Christmas Carols in Native American

http://www.janamashonee.com/

Man do I LOVE blogs! You get some of the neatest information! So I'm reading "Collecting My Thoughts" by Norma and she has a link to Jana Mashonee, a Lumbee Indian. She's recorded an album "An American Indian Christmas" with 10 traditional Christmas Carols, all sung in a different Native American tongue.

So... here's an example: Little Drummer Boy.


You can bet that I bought this album. It's absolutely beautiful! And as fantastic as her voice is, the Native American flutes playing some of the music is also wonderful. Very peaceful.

Merry Christmas!

2009 Christmas Thoughts

As I write this, according to NORADSANTA.ORG, Santa Clause has distributed over a billion gifts to little boys and girls throughout the world and he is currently in the Maldive Islands.

For hundreds of millions of Christians the Christmas season has become perverted by rampant consumerism, boxes, wrapping paper and bows. We annually tally up thousands of dollars of consumer debt so that when our kids return to school after the holiday break they aren't left out of the "WhadidyagitferChristmas?" conversations. Simple games and clothes have given way to game consoles, cell phones and other electronic gadgets.

Our family decided this year that it was out of hand. So we threw names into a hat, and we each drew a name. The budget: Get as close to $100.00 as you can. That doesn't necessarily include stocking stuffers and the annual Christmas jammies. My own budget will probably come to about $200.00 because my mom, who now lives with us and hasn't participated in our Christmas traditions, hasn't quite caught on this year. So between the five of us, that's about $600.00 bucks. That's down considerably from the two-thousand we spent last year and the three-thousand the year before that.

And this year, I don't think one electronic doohickey was purchased. I know that my own Christmas list this year was for some nice shirts, some new socks and some really nice tobacco for my pipe.

And yet, the tree still has lots of presents under it.

But more importantly -- I will be spending Christmas with four of the seven most important people in my world right now: Laura (my wife), Mom, Heather (my daughter) and Mat (her husband). Chris is stationed in Norfolk Virginia and his girlfriend, Alex, is spending the holiday with her folks in Salt Lake City.

We will eat holiday ham and I will enjoy hot buttered rums and smoke my pipe while enjoying the company of my family while we sit in front of the fire and watch "A Christmas Story", "It's A Wonderful Life" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told".


But just as importantly, that's twelve-hundred less credit card debt than the previous year. Which means that we are that much closer to completely getting rid of all our credit card debt, which will take at least a couple more years.

Here's my Christmas wish list for the future.
1) That we all stay healthy.
2) That we all continue to keep our jobs.
3) That after we get rid of this credit card debt, that I can give Laura the following:
3.1) A decent kitchen.
3.2) A nicer living room.
3.3) Finish the front yard.
4) Be able to afford to contribute more money to charity that really counts:
4.1) Shriner's hospitals
4.2) Fraternal Order of Police
4.3) Modest Needs (a new charity that I really think is on the right track).
4.4) Order of DeMolay (a young man's organization).
And I'd like to start tithing. I just haven't figured out which church yet...

No new cars, no new computers, no new games. I'd like to fix the place I live in a little bit and then really ramp up the contributions to charities that I already support.

I don't need the Federal government to be charitable. They're not good at it anyway. They don't hold themselves nearly accountable enough. But every American who has some extra coin in their pocket should be asking themselves... "How can I help? How can I give back?"

Freemasons have been doing this for over four hundred years (and longer if you believe the "myth" of Freemasonry). I strongly suggest to anybody that reads this blog that you should become more active in your church charity programs. If you aren't currently active in a church, please, please, please consider joining a Fraternal Organization (like Freemasons, The Elks, The Eagles, The Moose, Knights of Columbus, Fraternal Order of Police, Volunteer Firefighters) or simply contribute to charities.

Christmas is not about wrapping paper and gifts under the tree, although the smile of a child on Christmas morning is hard to beat.

But consider this: How about the smile of a child in a burn ward who got the care she needed because men like Shriner's care? And how about the smile on a young man's face when he graduates from college because the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement fund paid for his education after his parent list his/her life on the streets of Chicago or in the fields of Afghanistan? Or the single mother of two who received enough money from Modest Needs to be able to put down the security deposit on an apartment so that she has a safe, warm place for her kids to live? Or how about the smile of your mother who is grateful that you have given her a place to live in your own home? I get that smile every morning.

Those smiles might be even better to see on a Christmas morning.

Christmas should be about caring for the people in our families and communities that are less fortunate than ourselves. It's about taking on their burdens, putting our shoulders to the wheel and making our communities a little better place because we care.

Isn't that what Jesus did?

Sen. Harkin, Healthcare is neither a right or a privilege.

Senator Harkin stated on CBS News' "Early Show" that the healthcare debate can be framed as between two sides, which "one one side is health care a privilege, on the other side health care is a right."

Sir, health care is neither a privilege or a right. It is a service. Health insurance is neither a privilege or a right, it is also a service.

Clearly, your stunning intellect is not what achieved your lofty position. It must have been the favors you have courted and paid that got you where you are today.

The primary problem in this country is that people don't want to buy insurance until they need it. Once they need it, no insurance company wants to insure them because they refuse to accept the risk of a "sure thing". The best way to get insured in this country requires no fix to health care. It simply requires that all American citizens buy insurance while they are young and healthy.

Once you are sick, it's too LATE to buy insurance. Why can't you people get it?

It's the greed of the American population that thinks it's OK to transfer the risk and high cost of sickness to others only after they have gotten sick. And there it is, plain and simple.

I've been paying for health and life insurance my entire life. And while I've made a few small claims against that insurance, the fact that I have paid for health and life insurance all my life is why I have had a satisfying relationship with my insurers. I don't smoke, I don't drive fast, I don't drink to excess, I don't pursue risky or life threatening activities. For those reasons, my insurer continues to accept the risk of eventual high-cost claims.

But you people who don't have insurance, many of you don't because you didn't buy insurance simply because you didn't need it. You were healthy. You instead bought flat-screen TVs, or a new car or other material goods. And now that you are sick, you want somebody else to cover the cost. Sure, you'll buy insurance now that you need it. But guess what? We, who have been paying for insurance our entire lives, don't want accept the risk for a sure thing.

Well, my two cents worth is that you made your choice. You voluntarily chose to opt out while you were healthy. You gambled that you would stay healthy. But you didn't and now you want somebody else to cover the bill.

Thanks but no thanks.

Bad Bankers, Bad Bad Bankers.

President Barack Obama appears to be a little irritated. First, it appears that the major lending institutions that took TARP money are paying it back faster than expected. Those institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley now find themselves newly liberated from the onerous and vindictive eye of the Federal government, specifically the glaring spotlight from the U.S. "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg.

This means that these same institutions that were literally saved by the American tax-payer can now get on with the business of paying effusive bonuses to their beleagured and misunderstood executives. Last report: $22 billion. Yes, that's a "b", not an "m".

Considering that over seven million American workers are out of work right now, the populist view is that these "fat cat" bonuses seem to be out of synch with the struggles of the American common laborer and that this money would be better directed towards programs that will funnel money towards the unwashed masses.

As offended as I am by these bonuses (have these people no shame?) I am equally offended by the tone of President Obama's current rhetoric with regards to our financial sector.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street", said the Presdident in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview. Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod further stated "What the president is going to say to the bankers is, you guys were part of the problem, you helped create an economic crisis here that cost 7 million Americans their jobs and now you have to be part of the solution."

There is a growing resistance movement among the bankers, especially with regards to the creation of a government office called the "Consumer Financial Protection Agency". "He can say what he wants, but we're not going back to the kind of lending that put us in this mess" said a person who is helping to prepare the bankers for the meeting but who spoke anonymously because of lack of authority to discuss the plans.

We are told that executives at the highest levels of the mega corporations justify their enormous compensation because they "risk the most". But we've seen that they feel no pain in bad times. They keep making enormous salaries and receive extravagant even as they send pink slips to thousands of employees who watch as their pension funds shrink or disappear entirely.

But the US financial ship of state has been victimized in two ways. First, it was helmed by executives that were willing to pursue imprudent strategies because there was (is?) no perception of personal risk of loss if things went wrong. If you are looking for a poster-child for this kind of executive, look no further than Dick Fuld, the "Gorilla of Wall Street". Second, it foundered into a storm was of our government's own making. Many of those squalls and icebergs that disabled our hypothetical ship were the result of Federal politicians literally FORCING them to relax the very lending standards and practices that would have avoided much of the pain we have seen in the last four years.

The government insisted that banks lend to people that could not be reasonably expected to pay back the loans that they were taking out. The reasoning behind this was two-fold: First, loaning money to a poor family to buy a house so they can move out of a project not only feels good but also looks good on your political resume, especially on the first Tuesday in November. But good financial policy conflicts with touchy-feely politics. Secondly, by making loans available to a larger pool of borrowers, the residential housing manufacturing industry remained white-hot when much of the rest of the economy had cooled or even reversed. Even back in 2003-2004, many U.S. Senators and Representatives were beginning to discern the threat on the horizon and tried to get somebody, anybody, to take a real interest in the risk and IRRESPONSIBLE lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But with the housing sector the only bright spot in a gloomy economy, nobody really wanted to look at it too closely.

And just like the Titanic, by the time anybody realized the danger, it was too late. Give President Bush credit, he tried to get Congress to look at it early in his administration. Then give him a whack on the head because he failed.

Now President Obama is insisting that the lending institutions, especially those that took taxpayer assistance TARP monies, needs to help by boosting lending to small businesses. The problem is that President Obama and his advisors seem to think that if they make money easily available to small businesses that they will just rush in to take advantage of it and begin creating new jobs.

Uh, did ANYBODY in the administration take Economics 101?

Manufacturing and services are always a waterfall economic indicator. Increases in production, which will spur increased employment, won't happen until AFTER there are clear signs that consumers will open their wallets again. News flash to Congress and the Administration, we have 10.2% unemployment (estimated by some organizations to be closer to 17% when you include those who are seriously underemployed). Further, for the first time in 40 years, the American consumer is starting to cut debt and save their earnings instead. In 1982 the average American had 60% of their annual income in some form of debt, much of it revolving. In 2007, the most recent reporting year) Americans were carrying 130% of their annual income in debt. So it will take TIME for us to get out of the hole we're in.

It seems that President Obama and staff seems to think that the US economy is going to swiftly return to the heady levels of 2004. Don't count on it. All indications are that down economy has handed the American consumer harsh lesson about high levels of personal debt. And regardless of all of the hippies that voted for "hope and change" in 2008, the traditional American wants to live a freer life. Debt is a shackle we put on ourselves.

If I'm right, American consumers will not start spending more soon. If true, then all of President Obama's ideas are barking up the wrong tree. He's focusing on getting more jobs by making it easier for small business to borrow. But no sane small business man is going to borrow money when he has no evidence that he can sell the increased capacity. Instead, he needs to keep more of the money that he currently makes now, so that he can invest it into his company or better yet, avoid becoming an additional statistic in the unemployment report.

CBS Airs "Dirty Frosty the Snowman" ads.

I'm not going to link to anything. Look it up if you don't believe me. Simply put, CBS ad executives have aired a couple of voice-overs of snippets of the beloved Christmas classic cartoon "Frosty the Snowman" that are ads for their child-inappropriate comedies Two and A-half Men" and "How I Met Your Mother".

Millions of children will now have to be shielded from YouTube searches for "Frosty" that have him talking about his "Porn stash" and other inappropriate topics.

Thanks CBS. As much as I love "CSI", I'll catch it on reruns now. You won't see another minute of my viewer time.

HR-4191: Speaker Pelosi and Prime Minister Brown have Never Met a New Tax They Didn't Like.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

Considering the number of reports indicating that "stimulus spending" is actually not very stimulating, the job creation is being reported in districts that don't exist, or that job creation can't be actually verified or in fact job creation is being reported when the money allocated for the jobs hasn't been actually received or spent yet. In other words, there is little or no accountability for the current stimulus spending and strong questions as to whether or not there has been any effect at all.

At every turn, as more and more Americans are yelling at their Federal Government to stop the spending their elected representatives and Senators continue to suffer electoral deafness.

In this legislative silence comes Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) who has proposed HR-4191, which would levy a separate tax on all stock trades, futures contracts, swaps, credit default swaps and stock options. These revenues would be used to fund another stimulus spending program, even though we're not even sure that TARP and TARPII are working. At .025 percent, the potential revenues generated are estimated to be $150 billion every year.

"To restore Main Street America, a small securities tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation on 'Main Street'. This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options and futures."

It did not take long, however, for other Democratic representatives to raise opposition. Notably, Reps Michael McMahon (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Debbie Halvorsen (D-IL) circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter that stated, in part: "A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and others savings vehicles." They correctly note that mutual fund and money market fund transactions are also purchases and sales of securities and bonds. They further note that the American version of the proposal would not exempt middle-class Americans because while the tax would be paid by major stock brokers. The brokers would almost assuredly pass the cost down to the investors, be they individuals or pension and retirement fund managers.

And wait a minute... the American version? That's right! This is part of a coordinated plan to make sure that this tax is global. The genesis of this idea comes from the embattled British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown. As part of his proposal all major financial centers - Asia, the EU, the U.S. and the U.K. - would also have to pass similar transaction taxes to avoid "disadvantaging" any single country's stock exchange. Nancy Pelosi apparently thinks that this "idea" might be popular amongst a public eager to see "Wall Street" firms "pitching in" to help the government grow the economy. Ms. Pelosi, how in the hell would Wall Street be "pitching in" to "help" when these taxes are being forced upon them by the bayonet point of the various law enforcement agencies of "all major financial centers"? The courts have a word for actions like this: Extortion.

To summarize, there is now a movement in the Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives to now levy a tax on most of all financial instrument transactions in order to create a new pool of money that can be used for additional "stimulus spending", even though there are convincing arguments that neither TARP or stimulus are having an actual positive effect and in fact are drowning our people in unimaginable levels of debt?

A warning to most of you Generation X and Y people. If you think that your 401(k) contributions will be affected, you'd be RIGHT.

How's that HOPE and CHANGE working for ya? For myself, I think it SUCKS.

Here's one more tidbit of information for you: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/. Summary: Since the Obama administration says that about 640,000 jobs have been created with the $157 billion already spent, that works out to roughly a quarter million dollars annual salary per job created. Since the average payroll employee made roughly $57,000 last year, had the government just paid for the labor, they could have created over 2.7 million jobs. But they want to create another tax (HR-4191) so we can enjoy the similar benefits of our highly efficient, honest, transparent and honest government.

Wind Power and the Threat of Eminent Domain

Wind Power and the Threat of Eminent Domain

No American citizen who turns on a TV, radio or reads the news can be unaware of the current push by the Obama Administration to fast track “green” energy projects. Further, in light of the questions raised by the possibility of man-caused global warming, it is prudent that we continue to develop these technologies. But a news item that I recently scanned causes me to be even more deeply concerned over the continued loss of individual freedom and abuse of government power for the “greater good”.

Most Americans are somewhat familiar with property rights. In rural areas, landowners not only own the surface of the land, but they also own the air above it and whatever is below it, all the way to the core of the earth (although for obvious practical reasons, nobody really enforces that ownership beyond man’s ability to reach downward into the earth’s crust). Simply put, if water, oil, natural gas are found under private land it belongs to the landowner and any company or city wanting to develop that resource must either buy the land or buy the rights to the resource from the landowner.

Similarly, if somebody were to build a structure near the property line that overhung private property, the landowner could force the owner of the structure to modify it so that it does not extend over his property.

Enter the city of New Ulm, Minnesota, which has proposed to construct a 237 acre, 8 megawatt wind farm. The city has already acquired the easements for the installation of the wind turbines. However, the State of Minnesota compels wind farm operators to obtain the “wind” rights from the landowners of a nearly equal amount of acreage in the direction of the prevailing winds. These landowners have so far refused to grant the easement, which has stalled the $16-18 million project.

The city of New Ulm has applied for a variance in order to proceed with the project without getting the easement from these recalcitrant landowners. If we were talking about water, this would be unthinkable. Instead, the developers of the project would be forced to buy the water rights from those that lived upstream to their project.

The New Ulm city attorney, Hugh Nierengarten, stated that “it will be necessary for the City of New Ulm to exercise its powers of eminent domain to secure such rights and move this vital project forward.”

The sticky wicket in this whole situation is the fact that the wind farm site isn’t located in the same county. This means that the objecting landowners have no way to hold the politicians and their legal representatives at bay. Jeff Franta, one of the farmers refusing to sign the easement and chief organizer of the opposition stated that it is within their right to refuse to grant easements to a project that could have a potential negative effect on the value of their property. He further stated “Wind rights are property rights like oil, water or a gravel pit. Wind is like oil in the sky so to speak. How can you use eminent domain to get something that can produce profit?”

The use of eminent domain is an important but volatile concept in American politics. Eminent domain gives a municipality the right to seize privately held land if the land will be used for "public use", and even then the landowner must be compensated fairly. This concept is based primarily on the following clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The most prominent recent case of eminent domain was Kelo vs. the City of New London, which was decided by the United State Supreme Court in June of 2005. The majority opinion, which decided in favor of the City of New London, chose to interpret the fifth amendment term “public use” to mean “public purpose”, citing the 1984 case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.

The dissenting opinion held that by using the “public purpose” interpretation this would enable a sort of reverse Robin Hood scheme whereby wealthy developers with political influence would be able to take property from the poor and middle-classes at below-market values. Further the distinction between private and public use of property would be so blurred as to effectively render inconsequential any protection provided by the fifth amendment with regards to usurpation by the government of private land rights.

To illustrate the difference, public use would imply the construction of a facility that would be run by the municipality that would be actually USED by the public. Examples include public schools and libraries, court buildings, city halls, and roadways. Public purpose has a much broader definition and implies any project that could benefit the public, usually financially. An example would be condemning a depressed urban area (homeowners) in order to develop an economic project (like a shopping mall or a factory) because it would bring increased tax revenues or provide new jobs, which would benefit the community (public purpose).

In conclusion, were the City of New Ulm to successfully either a) execute eminent domain on the farmers or b) get a waiver on the requirement to get the wind rights easement from the farmers, the City of New Ulm would then stand to profit from the new wind power farm while the farmers would derive no benefit as they do not live in the same county as the City of New Ulm.

Which leads me to ask two closing questions, the first of which is “Have you tried offering the farmers royalties or subsidies for the use of the wind that flows over their private property?” The second question would only need to be asked if the farmers lose their fight. “Will the Kennedy’s then be forced to accept the wind farm proposal on the Massachusetts coastline that they fought because it would ‘lower property values’?”

57% of American's Want Tort Reform for Medical Malpractice Suits

Read the Rasmussen poll report here.

On August 12, August 18 and August 27 I bloviated expansively about the House version of the United States National Health Care act (USNHC). Specifically, I wondered how any act put before Congress that does not make any effort whatsoever to set limits on malpractice lawsuits, commonly called "tort" reform could actually claim to be a comprehensive plan to reduce the cost of health care to America's citizens.

Apparently I am now one of a clear majority of polled voters who feel the same way. According to a Rasmussen poll published on December 2nd, 2009 57% of voters favor limiting monetary rewards to medical lawsuit plaintiffs, with 29% disagreeing and 14% not sure. 47% of voter respondents to the poll believe that limiting monetary awards would "significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States", with 28% disagreeing and 25% unsure.

Finally, 60% of the respondents believe USNHC will increase the Federal deficit and a larger number believe it will result in higher taxes on the middle-class.

As I've said many times before, I believe that dramatic changes need to be made in our health care system.

Here's some of my list of items that need to be addressed by USNHC. Note that I'm not saying that we should abandon USNHC, only that if we truly want to believe that it will be a comprehensive bill to control the cost of health care to the U.S. consumer, then I think these issues need to be considered and added:

Have you talked to a health-care professional recently? A surgical doctor? A registered nurse? An emergency room technician? Did you ask them about the hours they work? I know very few health-care professionals that work LESS than 50 hours a week, and I know some that work over 80 hours a week. The old market rule applies in this case. If demand is high and supply is low, cost increases. How does USNHC plan to add more people to the medical profession? And if you think those resources are scarce now imagine when we add the so-called 47 million (I say so-called because it's been proven that there are not that many people with no medical insurance at any one time) to the insurance rolls? Now that somebody else (you and I) will be helping to pay for their care, you can bet that they will flood the system with requests for care.

The FDA approval process for pharmaceuticals adds exorbitant costs to the process of bringing new drugs to market. By itself, I don't have a problem with that. I like the fact that my government is trying to ensure that only high quality medicines make it to the consumer. But if the FDA is going to justify the hoops, the red-tape and the cost associated, then how come drugs keep getting pulled from the shelf and we keep seeing class-action lawsuits against drug manufacturers for drugs that were approved by the FDA? It's gotta be either one way or the other. Either the FDA stands by their approval and accepts some of the risk for their stamp of approval, or they need to admit that there's no way to test for all possible factors associated with drug use, in which case lawsuits against manufacturers for claims against FDA approved drugs should not be admitted to court.

Tort reform. All levels of the health care profession pay a LOT of money to insurers to protect themselves against lawsuits. But with America being the most litigious society on Earth, and there being nearly non-existent controls on both the validity of lawsuits and the rewards being sought, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Reduce the cost of lawsuits and you reduce the cost of insurance paid by providers, the savings which can be passed on to the consumer. This is not to say that lawsuits aren't necessary. But a plaintiff shouldn't expect to profit from a mistake made or even malfeasance made by a provider. However, neither should they bear the loss. Basic market principle here is that if costs associated with a service or product can be reduced in a competitive market, the provider will reduce the cost to the consumer in order to remain competitive.

Increase competition between insurance companies by allowing consumers (businesses and individuals) to purchase insurance plans from across state lines. Basic market principle. Increased competition reduces cost as competitors seek to gain advantages on price through reduced profitability or improved efficiencies in doing business.

Provide incentives for the formation of benefit cooperatives that can cater to people employed by small businesses that cannot afford to provide health care from traditional insurance companies. Kind of like a medical version of a credit union. These coops, if run well, could really give traditional insurance companies a run for their money, and in so doing create an environment that would force insurance companies to compete or go out of business. Have you noticed that very few credit unions have been caught up in the current financial crisis? This is because they are run for the benefit of their shareholders, not stock holders. There is little incentive for credit unions to engage in risky and speculative financial practices. The same should be true for health care benefit coops, since their primary focus is to provide health care benefits at the lowest possible cost to their shareholders. How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans would take advantage of health care coops if they existed?

So why don't progressives want to talk about these ideas? Because none of them give the government more control over your individual liberty.

Chris Matthews' Characterizes West Point Academy as "Enemy Camp" to President Obama.

Follow the weblink to a video of the relevant excerpt of Chris Matthews' commentary after President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech of December 1, 2009:



Now... I'm a former Marine. My son is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. I have a fair number of friends who either are serving or who have served in the U.S. armed forces. And I don't think it's news that these people are generally not friends of members of the Democratic party or persons who lean towards liberal/progressive ideology.

However, I think it is safe to say that neither the regular military establishment, or the military academies such as West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy) or Colorado Springs (Air Force) have ever taken any action that would make it fair to label them as "enemies" of any President of the Unite States.

Just as the rhetoric against George Bush during his administration was way over the top, we still continue to see extreme partisan invective from both sides in this administration. Chris Matthews' rhetoric will continue to reinforce in the minds of his devotees that the military is openly antagonistic of the President and his policies, which is patently untrue.

If we look at recent American history, we can see that the U.S. Military establishment has reasons for being suspicious of Democratic presidents. President Carter canceled more military programs than any U.S. President since Harry Truman. While President Lyndon Johnson increased our commitment of troops in Vietnam, he purposefully did not try to build public support for the conflict because of his fear that support for our Vietnam commitments would take support from his "Great Society" social programs. Because of this, service personnel returning from duty in Vietnam were literally spit upon by anti-war protesters that Johnson did very little to control (although when he did, such as at Kent State, the result was disastrous). President Clinton, exulting in the Reagan-caused collapse of the Soviet Union, tried to leverage the so-called "peace dividend". The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah of Iran and rise of militant fundamentalist Islam in Iran and elsewhere, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1998 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen all occurred during Democratic administrations. Many in the military believe that these relatively unpunished acts encouraged the greatest act of terrorism ever experienced, which were the September 11, 2001 assaults on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and possibly the Capitol building or the White House.

Only during the American Civil War did large elements of the regular military establishment openly defy the President of the United States. Otherwise, the U.S. military has been a devoted and faithful servant of the American people, directed by the legal orders of their President. To characterize West Point or any other military establishment as the camp of the enemy is absurd and an unwarranted accusation against the honorable men and women who learn the trade of war in order to preserve the peace and security of our people.

Tiger Woods Gives the Press the Finger (Metaphor). Good For Him.

Unless you are living in a dark cave somewhere in Tennessee or Southern Utah, you probably are aware that golfing legend Tiger Woods, the most successful athlete in the history of modern sports, had a little one-car automobile accident last week in the wee early morning hours not far from his home.

According to Woods' agent, Mark Steinberg, Florida law requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident to provide the police his driver's license, the registration for his vehicle, and proof of insurance.

And Tiger has decided that that is all he is going to give the police and the press. This is probably the backlash from the revelation in the tabloids that Tiger has been seen in the presence of a New York party girl. It is noteworthy that the accident investigation has already determined that Tiger was travelling away from his house when the accident occurred, not far from his home.

Tiger has decided he is not going to give the police, and thereby, the press and paparazzi, any details that would further compromise his family situation. One can only guess why Tiger was driving from his home, apparently out of control, in the middle of the night, but not under the influence of alcohol or medications. And it's going to stay that way. Tiger has no intention of feeding the ravenous beast any salacious tidbits. And if he is interviewed by the police, we darn well know that six hours later that the information would be on the front page of every tabloid from LA to London.

Tiger will be cited, probably with something like "failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle" and pay his fine. He'll then call up GM and ask them to ship them another Cadillac CTS-V and he'll knock a few thousand off the fee for the next commercial he does for Buick.

America (and the world), get over it. Tiger's private life and foibles is none of your business, and his family problems (if there are any, that's only alleged) should be allowed to be worked out in private.

Post Thanksgiving Ramblings: Troop Surge, Anger at Federal Gov't, etc.

First, I had a wonderful Thanksgiving. My brother Lee is working an honest job again for the first time since 1991. He's got a tough, rugged and uphill road to travel on but he's made some good first steps. I'm contributing in my own little way but this is about Lee, not me, so suffice it to say that I hope that Lee will continue to contact me to report "good news" and that he will also contact me when he needs support. My son Christopher, a Lance Corporal in the Marines, returned safely from his first overseas deployment and is currently spending time with us here in Phoenix. He looks great. He's about to be reassigned to a new infantry unit and the odds of that new unit going to Afghanistan is about 100%. His opinion concerning the news that President Obama has signed an order authorizing 30,000 additional troops for the Afghanistan theater of operations was typically Marine blunt: "About damn time. And we could use more guys." My wife is recovering from her throat surgery and is now doing fidgety projects about the house. Every time that happens, I end up spending more money. Oh well. It helps the economy, right? And my daughter Heather and her hubby Mat are settling in beautifully in their new home. I am also grateful that my Mother is now living with me and that we were also able to have my In-Laws in town for the holiday. That's right! I get along with my In-Laws! It doesn't get much better than that.

Second: President Obama today signed orders to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. I think this is the right decision. Of course, the minute that President Obama starts acting like an actual Commander-in-Chief, the liberal base that helped elect him starts chewing on him. Representative David Obey (D-WI) stated that propping up a corrupt regime is "a fool's errand". Does he forget that Afghanistan is where our current conflict with militant Islamic jihad started? If we do not eliminate the Taliban then Afghanistan will once again be the favored location to train young Muslims in the ways of terror attacks to be used against the West. I believe that this new 30,000 is only the start. I also believe, as President Bush predicted, that the "War on Terror" will be a generational conflict fought out over decades, with the ultimate result the elimination of militant Islam fundamentalists or the adoption by all the world of sharia (sp). Who will win? I wonder.

Third: The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, has stated that it's own peer-review policies would negate the attempts by a "small segment" ofpro-AGW (anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming) scientists to stifle dissenting opinion in scientific discussions and journals as well as to skew the data to make it look more dramatic. These efforts have come to light because of a hacker's successful intrusion into the University of East Anglia's email system and the dump of over 100 gigabytes (one billion characters per gigabyte) of emails onto the internet. In the center of this growing controversy is Professor Phil Jones, who is the head of UoEA's climate research department. In 2004, an email from him allegedly supported the rejection of at least two dissenting research papers because they were "'flawed" and yet he indicated in the same email that if necessary, he would support changing the peer-review process to facilitate prevention of the publication of dissenting opinions. The jury is still out on whether Prof. Jones was simply venting in a private email or that he was alluding to actual intentions or actions. To be fair, I think it is safe to say that we have all written things in personal correspondence that should not be taken literally (eg: "I'm gonna kill him!"). Contrarily, scientists have a responsibility to be detached and objective to their research and that such comments coming from such an influential member of the pro-AGW camp, especially in light of the fact that AGW is not a "settled" science, smacks of a scientific inquisition.

A far more worrisome issue is the confirmation by certain scientists at UoEA that they have destroyed much of the raw temperature data that was used to predict global warming. This means that other scientist cannot independently verify their assumptions. This revelation was obtained after a request for the raw data was made under the UK's Freedom of Information Act. The only data still available is the revised "quality assured and homogenized" data. The revisions were made for the stated purpose of adjusting the data to reflect variables in the way the data was collected. The raw data was not saved when the Climate Research Unit moved to a new facility.

How Business is Done in D.C.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Read the article first. Of course, over time weblinks will fail. So here's the synopsis.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a moderate Democrat, has been playing "hard to get" on committing to an up vote for the Senate version of the US Health Care reform bill. Apparently, a whole section has been added to the bill that benefits one state and one state only; Louisiana. The section is 58 lines and contains 660 words. It can be found on page 432 of the Reid bill, and the section is titled: "SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER."

In summary this section increases federal Medicaid subsidies for certain states recovering from a major disaster. There is only one state that meets the conditions set forth in this section: Louisiana.

Since Harry Reid needs all 60 of his Democrat Senators to bring this bill onto the Senate floor for debate, he needs Mary Landrieu's vote. And this is apparently how he will get it.

Oh, one other thing... The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will cost U.S. taxpayers $100 million.

I'm sure that Majority Leader Reid, who is battling an uphill fight in his own state to be re-elected next November, expects Senator Landrieu to stay "bought".

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how bizness is done in DC.

Kudos to ABC News' Jonathan Karl for bringing this to the harsh light of day.

Random Thoughts on November 19th.

Thought #1: U of Calif students think they are guaranteed an edumacation.
Numerous news outlets are reporting that students in the University of California system are gathering in "near-riots" to protest a 32% hike in tuition. One young man who spoke on an ABC news radio clip indicated that "rich white men" were responsible for this. I'm going to go with "not so much". If this young skull full of mush would listen to something other than Air America or MSNBC, he might have heard that the State of California is looking at a 21 BILLION dollar short-fall in their state budget. Unlike the U.S. Federal government, California can't just crank up the printing presses to monitize their debt. Hey, California DUDE! You're state is BROKE, man! There isn't any more money in the TREASURY. My recommendation... get a job, like I did.

Thought #2: Apparently, conservative black men aren't black.
Ask Jesse Jackson, who apparently isn't very happy with Representative Artur Davis (D-Ala) who was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the current version of the bill. “We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.” More proof that if you are black and you have decided to try and live free of the government dole and further, you expect others to do so as well, then you are an "Uncle Tom". Quote was courtesy of www.thehill.com. The hypocrisy is as deafening as the reporting by the "mainstream media" is non-existent.

Thought #3: If you write a book and you are a conservative, you get "fact-checked" by the AP. But if you are a liberal candidate for president, you get a free ride.
The AP managed to get a hold of a "printer's proof" copy of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue. What did they do with it? They assigned 11 reporters "part-time" to fact-check it. Apparently, only Fox News feels this is newsworthy because neither President Obama's book Audacity of Hope or VP Biden's book Promises to Keep were given the same scrutiny. If you use the following search text: "obama's book fact checked", the links that came up were to articles about the fact that Sarah Palin's book was fact-checked but Pres. Obama's wasn't. More proof that liberals get a free pass from the "fourth estate" while conservatives are grilled.

Thought #4: Senate Marjority Leader Harry Reid is going to try and ram a 2,074 page version of the health-care reform bill through the Senate this weekend.
Republicans are trying to slow down the process by invoking a parliamentarian rule that requires the Senate Clerk to read, in total, the text of a bill before discussion begins. At a minute per page, which should be easily attained because the text is double-spaced and relatively large font, it will take somewhere between 34 and 45 hours to read it entirely.
Courtesy of John Boehner, one more reason that conservative will hate this bill: Section 1303(a)(2)(C) defines the process whereby the Health Benefits Commission will assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan as well as those who are given "affordability credits" to buy such coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. Minimum charge: $1 per month. You can read it for yourself at page 118.

Why Do the Dems Want to Bankrupt Us, both Morally and Fiscally?

I've been silent recently on this blog, although only a few would take notice of it. I had a very busy weekend, spending a lot of time with the boys of my DeMolay chapter. When I woke up on Sunday I saw that Speaker Pelosi had managed to ram through the "health care reform" bill, all 2,000+ pages of it.

Right now, I'm thinking of two things about this bill.

First, the bill as currently written includes language provided by Representative Bart Stupak, specifically prohibits the usage of any government funds for human-fetus abortions. From www.thehill.com, the following synopsis is provided:
"Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies.

Allowing the vote represented a major concession by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to Stupak and other pro-life Democrats who had threatened to oppose the bill. But it came at the cost of angering liberals in the Democratic conference.

Abortion-rights supporters called it a “de facto” abortion ban and mounted an intense but unsuccessful lobbying campaign against it."

This amendment to the bill was the primary reason why some moderate Republicans and "dozens" of centrist Democrats were able to reverse their position and vote for it.

Now that it has passed, there is already movement to remove this language. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, stated on MSNBC that she and other pro-abortion (often called "pro-choice") forces would work to remove this language from the bill while the bill was under reconciliation. She stated that she "was confident" that this prohibition will not be present in the final version of the bill.

So now that the liberals have largely succeeded in removing any kind of morality from government and our public schools, they now want those of us who consider abortion to be an immoral act to help fund abortions, regardless of the reason for performing that abortion.

Wasserman Shultz stated that the language essentially created a ban on abortion. Really? Really? No -- it simply states that Federal money (that would be taxpayer money) cannot be used to pay for abortions. Anybody that wants an abortion would have to pony up the money themselves, but there is no ban.

This might be an item that I make my stand on as far as my taxes are concerned. Meaning that if my tax monies might be used to pay for abortions that are performed for reasons other than rape, incest or danger to the mother's life then I will not pay my full share of taxes. How can my government make me subsidize an act I consider immoral?

Joseph Liebermen, independent Senator from Connecticut, stated on Fox News Sunday that any government option in the health care reform bill would cause the Federal debt to climb from twelve trillion dollars today to twenty trillion by 2020! It is unlikely that the U.S. government could ever recover from that much debt without printing literally multiple trillions of paper dollars to "monetize" that debt. In so doing, they would cause the value of the dollar to drop so low that no sane nation would continue to hold dollars as a "reserve" currency. This would cause a flood of dollars on the market as countries divest themselves of their dollar holdings. And just like anything else in a market, if you have a surplus of something with correspondingly low demand, the value drops like a stone in a gravity-well. This would cause the dollar to become literally worthless. You think cars are expensive today? Well, imagine how you are going to feel when you go to the grocery store and pay thirty-five thousand dollars for a loaf of bread or a half-gallon of milk.

You don't think that can happen? If you don't then you are not a student of history. Look at what happened to the German Deutschemark in the interwar period ("Weimar Republic") and then think again. It can and will if we allow our Federal government to sell us all into foreign servitude by spending money we do not have.

So, if representatives like Wasserman Schulze and Pelosi have their own way, we will not have only bankrupted our treasury but we will have also bankrupted our souls. And we will be paying for this unconscionable and profligate spending for generations to come.

I shudder to think what our grandchildren will say about this moment in American history. I don't think it will be kind.

Jon Kyl has a Point, but is Anybody Paying Attention?

During a discussion of an amendment to the Baucus health care reform bill, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) stated that insurers should be required to provide basic maternity care. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) responded: "“I don’t need maternity care, so requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Of course, this sounds like the typical kind of mean and hurtful and insensitive rhetoric that liberals expect to fall from the mouths of evil old conservative Republicans.

What Senator Kyl is trying to point out here, and nobody is bothering to listen, is that it makes no sense for a male insured to have basic maternity care covered on his policy as there is ZERO chance that any man will need to use it. What Senator Kyl is trying to say but nobody is listening is that the government should encourage that whatever comes out of the Baucus plan should be able to be tailored to each insured.

I'll bet if somebody were to ask Senator Jon Kyl if women should have an expectation to have basic maternity care covered in a general health care insurance plan, he'd probably be much more supportive.

Remember folks, insurance is supposed to transfer risk of disasters that you can't afford to a large group that can. We don't use health insurance that way.

In my opinion (and off-topic, by the way) health care insurance should be called something else, like health care benefits plan. It's NOT insurance.

Politicians Should Really Look at David Letterman Today.

Last night (October 1, 2009), comedian/talk show host David Letterman admitted that he had a number of sexual relationships with female members of his production staff. He admitted this because of allegations that "48 Hours" producer Robert "Joe" Halderman last month gave a package to Letterman that contained threats that if he did not pony up $2 million dollars in "hush" money that Halderman would go public with that information. The prosecutor said that Mr. Halderman's package "contained clear, explicit and actual threats that indicate this defendant (wanted to) destroy the reputation of Mr. Letterman and to submit him and his family to humiliation and ridicule."

Mr. Letterman's admission on national TV last night created an end run around Mr. Halderman's alleged threat by making the information public before Mr. Halderman could. By executing his "pre-emptive first strike" Letterman also controlled the way in which the information was presented to the public in order to control the damage it would do.

Make no mistake that this episode is not over. Mr. Halderman will have to defend himself against an extortion charge. There will be inquiries as to whether Letterman used his position of authority on his production staff/crew to induce these women to submit to his sexual advances.

It should be noted that Letterman has only recently married and that he married one of the members of his production staff. It is reasonable to assume that these "incidents" occurred while he was still single so infidelity is not an issue. Of course, sex out of wedlock is still "adultery" but we don't really care about that anymore, do we?

Politicians take note!
Mr. Letterman ought not to be "sleeping" around with his staff. However, when it became clear that it was going to get into the public domain he diminished it's damage potential by admitting it and not hiding it from the public. Contrast this to the behavior of people like Larry Craig, John Edwards or Bill Clinton.

Good Liberal Argument Concerning the National Debt

When you throw away the name-calling and other infantile behavior that currently plagues our legislatures at the Federal and State levels it becomes possible to listen to well-reasoned arguments from either side of the political spectrum and learn from it.

I was perusing a Progressive website (Centers for American Progress or CAP) and read an article written Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden.

Michael Ettlinger is the VP for Economic Policy at CAP, principal developer of the ITEP Microsimulation Tax Model. He holds degrees from Cornell and American University.

Micheal Linden is the Assoc. Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the CAP. He has a master's degree in public policy from UC Berkeley. He is also a children's advocate, working at First Focus.

Both of these gentlemen lean heavily to the left. But, can we actually hear words of common ground from them? You bet...

In an article hosted on CAP's website that was posted on September 30, 2009 titled "Deal wit It. A Guide to the Federal Deficit and Debt".

While I disagree with their position that heavy deficit spending is necessary to prevent economic collapse during challenging times, I found several of the following quotes to be self-evident and very common sense.

"The real challenge is what we face after the recession: significant sustained deficits which, while not quite as eye catching, are equally historic, harder to solve, and pose a greater danger."

They also point out that sustained high levels of national debt can deter domestic investment, lower future incomes, raise interest rates and promote inflation, which causes further damage to people who see their wages fail to keep up with increasing inflation.

They provide a dire warning by stating that the CBO1 and the OMB2 both project high deficits through 2019, the latest year for which they offer their estimates.

The offer the following for consideration:
1) Revenue shortfalls are projected in personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, especially compared with previous periods (they cite 1998, when the budget was actually generating a surplus of .8 of GDP3). This is especially pernicious in light of the fact that in the short term, stimulus spending (TARP4, ARRA5, TARPII, CARS6) is going to produce greater deficits in the short term, adding dramatically to the national debt burden and therefore also the amount of money the federal government pays monthly on that debt plus interest.
2) Government health care spending is expected to dramatically increase as the baby-boomers go from workers paying INTO social security to retirees taking FROM the system. Hence, the extreme urgency of reforming health care. Yes, health care reform is a national security issue. It's the WAY that we reform health care that is the source of so much angst and invective in our current political conversation.
3) Because of our involvement in Afghanistan, the ongoing campaign against jihadist threats and the likelihood that we will be facing a resurgent threat from an increasingly socialistic Russia and an emerging threat from socialist China, our military expenditures are projected to INCREASE.

These postulations are not in dispute by any reasonable person of either party.

They emphasize the difficult decisions that we are going to have to make and offer the following analysis.

"The [deficit] 6.3 percent of GDP swing is driven by both decreases in revenues and increases in spending." This is also common sense and incontestable. They make more assertions. Let's see if you agree with any of them.

1) Across the board spending cuts aren't likely. Some areas of the [federal] budge will be spared, which means other areas will have to face deeper cuts. Examples: We aren't going to default on our debt payments. We are also not going to cut Social Security, simply control the rate of growth. By taking these two items off of the table, the REST of the budget would have to be cut by 27% to achieve balance, or 14% to bring the deficit to below 2% of GDP.
2) Health care reform (assuming that the current version of USNHC were passed) is assumed to result in significant Medicare cost reductions, but most of these reductions will not become apparent for a decade or more. Assuming we can't cut Medicare, then the remainder of the budget must be cut by 35% to balance the budget or 18% to get the deficit below 3% of the GDP.
3) If we also exempt military spending from the cuts, which we would probably be obligated to do considering our current geopolitical obligations and future scenarios, that would mean that the rest of the budget would have to be cut by 51%.

So what gets cut by 51%? Funds to health clinics, federal retiree and veteran benefits, public schools, grants to higher education, the entire transportation infrastructure, regulatory agencies, the US Post office, etc. This is not a realistic solution.

The other side of the coin is to balance the budget by raising revenues (taxes and fees). It's also equally dismal. We would have to increase federal revenues by 22% in order to balance the budget by 2014. That's a 22% increase in everybody's income taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes and federal charges. And don't forget that the 50 states are also raising or will be raising taxes and fees. To bring the deficit to 2% of GDP would still require a 12% across the board increase in revenues. However, the current administration has promised that they will not increase taxes on individuals who earn less than $250k annually. This means that family's earning more than $250k annually and corporations would have to pay a tax rate of nearly 70% in order to cut the budget deficit to only 2% of GDP by 2014. Note that this does NOT balance the budget.

They then ask some questions that I don't agree with. Example: "Can the U.S. afford to continue to spend so much more of it's national income than the rest of the world on defense?" As of 2003, the U.S. spent 3.7 of national income on military expenditures, which represented 49% of U.S. discretionary spending. While this does not include the last five years, 49% of the discretionary spending budget is nearly the lowest percentage spent in any given fiscal year since before World War II.

For over four decades our government has run budget deficits, with the natural result that our national debt has grown to a dangerous high. The conclusion: In order to slow our deficit spending and return to a balanced budget or even a budget surplus will require significant sacrifice on our part.

Here's the part my conservative friends isn't going to like. Our economy is a national security issue. We must stop spending money that we do not have. Quite the opposite, we must start to repay the money that we have already borrowed. The only way that we are going to be able to do that is to both reduce government spending (including military and health care) while at the same time, all American citizens are going to be called upon to pay more in fees and taxes while at the same time receiving less entitlements. It's going to hurt. Any conservative that tells me that we can solve this solution while not increasing taxes is not looking dispassionately at the facts of our situation. However, any liberal that thinks we can balance the budget and reduce the debt by increased taxation alone are also equally deluded. Programs of all kinds, including social programs (education, housing, health care, regulatory agencies) are going to have to be cut or dramatically reduced.

We've had our party. It's time to pay the bill.


(1) CBO: Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan Federal organization that provides the Congress with financial impact analysis.
(2) Office of Management and Budget, a Federal organization that monitors existing Federal spending.
(3) GDP: Gross Domestic Product
(4) TARP: Troubled Asset Relief Program
(5) ARRA: American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(5) CARS: Car Allowance Rebate System

Adulation of the MAN vs. the INSTITUTION (Follow up to previous posting)

The American system of government is greater than any one man or even group of men. This why adulation for the MAN instead of the INSTITUTION is so scary to me and many who share my point of view.

Barack Obama's accomplishment of becoming the first American President "of color", especially considering our checkered history with the institution of slavery, specifically the slavery of Africans is momentous. But the accomplishment of Barack Obama pales when viewed in light of the greater context that our system permits any person regardless of creed, race, sex to achieve the highest levels of success and authority.

But are these children being taught to praise that system? I doubt it. I suspect that Dr. Denise King, the principal of the school where this song was recorded, would probably say that the American system is full of inequalities and injustices and that minorities are repressed. She is probably teaching children that capitalism is "evil" and "uncaring". She probably dwells on the mistakes of our nation's past, such as the nearly successful genocide of the Native American or the institution of African slavery.

I suspect she does NOT teach much about the indentured servitude (economic slavery) of Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles and Italians in the 1800's or the Chinese and other Asians in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I also bet she doesn't talk much about the current genocide taking place in both eastern and southern Africa, where Africans are enslaving or destroying whole other tribes of Africans solely on basis of clan affiliation. Or how about the sexual enslavement or mutilation of African women by African men? Hmmm? Or how about the current repression by China of Tibet and it's eastern Muslim population, or the destruction of millions of lives in Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

Then there's India with it's caste system. Does she spend much time talking about the purely social discrimination of the Bhangis ("untouchables") by the Brahmins, even though those people are genetically the same family? Or the "honor killings" practiced in much of the Islamic world? Or the outright racist attitudes of most Asians? To this day, Japanese print media depicts Africans with big lips and low foreheads and the book "Little Black Sambo" is a popular children's picture book. In fact, there is no redress for "hate crimes" in Japan because there is NO JAPANESE LAW protecting civil rights.

The American system of government and the society it has created is far from perfect. And by definition, a capitalistic economic system means that people will fail although that does not mean that those people are failures. People become failures only when they prove unable to overcome adversity. But in our society, which is now dominated by an arguably corrupt and non-representing representative system, the charged are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and people like Bernard Madoff or the CEOs of corrupt companies like TYCO, Enron or MCI Worldcom go to jail for destroying the financial future of others. While perfection eludes us what other nation on Earth presents as much opportunity as the United States? Even in decline with possibly our best days now behind us are still one of the freest, safest places on Earth to live.

So when I see children pouring out their adulation for only a MAN instead of the INSTITUTION, in my opinion I am justifiably concerned. If this is an innocent act then it's wrong. If it's purposeful then it can only be called one thing: INDOCTRINATION.

Showing Respect to the Office of President is Worshipping His Name.

There is a video on You Tube titled “(No background music} School kids taught to praise Obama.” The tape shows a class of students, about thirty or so, singing this little catchy ditty. According to the notes with the video, it was filed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ and uploaded on June 19, 2009.

Here are the lyrics to that song:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

I have stated before on my blog and elsewhere that any person that is elected to the Presidency of the United States is worthy of respect, even if you are opposed to many of the policies or political views of that person. In my own case, I won’t ever represent President Obama as a monkey or a witch-doctor, as some of the 9/12 protesters did. I do not use inflammatory names when referring to Mr. Obama. But I have no problem with disagreeing with him on any policy he presents that grows government or limits personal freedom. Further, I have no problemexpressing those views on my blog and in personal conversations.

Prior to the 1970s, it was not uncommon at all for photographic portraits of the current U.S. President to hang in classrooms all across America. But during my public school education journey from 1966 to 1979 I do not ever remember singing a song about the man that held that office. We had our ditties about George Washington and Abe Lincoln back when those President’s birthdays were actually celebrated on the anniversary of their births. But a living currently serving President? Nope.

I find the lyrics in this song to be bordering on cult of personality worship:
“He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight.” This is almost demigod worship in its tone, much like the song “Jesus loves the little children”. This is a message to children that President Obama loves you no matter who or what you are. It is nearly cultlike. It is not the job of the President of the United States to love us. It is his job to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic and to ever support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance.”
Who can argue with this sentiment? The problem here is that our children are being taught that there is blatant inequality in our culture, which I concede there is still some. However, the reality is that not everybody makes the most of the opportunities that life and our culture provides them. If opportunity for "minorities" was truly as bad as the progressives would have you believe, then why do Haitians fleeing abject poverty in their own country bypass Cuba, the Turks and Caicos, Jamaica and the Bahaamas, which are all far closer in order to emigrate to the United States? Why do hundreds of thousands of Mexicans flee to the U.S. in the face of the chance of capture, punishment or deportment? Opportunity! That's why!

But instead, for the sake of creating "nurturing" environments where our children are not subject to the "threat" of failure we are instead creating a whole generation of kids who do not know how to learn from their mistakes and overcome adversity using innovation, dedication and persistence. This school environment is emulated nowhere in the real world of employment. If you fail and give up, or repeatedly make the same mistakes you will be written up, demoted or terminated. But I digress...

I have no problem in teachers encouraging an attitude of respect for our President, but I am vehemently opposed to teaching our kids politics unless you will teach them by presenting both viewpoints equally or worse, adulation for a man who has yet to prove if he deserves the respect of the office that the People of the United States have already entrusted to him.

Ben... It's the UN. Of Course They Have No Shame!

An excerpt from the dramatic speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu: "But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

He was addressing the UN. Therefore this was clearly a rhetorical question.

Goodbye Chrysler. It was nice doing business with you.

Today, CNN Money reports that Italian auto manufacturer Fiat, which bought ailing Chrysler this year, believes that the situation at Chrysler is "more dire than first thought". The bringer of gloom was Mr. Sergio Marchionne, Fiat's CEO.

"We were surprised by how little had been done in the past 24 months."

Industry insiders, such as Todd Turner of Car Concepts Automotive Research found Mr. Marchionne's comment surprising. "I'm a little surprised that he was surprised."

Let's lay it out.

In 1998, Chrysler Corporation was the new U.S. automotive manufacturing prodigy which had joined with Daimler-Benz. Chrysler had an impressive stable of trucks, Jeeps and minivans. Innovative designs like the PT Cruiser, the Chrysler 300c and the 3rd generation Dodge Ram trucks were selling and keeping their customers happy.

But the merger turned into something of a bad marriage. The disciplined and formal German business structure meshed badly with Chrysler's more innovative and somewhat random business approach. Additionally, the movement of technology from Daimler to Chrysler was very slow in getting implemented. An example: The innovative Chrysler Crossfire was designed upon the 1998-2003 mechanicals (chassis, drivetrain and suspension) of the Mercedes-Benz SLK230K. This decision was reportedly made by Stuttgart because the Benz car was being dramatically redesigned for 2004.

For some reason which I do not understand the quality of Chrysler products plummeted drastically during this same period. Cars that looked innovative and interesting on the outside were found to have bland or just plain odd interiors. And customers caught on as more and more Chrysler products found their way quickly into repair shops. A simple comparison of first year vs. subsequent year sales for same models show an average 60% drop in sales.

Innovation disappeared on mechanicals. The Chrysler 300, the Dodge Charger, the Dodge Magnum and yes, even the new Dodge Challenger are all based on the same chassis and suspension systems.

Why these decisions were made will be for the history writers to chronicle, but my guess will be that to keep the stockholders happy Chrysler was forced to trim manufacturing costs such as research and development while trying (vainly) to leave the auto union and retirees pensions alone.

In my lifetime, I have owned vehicles from Chrysler than any other maker. These include the 1993 Dodge Dynasty, 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup, 2001 Dodge Ram 3500 dually pickup and finally a 2006 Chrysler Crossfire (vroom! vroom!).

As Shakespeare so eloquently put it, "All good things must come to an end."

Comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the "New Face of the KKK". You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has now taken the political debate to yet a new low, showing that the Black Congressional Caucus and the Democratic Party is completely prepared to throw the "race card" down on the table at any time that it looks like it might create political advantage.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) blurted out "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's September 9th speech promoting his health care reform plan to Congress. Wilson personally apologized to the President the following day, and that apology was accepted.

However, since Congress is a tank of sharks that just love the smell of blood, and partisan rhetoric is just as rancid and raucous as ever, the Democrats wasted no time in debating and then voting on a censure of Wilson today (September 15th). Of course CNN was there to cover this debate (where were they on Van Jones, ACORN, All the President's Czars, etc?). CNN caught Johnson on camera and he had this to say:

"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man, I would say it instigated more racist sentiment and feeling. 'It's OK. You don't have to bury it now. You can bring it out and talk about it fully.' And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on uh, white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And uh, you know, that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude, uh, is not rebuked. If Congressman Wilson represents, uh, he's the face of it."

I've never cussed on this blog before. But I'm going to now. You've got to be shitting me. Joe Wilson is now the face of racial intolerance and hatred in the United States of America because he disagrees with the President's assertion that SR3200 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits? You got all that from two words?. In my opinion that's one helluva stretch. This just demonstrates and proves what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and all the other conservative talkers have been saying since Obama started campaigning for election, which is that you cannot disagree with the President on any topic and then avoid being charged with opposing the President because you are a racist and he is an African-American.

I'm sure that were I to have an opportunity to speak directly to Representative Johnson, and he were willing to actually waste his time defending himself to me, that he could come up with some convoluted explanation about how he can rationalize the connection between Rep. Wilson to the KKK by the evidence of the two words "You lie!" In my opinion, this can only be rationally explained by Saul Alinsky rule #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." By portraying Wilson as a personalized face of racism, Johnson successfully demonizes Wilson and weakens him and what he stands for. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and this certainly fits the data.

Political discourse in this country is dying. And the rules are skewed. Nobody will defend Wilson against this ridiculous, baseless and from my point of view, irresponsible charge because no white guy is going to get fair representation.

Hey! Conservatives! Can you TONE IT DOWN A LITTLE!?

OK. 9/12 and Jim O'Keefe's videos show that the conservatives can run plays from Saul Alinsky's little handbook too. But the message is being lost in the rhetoric.

Do we have to completely crawl down in the mud with "World Can't Wait", "Code Pink", "ACORN", "MoveOn.org" and others who feel that the only way to get the message across is with vile statements?

Some examples: A poster showing President Obama with a Hitleresque moustache. How does a poster that says "Long Legged Mack Daddy" help our cause? How about a Confederate battle flag? Good Lord! Could anything be more offensive to a black man than the Confederate battle flag? There were others that were in even poorer taste and judgment but I refuse to describe or restate them hear.

We will win this argument because we have better facts and figures than the opposite side does. We will win this argument because we will create better opportunity and freedom of action than a government that calls the shots for more and more of the decisions in our lives. We will NOT win by calling President Obama a "Mack Daddy" or somehow connecting him to Adolf Hitler, who designed the most heinous genocidal program of the 20th century.

When we crawl down into the mud with the opposition, the message is completely covered and lost in the filth.

I recently decided to spend some time on MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress.org. I absolutely cannot tell what the message is because of the amount of dreck and libelous noise that you have to wade through.

How can I seriously argue against my opponent's agenda when I can't even tell what it is? Not what the politicos are saying but because of what the common citizens on the other side are saying, feeling and wanting.

Both left and right need to go get a hug and then let's try to discuss and compromise a deal based on the value of the arguments.

Kanye West's Disgraceful Behavior is Mirror of our Times

One of the reasons I don't watch the Academy Awards, VMAs, Emmys, or any other award program, because crap like this happens.

Taylor Swift wins the Best Female Video at the (MTV Video Music Awards). During her acceptance, 37 year old rapper Kanye West jumps up on the stage, rips the microphone from her and then pimps Beyonce, who does NOT need defending from anybody when it comes to her musical prowess. Of course, this completely destroys Taylor's moment forever.

A shocked MTV CEO could only comment later, "It's rock and roll." Excuse my impoliteness but that's a bullcrap response. That kind of tolerance only encourages this kind of behavior.

So... with the dumbing down of America's schools, the destruction of our culture and the acceptance of increasingly rude and socially improper behavior in the name of "unity", "tolerance" and "sensitivity", is anybody freaking surprised?

Until Americans start treating Americans with more respect ALL the time, this kind of behavior will only become MORE common, not less.

However, there was a glimmer of hope. When Beyonce went up to accept her award for Video of the Year, she instead invited Taylor Swift back to the podium to finish her acceptance speech. In a word, that's class.

New Administration Transparency.

I was reading some comments made by Howard Kurtz, a commentator/columnist who has made it quite clear that he is not a big fan of the conservative cause.

In a media chatroom hosted by the Washington Post, Mr. Kurtz was asked about how he felt about the current administration essentially playing the media "like a violin" concerning the dustup around Van Jones and the press announcement at 12 AM on a saturday morning announcing his resignation.

His response: I don't buy your reasoning. We can't cover a resignation until it happens. Leaving aside online and TV coverage, the Jones resignation got plenty of attention in the Monday papers. And if Sunday hosts ask the likes of David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs about the resignation, and get tepid or incomplete answers, I think it's clear to the audience what's going on. The Obama administration may have succeeded in muting the coverage on a holiday weekend, but that Friday-night and holiday releases of bad news were also a favored tactic in previous administrations.

Mr. Kurtz is right when he says that Friday-night and holiday releases have been used by previous administrations... But I'm going to throw one back at him: Didn't President Obama disavow the usage of such tactics? He did not specifically say "We will never make a significant press release after 10:00 PM Eastern on a Friday." But what he did say was that his administration would become much more "transparent" than the previous one.

Yet Van Jones was not properly vetted. It took "rodeo clown" Glenn Beck to discover Jones' very radical past, which I will not dredge up here using a staff of 7 and "Google" web searches. The information found couldn't be refuted and was easy to locate. It painted a picture of a man who clearly supports redistribution of wealth, nationalization of private industry, and a day of "comeuppance" of the long suffering black and minority communities against the dominant white race.

I truly believe that in this case, the Administration simply believed that even if this easily to be found information was dredged up, that nobody would care. Well, that's not the transparency that many Americans voted for.

I believe that Mr. Obama has more personal advisors that have past histories that are also quite radical. It would behoove Mr. Obama to submit those advisors to Congressional scrutiny because it is quite clear that Glenn Beck and others (Hannity, Van Susteren, Limbaugh) aren't going to let up anytime soon. Mr. Obama needs to let the American people know up front what kind of people he's selecting as his closest advisors as opposed to just hoping that their past are simply not scrutinized.

9/12 Rally Attended by "Tens of Thousands"

www.dailymail.co.uk reports that as many as "a million" may have attended the 9/12 protest march. I'm pretty sure I'm skeptical of that number.
Michelle Malkin seems to think that it could be as high as two million. I'm even more skeptical.
Let's assume that the liberals are right and only tens of thousands showed up (30 to 60 thousand people). That's still nearly unheard of when you consider that the conservative elements of our society almost never turn out for "protest" marches. I'm sure that even at the low number of 30,000, that many of the left wing organizations are thinking "Holy Cow! We've got problems if the "silent" majority is starting to become activitsts."

What is far more illuminating, and far more hypocritical, is the attempt of the left wing to portray this "9/12" movement, or "tea party" movement as "astro-turf" and highly organized and further that the people in these tea party rallies are "crazy" or "lunatic".

How come when several hundred-thousand people march on Washington to grant amnesty to illegal resident aliens in this country, those people are NOT lunatics, or that the movement was genuine grass-roots with no organization at all. Are you really trying to sell me on the idea that ACORN or La Raza or any other leftist organizations had NO ROLE whatsoever in drumming up support for that rally? Really? Are you telling me that Code Pink never encouraged their membership to attend rallies? How about SEIU? How about Nation of Islam?

Come on, let's all grow up here. Sure, FreedomWorks, MoveAmericaForward, Glenn Beck's 9/12 project and many others encouraged their subscribers to show up. But to tell me that the LEFT NEVER ORGANIZES is just another bald faced lie that they try to propound.

Instead, what is happening is that the "conservative" element of our national culture is scared witless at the massive and sweeping changes that have already occurred or are being seriously debated in Congress right now. 83% of Americans are happy with their healthcare plans and are very scared that the proposals currently being debated will either limit their choices or will cost more money for the same choices now.

Let's just stop the name calling. If leftist organizations want to organize and march on Washington, let them. It's their right. If rightist organizations want to organize, let them. It's their right.

Putin is Russia's Most Powerful Man. Any Questions?

Financial Times today reported that Russian Prime Minister may run for President in 2012. Wow. Who could of seen this coming? I'm just saying?

President Dmitriy Medvedev has attempted to carve out a political image that is distinguishable from Putin's, his predecessor. He recently has indicated that Russia's government would be more open and accessible under his administration than under Putin's. As has been widely reported, Putin is a former KGB man and although he does not desire a resurgence of the old Communist Party he clearly desires a more authoritarian, centralized government than Mr. Medvedev.

Like many of the nations of the Middle-east, Russia is a nation whose population does not know how to take advantage of a true republican or democratic form of government. Russians are more comfortable under a stronger government that takes more responsibility for the basic needs of it's citizens. Many Russians, especially older ones, are unhappy with the rampant crime and runaway mega-capitalism and perceived lost of national prestige that existed during Boris Yeltsin's administration. They are therefore happier with Putin and Medvedev in charge, where Russia is once again flexing it's muscles abroad as well as nationalizing some of it's private industry.

My prediction: While he will not claim the title, I believe that Mr. Putin will do everything he can in order to garner the same level of power that the Czars ("Kings") had in order to create, in his eyes, an orderly, powerful and peaceful united Russia.

ACORN Contradictions in Tax-Evasion/Prostitution Advice Scandal.

Jim O'Keefe released a video through www.biggovernment.com that shows himself and a young, attractive woman disguised as a pimp and prostitute trying to get advice from a pair of ACORN "community organizers" on how to buy a house in order to lodge over a dozen young females from El Salvador. During the conversation, the undercover couple let the following "facts" be known to the ACORN workers:

1. Their business was prostitution.
   
2. They would be housing 13 young women from El Salvador.
3. They weren't paying income taxes.
4. If they were to start paying taxes, what should they claim in terms of income, occupation and dependents.

The response from the ACORN representatives is truly stunning. They tell the undercover couple that they can file under the classification of "Performing Arts". They tell them that since the 13 young girls don't have Social Security numbers, don't worry about them. They completely ignore the implication that the girls are probably illegal aliens, that they are underage, and that they will be working in their "business". The advice received concerning how to avoid paying taxes given is "Don't file." Even though the undercover couple indicate that their annual income would be about $96,000, they are told to declare $9,600 in income since they are probably doing mostly a cash business.

If it weren't as grotesque as I've just described it, this would be hilarious. But it gets better.

On Wednesday, ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson said "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at 'gotcha' journalism." The national headquarters also stated that there would be no further comment until they saw the "entire" video. This notwithstanding the "entire" video is currently available for download at www.biggovernment.com right now and has been since September 5th.

On Friday it was reported by ACORN Maryland chapter leader Stuart Katzenberg that the two employees were fired because "they did not meet ACORN's standard of professionalism." Whoa. I though ACORNs position was that the video was misleading, "false and defamatory". Yet two employees were fired? Seems contradictory to me.

Oh wait, it get's even better! (Or sicker, depending on your point of view.) Fox News is now reporting that in addition to the Baltimore office being "stung" by Jim O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, they managed to pull the same stunt off at an ACORN office in Washington, D.C. as well. In this NEW tape Lavernia Boone, an ACORN "mortgage consultant" and Sherana Boone, an ACORN "housing employee" (are they related?) allegedly give the undercover couple similar advice as the Baltimore office did.

So... I think we've got some contradictions here.
ACORN believes the videotape is "false and defamatory" and yet two "community organizers" lost their jobs because of their "unprofessional standards". ACORN would also have you believe that the Baltimore employees were part-time temporary help and that no senior staffers were in the office at the time. This is clearly intended to get people to believe that the situation was unique to "Tonya" and "Shira" at the Baltimore office and that they were acting beyond ACORN rules and regulations. And yet... here comes the DC video! And what advice does the DC office give? The exact same advice as in Baltimore. To wit; lie on your taxes, tell the kids to shutup, keep your prostitution business low-key or somebody will get nosey and call "Fox".

"Healing Parks" and America's 9/11

I opened the Arizona Republic this morning and on the front page, there was a photograph of a fireman helping to set up a "healing field", which is a large field with thousands of U.S. flags in it on white poles. Each flag, in this case, represents a life lost on 9/11/2001 as a result of the infamous jihadist attacks against the United States.

Since Americans have such short memories, I remind you that on 9/11/2001 that 2,974 innocents were killed when 19 Islamic jihadists intentionally flew two hi-jacked airliners into the New York World Trade Center, one hi-jacked airliner into the Pentagon building. One additional airliner was hi-jacked but the passengers rose up against the hijackers and the aircraft ended up crashing into a farmer's field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

I do not understand healing fields. I don't need healing. I don't desire healing. I expect that those who lost loved ones in those attacks don't really want healing as much as they want justice. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, Americans may have planted flags in fields. But what was far more important is that Americans enlisted in our armed services. Our industrial might began building vast numbers of tanks, bullets, rifles, helmets, warplanes and warships. Our President informed Congress that "we would win through to the absolute victory, so help us God."

I will be healed when the governments that supported this horrendous act are held responsible for the "stateless" persons that perpetrate these crimes of terror against "soft targets". I will be healed when the world recognizes that no person can be "stateless" and that if the nationality of a terrorist perpetrator is determined, that nation will be held to account. I will be healed when any nation or group of people is made to understand that the price for committing acts of terror is far too high in terms of the suffering that will be levied upon their homeland.

Update to Baltimore ACORN Faux pas.

Oh yeah, one more thing...

Where the hell is the main-stream media on this? At 6:19 PM Eastern today (September 10th, 2009), the following news organizations were NOT reporting this story, even though it actually broke on www.biggovernment.com last Saturday:

1) www.msnbc.msn.com
2) www.abcnews.go.com
3) www.cbsnews.com
4) www.nytimes.com
5) www.latimes.com

Only Fox News is running with this story, largely through the efforts of the Glenn Beck show (5PM Eastern), who in turn got this information from Andrew Breitbart's new website www.biggovernment.com. That's one heckuva scoop, Mr. Breitbart.

Other than that, most of the other news outlets that had picked up on the story were blogs and smaller local news sites (Phoenix, Baltimore, both were Fox affiliates).

And the politicians and left elites are wondering why those of us who are either moderate or conservative have only the radio and Fox News to inform us about very serious issues like this one.

ACORN Offers to Help Setup a Brothel.

Wow. I thought I'd seen it all...

Then I see a video on www.biggovernment.com that shows two young white students posing as a prostitute and her pimp in trying to use ACORNs consulting services to secure a loan to purchase a house. The video completely speaks for itself and every American should be casting severe distrust against this organization.

ACORN responding by saying that the video was "false and defamatory" and an attempt to "smear" their organization. False? How? This was a video of two of their employees providing the following advice:
1) Run a prostitution brothel under the IRS classification of "Performance Arts".
2) Avoid paying taxes by using the following tactic: "Don't file."
3) Continue to assist with tax form preparation even when the couple states that they will also have numerous young girls from El Salvador working for them "in the trade" and living in the house.

What should have happened at that point is that the ACORN employees (or representatives or whatever) demand the couple's identification or even make a citizen's arrest. What this couple were "pretending" to setup was a child pornography/sex slave operation working out of the house that ACORN was going to assist them in purchasing with falsified tax documents.

And President Obama wants to use these same people to collect 2010 census information and funnel them 8.9 billion dollars?!?

I agree with Glenn Beck. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. This is a corruption issue. And it is clear that ACORN and the politicians that support/protect them are about as corrupt as it gets.

Gross Intrusion of Government into Our Lives.

cnet.com just reported that Congress has apparently been working behind the doors to draft a little-known piece of legislation (S.773) that would effectively permit the President to seize control of private-sector during a "cyber-security" emergency.

The sponsors of the bill, notably Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) explained that this bill provides a capability to the President that is functionally similar to the power President Bush evoked to ground all airborne aircraft in the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. As an example, this would give the President the ability to respond to a cyber-attack directed from or against a network that controls an electrical power grid.

My VERY FIRST QUESTION: Why in the name of all that is HOLY would computers that actually CONTROL an electrical grid would be accessible from the Internet? Any critical system like that should NOT be connected to the Internet. Most military systems use an INTRAnet that is not accessible from outside. Critical infrastructure systems should be segregated from the internet in a similar manner.

My VERY SECOND QUESTION: If President Bush (43) had suggested this there would be a huge outcry from the media and general public. So where's the liberal media on this one? Near silence.

My VERY THIRD QUESTION: Once the mechanism is in place, how would we prevent any administration from abusing it to disrupt the business of a company that is opposing the administration in any manner?

My recommendation: Get any critical system computers OFF the internet. Then President Obama and his Democrat cronies won't NEED to pass this tremendous and gross intrusion of government into the private-sector.