentally equal. Some people are simply better equipped than others.
Filling the same job and performing the same job aren't synonymous. For instance, a male construction worker may carry three times the amount of shingles onto a roof than a female construction worker. Conversely, a female insurance agent might sell three times the number of policies that a male counterpart sells. In each case the job is the same, but the outcome varies greatly. Shouldn't the more productive worker receive the greater compensation?
Personally, I think an employee should be paid according to their ability and productivity, not according to job title. And wages certainly shouldn't be awarded according to race, creed, sex, or other fringe characteristic. I have no problem making a lower wage than a woman who's more productive than I. However, I would resent being paid the same as a less productive worker, regardless of their societal grouping.
Lilly Ledbetter may indeed have a legitimate complaint. But to equate equal pay to similar job titles ignores the fact that we aren't all the same.
On the whole, the Ledbetter Act will promote more bureaucracy, more litigation, and more constraints on an already constrained economic structure. It will prompt both women and men to litigate for equal pay when they have neither the intent nor the ability required to produce equal work.
Dependence Day: The welfare state is failing America
February 14, 2009
If July 4th is Independence Day then February 10th should henceforth be known as Dependence Day. It's the day that dependence officially became a nationally celebrated personal characteristic.
According to leftist commentators, student Julio Osegueda stole the show at President Obama's Ft. Myers worship service.
“It's such a blessing to see you Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your day!” screeched Julio. From there he embarked on an incoherent rambling that must have thoroughly embarrassed his professors at Edison State, where he studies--get this--communications.
Julio did everything but sacrifice a bull and two rams to President Obama. To hear him gushing you'd think that Obama had planted the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, parted the Red Sea and raised Lazarus from the dead. Therefore we can easily and correctly dismiss Julio as a classless buffoon. No wonder the Left considers him heroic.
It's not so easy to dismiss Henrietta Hughes. She's the homeless woman who told her sad story to a national audience. She quickly became the “face of the current recession”. But there are some aspects of the story that just don't add up. Has it crossed anyone's mind that this event may have been staged? It has.
A Fort Myers television station reports that Ms. Hughes has previously declined assistance from We Care Outreach Ministry, a faith-based organization. Ms. Hughes tells a different story, but the ministry's spokeswoman hasn't backed down. Deciphering the truth is anyone's guess. But knowing politicians, the media, and the power of heart-tugging propaganda, it wouldn't be surprising if Henrietta Hughes proved to be a plant.
But let's not be consumed with an unproven conspiracy. Let's deal with demonstrable fact. Henrietta and her son aren't the “face of the recession”. Their financial problems began seven years ago when the City of Fort Myers fired Corey Hughes from its IT department, long before the current recession began.
What is truly regretful is seeing American citizens begging for provision at a politician's feet. In fact, it is downright disgraceful, and not for the reasons leftists would have us believe. The Left claims that only government bureaucracy can help the downtrodden; private charity can't meet the need. Oh, really?
Government failed Ms. Hughes at every turn, and it's not government assistance or social welfare agencies that are helping her today. People have given her cash from their own pockets. A Florida state legislator--and an evil Republican to boot--has promised her a rent-free home, and she and Corey are receiving a motel room until that house is ready. True assistance came from private charity while government bureaucrats were mired in their predictable red tape.
Ms. Hughes is not the “face of the recession” but the face of a failed philosophy. She came to this point despite the promises of trillions upon trillions of dollars spent waging war on poverty. If government can--as it claims--alleviate such problems, why hasn't it done so?
Between the end of World War II and 1965 the U.S. poverty rate fell from 32-percent to under 14-percent. Then along came Lyndon Johnson's not-so-Great Society and the war on poverty. Since then poverty rates have held between 10 and 15-percent, varying in accord with economic cycles. Where's the improvement?
Anti-poverty programs have been a bust at ending poverty, but a boom at creating dependency. They have proven to be not a war on poverty but on liberty, independence and self-worth. Is it possible that creating dependency--and thus a stable Democratic constituency--was the goal of the welfare state to begin with?
There should be no blame for Henrietta Hughes; there should be only sympathy. Government, the entity she trusts for security, has created in her a dependency that enhances its power and leaves her groveling at Obama's feet. That is a shame.
Let the market decide an executive's worth
February 10, 2009
If you're appalled at the idea of government determining someone's paycheck, drop this column and find something more productive to do with the next few minutes. But if you think that's a good idea, please stay tuned for further details.
A few months ago you'd have thought Big Oil was Satan, Incorporated. That mantle now falls on CEOs. Everyone, especially politicians, seems ready to gather rocks and stone them. Not one of them deserves the money they make, right? Not so fast.
Suppose a company makes a profit of $10 million per year. Management sees no need to grow the company and it supplies the same products to the same customers for the same purposes year after year. The company survives, but it doesn't exactly thrive.
The company's president, or CEO, receives a salary of $500,000 annually, five percent of the company's yearly profit. Finally, the day comes for the complacent CEO to retire and a new sheriff comes to town.
The new CEO isn't the type to sit back, smoke Dominican cigars, and rest on the company's past performance. There's a thorough review of the company's methods of operation, and even the product itself. New uses for the existing product are developed, as well as innovations that make it even more versatile.
The engineering department expands to perfect the design changes. The sales department grows, too. Soon there are new customers for the product's new-found versatility. New production lines are initiated and then new manufacturing facilities.
Within a few years the company's bottom line has improved from $10 million per year to over $200 million. The CEO's annual salary increases from $500,000 to $10 million. Most reasonable people would conclude that, based on performance, the executive had earned the salary.
“But aren't there failing companies that provided CEOs with enormous compensation packages?” you ask.
You're right; there are such companies. And have you noticed that those are the companies receiving bailouts from the same government that now wants to impose a cap on executive compensation? This approach actually allows inefficient companies and failed managers to remain inefficient and fail even more.
Markets have a way of weeding out the failed and inefficient, of thinning the heard, so to speak. Government, conversely, is there to subsidize ineptitude. If markets were allowed to function, then poor companies and executives would be replaced with sound companies and executives. Everyone would be better off in the long run.
That's not to say the Obama administration's move to cap executive compensation at $500,000 for companies accepting bailout funds is surprising. What's more, we shouldn't feel sorry for the managers of those companies at all. Washington hollered sooey and they ran like pigs to the trough. Couldn't they foresee that government would soon be pulling the strings? When you attend the Devil's dance, you dance to the Devil's tune.
However, before you cheer our Big Brother's move toward compensation control you might consider these thoughts. Once government establishes authority it is never relinquished. It begins small--say with salary controls at firms that accept government bailout funds--and grows exponentially.
Once politicians see that they can gain favor through limiting executive pay at some companies it will be only a matter of time before they limit executive pay at all companies. The tentacles will eventually reach you, Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class. If government can limit executive salaries it can also limit wages for nurses, truck drivers, machinists, secretaries, you name it.
When markets are allowed to perform they force companies to establish acceptable pay scales at all levels. Businesses that don't will, in most cases, give way to businesses that do. Anyway, it sure beats leaving the matter in the hands of congressmen who are even more fiscally irresponsible than the executives they rebuke.
The sky is falling! Or not
February 9, 2009
You might recall the story of Chicken Little. A bump on the head sent the fuzzy little chick scurrying about the barnyard shouting, “The sky is falling.” Soon Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Poosey and the other barnyard inhabitants were in a fair state of panic.
At least Chicken Little had ignorance as an excuse. When politicians declare that the sky is falling there is surely something more sinister afoot.
Last October it was the Bush administration telling us that without an immediate federal bailout of the banking industry the entire economy would collapse. There was no liquidity. There was no credit. Banks had no money to lend and the world as we knew was at its end.
But there was money to lend. Credit cards, for better or worse, still worked. Financial institutions that had avoided the government-induced mortgage frenzy were still solvent. In fact, the branch manager at my bank said they were actively seeking qualified borrowers.
Perhaps an unseen emergency did exist. Yet, it took two weeks to get the TARP plan through Congress, and even today the funds that were so desperately needed to avoid immediate catastrophe aren't exhausted. And you know what? The sky hasn't fallen.
Now it's the Obama administration--the self-proclaimed agents of hope and change--singing the same tune with the same scare tactics. If the “stimulus” plan he supports isn't adopted, and right now, America will suffer an epic disaster.
Stocks will decline precipitously, which you'd think Democrats would love considering their oft-stated hatred for the inequitable evils of markets. Everyone will be bankrupt and homeless, and the current recession will become so entrenched that America won't recover.
The common denominator in each doomsday prophecy and government bailout or stimulus is centralized power. We are indeed facing a crisis, but the financial portion isn't nearly as large or an ominous as the propaganda portion. This recession has become a crisis of convenience. William Pitt said it best, “Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
Our lords in Washington are declaring that the sky will fall if we don't accept their decrees at face value, if we don't surrender our liberty, sovereignty and Divinely ordained rights to the central authority. If we accept their arguments we do not deserve to be free, for we'll have shunned our founding principles. We will have sold our birthright to a gaggle of hacks, and for nothing more than the empty promise of security. Esau struck a better deal. At least he received a bowl of soup.
In the era of “change” the sun can rise, the birds can sing and the rivers can flow only when government is the centerpiece. Only in reliance can prosperity, happiness, and security be found. Hogwash! We're being spooked into trusting more of our wealth to a government that has proven incapable of managing what it has already taken. It's like trusting Lucifer to douse the fires of Hell.
“But Hager,” you say, “don't you know that jobs are being lost?” And how! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that for each month that Congress does not act 500 million American jobs disappear. Friends, our total population is just 305 million.
Such an obviously wrong statement made once can be a slip of the tongue. But Pelosi said it twice, once to interviewer Chris Wallace and once on C-SPAN. At that point it becomes a boldfaced lie, told to induce fear and panic among the inattentive segments of the population.
Neither you nor I are immune from the trials of a recession. However, we shouldn't allow pretentious, maniacal, self-serving politicians convince us that our success and happiness depends on them.
There's been no change in Washington, save for who's playing the part of Chicken Little. “The sky is falling!” Will we, the dutiful peons, get in line?
Geithner and Daschle tax woes are a boon to conservatives
February 4, 2009
President Obama campaigned as an anti-lobbyist ethics reformer. He promised a new era of responsibility. Why did this “change” seem so familiar? Ah, yes; Bill Clinton also pledged “the most ethical administration in history.”
That promise didn't work out so well for Clinton. His presidency was hounded by adultery, shady land deals, and memory lapses, missing FBI files, scandalous pardons and cigar abuse. He also lost both chambers of Congress in his first mid-term election. Thus far it's been tough sledding for President Obama, too.
Inconsistencies with his “no lobbyist, high ethics” pledge are found throughout Obama's staff and cabinet. His attempts to justify his contradictions have drawn ire even in leftist circles. Most notable among these early embarrassments are Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle.
As Treasury secretary, Geithner is in charge of the IRS. Yet he failed to pay over $40,000 in taxes and interest when he was working at the International Monetary Fund. Geithner described his tax problems as “careless mistakes” and “unintentional.” Be that as it may, how would that excuse play if you or I were in the IRS's crosshairs?
Now Geithner--an apparently intelligent and educated man--will administer agency rules that even he admits he neither knew nor understand.
Tom Daschle--recently withdrawn from consideration for secretary of Health and Human Services--brought tax problems of his own. Gifts he received from private firms and unreported income from consulting services left Daschle owing the IRS over $140,000. He settled the matter, but only after receiving a cabinet nomination, when it became politically necessary.
There's a part of me that takes pleasure in seeing anyone put one by the IRS. But don't Geithner and Daschle represent the folks who're always demanding tax increases?
It would appear that this duo has given conservatives a golden opportunity. There's ample evidence to accuse Obama of violating his campaign promises. How short-sighted that would be! Over the last few weeks Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle have unraveled leftist doctrine and advanced conservatism more than the Republicans have in the last ten years. We should seize the moment.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) hit the nail on the head, describing the situation as a shining example of the need for tax reform and simplification. Friends, if Daschle (who helped pass current tax laws) and Geithner (who's charged with enforcing them) can't comprehend the tax code, how can the rest of us? And the need for tax reform isn't the only long-ignored conservative cause they have unwittingly advanced.
We now know that leftists don't really believe their “soak the rich” talking point. Both Daschle and Geithner are wealthy men. Not only didn't they pay their “fair share”, they made no effort to right the wrong until it became politically expedient.
They've also furthered the conservative ideal that people are better able to spend their money properly than is government. When they retained the money they had earned, instead of turning it over to federal politicians and bureaucrats as they would have us do, they emphasized that point.
Their tax problems serve the added benefit of portraying leftists as the arrogant elitists that conservatives have long held them to be. Since Geithner and Daschle chose to keep their money, and thus determine its proper use, it is the height of elitism and arrogance to deny the rest of us that same opportunity.
Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle have proven once and for all that Democrats don't believe their tax the rich, class envy talking points. They've proven that even Democrats know that private individuals are better suited to managing their private wealth--great or small--than are government officials. Finally, they've shown the tax code to be the burdensome and unnavigable labyrinth that conservatives have incessantly condemned.
As a conservative, all I can say is thanks for the help.
Change we can believe in
January 28, 2009
Think back to the 2008 campaign, beginning with the primaries on through the general election. The few candidates who offered original and constitutional ideas were quickly dismissed as detached idealists or outright kooks. In their stead were the typical flowery phrases, empty slogans and insincere promises. Little was said about individual liberty or a federal government of few and defined powers.
Following President Obama's election the observant eye began to note a pattern that belied his campaign of change. Familiar names surfaced among his staff and cabinet appointees.
Rahm Emmanuel. Leon Panetta. Timothy Geithner. Tom Daschle. Janet Napolitano. Each fills a post within Obama's inner circle and each has ties to the Clinton Administration. That's not to say they aren't qualified for their positions nor that President Obama can't fill his administration with ideological counterparts. After all, he won. But their presence represents nothing new, nothing untried, nothing changed.
Candidate Obama criticized $500 billion budget deficits. Fair enough. However, President Obama's spending plans promise deficits above $1 trillion dollars with no end in sight. By technical definition that may constitute change. But in practicality it only expands an already bloated federal government.
Merely multiplying the status quo isn't change. Yet we can expect change on some issues.
Once again taxpayers are allowed the privilege of funding foreign abortions and we're already hearing a more conciliatory tone toward radical Muslims. Yes, the same radical Muslims who've attacked us repeatedly over the last thirty years.
We're likely to see “reasonable” gun control legislation that will erode the Second Amendment while making our streets and homes safer for gang-banging thugs. There will be an amnesty program for illegal aliens, and some form of a media equal time doctrine will accelerate the First Amendment's decline. It appears that “change” means turning under the fields where Bush planted good seed and fertilizing the ones in which he sowed thistles.
Such change will leave us with little more to hope in than the federal government--our new god. Don't be mistaken; Washington has become god for far too many people.
Government now bestows rights. Government protects; government provides a home, food, medicine, retirement, and apparently a job. But hope in government is a false hope at best, sure to expand government at the expense of responsibility and human freedom. There's an older, better investment for our trust.
I'm not proposing a religious theocracy, Christian or otherwise. I also realize that past generations weren't inherently just or morally pure. But our forebears--including the Founding Fathers--humbled themselves before their Creator, not before their created.
American history provides ample evidence of Divine Providence. The odds against the American Revolution's success were long at best. What business did a rag-tag army of Colonials have confronting the world's greatest empire? Yet victory flourished in the absence of reasonable hope.
On June 5, 1944 Allied forecasters noticed a slight weather opening that would allow D-Day to proceed. German forecasters missed it, and the approaching invasion force, completely. Furthermore, Hitler ignored his general's requests to redeploy Panzer divisions from northern France to Normandy.
You can dismiss such things as coincidence, or the fortunate confluence of circumstance. You can chalk it up to fate or blind luck. I don't.
If we're serious about righting our ship I suggest we return to our strength, the God our ancestors revered. It's far better to bow before Him than before a White House or Congress comprised of fallible men and women.
II Chronicles 7:14 relays a message of heavenly wisdom: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
My friends, there is our hope. There is change we can really believe in.
What's a few trillion here and there?
January 20, 2009
I've concluded that the best way to appear intelligent and competent is to feign understanding when you have no clue. To prove this theory we need look no farther than the example that federal representatives and bureaucrats have established.
Most people can agree that Washington is consumed with bailout fever. Big banks, big insurers, big automakers; government is buying a big stake in big private industries at big rate. Thirty billion dollars goes here, $50 billion goes there, and a few hundred billion goes somewhere else.
The Bush administration's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is still doling out its $700 billion worth of socialism and President Obama's proposed stimulus package promises another $800 billion on top of that, give or take a billion or two. The federal budget is in the neighborhood of $3 trillion, not including the various bailouts, and the federal debt exceeds $10.5 trillion.
That's a big number, staggering in fact, representing nearly a year's worth of GDP. Yet elected officials and appointed bureaucrats speak of these figures as if they're discussing the price of oranges at the corner grocery, pretending to actually comprehend Washington's immensity. But if they did, would we be more than $10 trillion in debt and facing an estimated $56 trillion in unfunded entitlements? Doubtful.
For sake of argument let's assume that the bailouts will end at $2 trillion dollars (some evaluations are near $8 trillion). Factor in a $3 trillion annual budget and your sum is $5 trillion. Now, just how much is $5 trillion? Let's find out.
Based on a 24-hour day we can determine that a year consists of 31,536,000 seconds. Protracting the $5 trillion figure over the course of an entire year means that Washington will spend $158,548.96 per second. Let's put this in perspective by considering each second of history to represent $1 of federal spending.
The Declaration of Independence was signed 232 years ago. A dollar for each second since John Hancock's flamboyant signature will certainly feed the federal behemoth. It's not even a snack. We would have only $7.3 billion dollars, or about .15-percent of federal bailout and budgeted spending. Washington will consume this measly sum in less than a day.
How about going back to 1492, when Columbus landed in the New World? No, we're not even warm. That $16.2 billion is one day of federal spending and .32-percent of $5 trillion.
Jesus Christ divided time. Surely going back to his birth will placate our government's insatiable spending lust. Nope. One dollar for each second since the Nativity equals only $63.5 billion, 1.3-percent of $5 trillion. Let's go farther still. Scientists say modern man appeared some 90,000 years ago. If we had a dollar for each second since then we'd have only 57-percent of government's planned spending.
Now let's get personal. Dividing $5 trillion equally will make millionaires out of five million people. If you make a nice annual salary of $100,000 you'll have to work until the year 50,002,008 to earn what Washington can spend in a single fiscal year.
Yet our rulers speak of this enormous figure as if it were pocket change. How can we conclude that they understand the vastness of their expenditures or the consequences of their actions? Worse still, maybe they don't care.
I don't know what I hope to prove with these examples. Maybe I hope you'll view Washington in a new light, one in which the federal government is seen as the corrupt den of thieves it has become rather than the shining beacon of salvation it pretends to be. Maybe I hope you'll recognize that you're being misled by people who don't realize the results of their actions, but pretend that they do. Maybe I hope you'll just get mad.
The Left's apologetic stance on Hamas is foolish but consistent
January 13, 2009
Violence and warfare in the Middle East is as unusual as a fist fight at a hockey game. It has become quite predictable that any cease-fire agreement between Israel and a militant Muslim organization, regardless of what nation or body brokered the treaty, will eventually produce open war.
We've seen this proven time and again, most recently with Hezbollah in 2006 and currently with Hamas. Hamas' rocket attacks and Israel's response has produced another easily predictable phenomenon. The American Left is blaming Israel for the bloodshed without regard to the circumstances that produced the fighting. I think I've figured out why.
Whenever Israel capitulates to Palestinian demands it leads to more attacks on Israeli territory, generally from closer range and a better vantage point. Just as sure as the sun rises in the East some band of Islamic jihadists will lob rockets at Israeli towns. If rockets are in short supply, the radicals will strap bombs to young men and women and send them on suicide missions against such strategic Israeli installations as night clubs, restaurants and street markets.
As it stands now Hamas is threatening Israel's safety, security and property. Although the casualties Hamas' indiscriminate rocket attacks have inflicted are statistically nil, a viable Hamas promises continued harassment. Yet despite the history of assaults on Israel the American Left leaps to Hamas' defense, damning Israel for a disproportionate and inappropriate retaliation. Some even claim that Israel instigated the rocket barrage on their homes and lands.
I once considered this a perplexing inconsistency. How can Westerners continually condemn Israel for fighting back when attacked? Then I realized that this is exactly how the American Left views thuggish activities domestically.
A violent, career criminal can threaten you, your family, your safety, security, property and life. The Leftist will dismiss your concerns with some sanctimonious gesture, admonishing you to consider the underlying circumstances that produced your antagonist's behavior. The instigator becomes the victim.
However, God help you if you take action to defend and preserve what's yours against predatory assaults. The Leftist will surely label you a cowboy and a vigilante bent on frontier justice and demand that you be jailed. They will charge you with an inappropriate response and excessive retaliation. You, not your assailant, will be considered the menace.
Welcome to Israel's world.
The point is that we shouldn't be surprised when Leftists condemn Israel for defending herself against Hamas, or whatever band of merry jihadists are waging war against her at any given time. They are merely continuing a longstanding tradition of favoring violent aggressors over proper defenders.
Leftists love to point out that Palestinian casualties are higher than Israeli casualties, especiall
Freedom on the auction block: Our liberty is bought and sold on the Senate auction block. (648)