Grumpy Conservative, The 2010 Midterm Results Prove Nothing.

As of 5:00 PM on November 3, 2010, I've heard a President admit he made mistakes and I've heard a resurgent GOP and their pundits talking about a "mandate". 

Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio said it best. This election result is not an embrace by the people of the GOP, it is a second chance to get it right.

I'm already betting they don't. Because in order for the GOP to get it right, they are going to have to finally convince the American people that we no longer can afford all the programs, services and entitlements that we have come to expect from our federal government. They are going to have to convince the American people that they are going to have to cut over $600 billion dollars from the 2011 federal budget.  They are going to have to repeal parts of the health care reform. But that's only the start.

They are going to have to convince the people that every category of the budget will need to be cut.  They are going to have cut over $150 billion from health and human services. They are going to have to cut over $150 billion from the federal defense budget. They are going to have to dramatically change the way social security payments will be made to people who retire five or more years from now. They are going to have to cut and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut the budgets of federal agencies like the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FBI, CIA. Across board. Nothing is sacred.

Oh yeah, they are going to have to RAISE taxes too. On everybody. Even those who currently don't pay.

And if you the American people don't buy it, then the GOP and the Democratic party are both screwed and the United States defaults on it's debt in 2012.

But the American people won't buy it so why in the hell am I even bothering? I'll see you in the bread line.

Glenn Beck cranks up the culture wars.

Rich Benjamin, in an article on cnn.com (click here) made a series of arguments designed to support the position that Glenn Beck, the wildly popular conservative pseudo-religious radio and talk-show host, has "cranked up" the culture wars.

His first argument is based on the claim that despite Beck's assertions to the contrary, the August 28th rally in on the Washington Mall was a political rally. He points to the presence of a rally participant wearing a t-shirt with the message "If you can't love America, move back to Kenya."  Even though Beck specifically directed the attendees to not bring signs of any kind.  Even though not one speaker mentioned President Obama by name, or the Democratic party. It's reaching way down into the barrel to label this a patriotic rally based on a few t-shirt slogans. 

With regards to the "tea-party" opinion that President Obama is a marxist/socialist, well, it does seem to be that way. The massive expansion of nationalized health care at the same time that 47% of American workers (the majority who are in the poor, lower income and lower middle income brackets) do not pay any income taxes at all is seen by most fiscal conservatives as redistribution of wealth, a fundamental tenet of socialism.  He also rammed cash for clunkers down our throats, encouraging people to buy cars with taxpayer subsidies. Again, money moving from those who pay taxes to many who do not.  This was followed by cash for toasters, encouraging people to buy new appliances with... you guessed it... taxpayer subsidies. 

And for good measure let us not forget the first time homebuyer credit of $8,000 dollars (in 2009) and homebuyer assistance program of $6,500 dollars, again targeting those in the lower income brackets (most of whom pay no or little in income taxes) with money taken from the income tax payers.

There's lots more where that came from, but I think that the citations above are a clear indication of a political motivation on the part of the president and his party to move money from those who can afford to pay taxes to those who cannot. Is, or is that not socialism?

He further claims that the claims on the part of the conservative factions that President Obama is a communist or marxist or socialist is similar to admittedly similar claims against Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960's  The huge difference is that the attacks against Dr. King where clearly fueled by racist hatred, especially in the South.  But in the case of President Obama, we only have to look at the record of legislation passed during his administration to see what is plainly written.

As an aside, Reverend Al Shaprton claimed that the push by the "tea party" to restore "state's rights" is a direct assault on the civil rights movement and is a conscious effort to rollback those hard won gains.In this case the US federal government through civil-rights legislation signed in the late 60's forced states to accept a federally mandated standard for guaranteeing the protection of the civil liberties and rights of minorities.  There is no question that under the guise of state's rights, many states (again especially in the South) implemented legislation that unarguably were designed to deny or obstruct the rights of minorities, and particularly blacks, to vote, equal access to education and government services. 

But today, the resurgence of state's rights advocacy is couched firmly in the US federal government's failure to uphold its end of the contract that binds the states of our union together.  The federal government continues to spend more and more and yet services seem to decline or fail altogether. Immigration laws, especially with respect to the prosecution and deportation of aliens living here illegally, including border security is one aspect of the federal failure. Another is the inability of the government to respond quickly to natural disasters. The 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster clearly demonstrated the red-tape that obstructs swift response by the federal government as well as the complete and utter lack of coordination between federal, state and local emergency response agencies.  Our national infrastructure is coming apart. Roads, bridges and dams are falling into disrepair before our very eyes, and yet there is no money to fix them!  People who genuinely need government assistance can't get it while shysters and thieves who have studied the system collect "overpayments" from the government with impunity. The US Dept of Education consumes more tax revenue than ever and yet our nation continues its slide into mediocre scholastic performance among industrialized nations.

States are understandably outraged.  They are being forced by federal mandate to spend more money on federal programs and yet they do not have the access to print more money when their budgets are bled dry.  Not to mention that progressive legislation in states like Michigan, California, Arizona and Ohio have literally bankrupted them. States and local communities would very much like to have more say in the standards of education and welfare that they provide to their citizens, but are continually stymied by an outrageous and bloated bureaucracy that is reflected in the HUGE amount of regulatory law that those bureaucracies are expected to enforce. 

I understand the need for regulations, but when the process for getting FDA approval to get a drug to market can cost multiple billions of dollars. And yet, after getting such approval, a drug company is completely unprotected against expensive lawsuits when unknown side-effects not discovered during the FDA approval process inevitably arise. Question: If the FDA won't stand behind its approval process by helping to defend the pharmaceuticals, why in the hell do we force them to seek FDA approval? 

With regard to Mr. Benjamin's concern that a third of the nation thinks that President Obama is a muslim. Well, I don't get that either.  And we further agree that birthers are idiots. 

But I think that the charge of the current administration's movement of the nation to a more socialist government is completely founded and beyond debate.

Capitalist Hogwash Concerning SB1070

I've never heard of Alex Nowrasteh before today and I've only heard in passing of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  But the headline in his June 28th FoxNews.com opinion article, "Arizona Declares War on on Capitalism", certainly caught my eye.

A summary of his dissertation is as follows: Illegal immigrants don't commit a disproportionately high rate of crime and Arizona is simply punishing businesses. He then cites US Bureau of Justice Statistics to show that from 2006 to 2008 both violent and property crimes dropped significantly. 

Mr. Nowrasteh doesn't bother to mention that in that time frame (specifically, 2007) Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires that all employers use the Federal e-Verify system (admittedly a flawed system) and that any employer that knowingly hires undocumented workers will face a 10-day suspension of their business license on the first offense and permanent suspension of their business license on any subsequent violations.

It is believed by many in Arizona that the drop in crime can be at least partially attributed to the enforcement of this act, which went into effect on January 1, 2008, because of a sudden migration of undocumented persons away from Arizona (to Texas, I am told. Sorry, Texas).

Mr. Nowrasteh then goes on to say that SB 1070 and the Legal Arizona Workers Act essentially turns every business and employer into an immigration agent of the state.  Well... in a word, Yes.  There is precedence for this.  Every business that sells goods or services to consumers are expected to collect local, state and federal sales taxes.  Every business that hires employees (as opposed to contract workers) must withhold federal taxes from employee paychecks and forward that money to the IRS.  Every business must conform to OSHA, Dept. of Labor, or Dept. of Sanitation requirements.  Every business must conform to equal employment opportunity regulations to prevent discrimination.  Every business must pay a wage not less than the federally mandated minimum wage.  So, Mr. Nowrasteh's point is somewhat muted by the fact that businesses are already conforming to a myriad of laws, rules and regulations being mandated from all levels of government.

What Mr. Nowrasteh does not point out is that any undocumented worker must provide some form of identification in order to be employed. That's what e-Verify is all about.  So of course, any illegal immigrant that is using bogus identification is causing material harm to a legal U.S. citizen.  That illegal immigrant can cause irreparable damage to credit ratings and worse, legal history. 

Mr. Nowrasteh makes the claim that many of the people that illegally migrate to the United States do so because they have no chance of doing so legally.  Really?  It may be hard, yes. It may cost money, yes.  But have "no chance of doing so legally"?  Please, Mr. Nowrasteh, would you mind submitting any kind of example or proof to support this statement. What utter hogwash.

I believe that Mr. Nowrasteh's underlying motive for this article is exposed in this one sentence buried deep in the midst of this article: "Now, businesses are going to be further punished when they do what naturally comes to them: lowering costs and passing those savings onto consumers."  Yup, if you run a business that is caught hiring illegal immigrants and paying them sub-minimum wage or worse, under the table in order to avoid federal tax withholding collection, then you are going to be punished.  Mr. Nowrasteh's capitalist world of minimized costs at all costs is creating and perpetuating a permanent serf-class in this country. Is that really what America is all about in your world, Mr. Nowrasteh?  Laborers who are viewed as two-legged mules, to be fed and watered occassionally, but who ought not to expect any joy in life? 

If Americans want a high standard of living (high pay), then they have to expect that they will have to pay for that standard when buying goods and services from domestic businesses.  I take pride in the fact that many of the companies that I do business with aren't the cheapest, but that every time I make a purchase, I'm helping their employees to live the "good" life.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

Right is Right, Whether You Are Left or Right.

I saw this on CNN today. I can't really tell whether this woman is conservative or progressive, but it doesn't matter. Her message in this iReport is valid for all citizens of the United States who are fed up with non-representing Representatives and Senators.



Dig it? Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Democrat Candidate *May* be Trying to Steal "Tea Party" Label

On the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday a caller stated that the State of Nevada had authorized a new political party, the "Tea Party", to participate in the 2010 Senatorial election.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fighting an uphill battle in his own state. President Obama has not been helping his Majority Leader by frequently stating that businesses shouldn't be blowing money on expensive conferences in "Sin City".

The national "Tea Party" movement, sparked by CNBC's Rick Santorelli's rant last year and then coalescing around Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, focuses on reducing federal government size, federal spending and the return of much of current federal functions to the states.

Interestingly, the secretary for the Nevada Tea Party is lawyer Barry Levinson, who is a registered Democrat. Their candidate for Senate is John Scott Ashjian. It has been noticed that he has only given e-mail interviews and barely returns phone calls. That does not sound like the response of an active campaigner fighting for an important Senate seat in a national election.

It is important to note that it is certainly possible that some fiscally conservative Democrats might find the Tea Party movement's mantra of responsible federal spending to be attractive to them. But I think it is very important that Nevada voters ask really hard questions about the legitimacy of Barry Levinson's Nevada "Tea Party" and the true intent of John Scott Ashjian.

Something else to consider is the effect a real third party candidate, especially a conservative candidate, could have on the election. If Harry Reid is in a standup fight against a the GOP candidate and a handful of other party candidates (Libertarian, Green, John-Birchers, etc.) then if the election were held today, he would lose by over 10 points. But you throw in a viable third party conservative, then you split the conservative vote and Harry Reid loses by only 1 point or possibly even wins it.

You Nevadans who oppose the progressive agenda, if you don't want 6 more years of Harry Reid then you better throw all of your electoral weight behind the GOP candidate or the "Tea Party" candidate (if he's proven to be a legit conservative), but not both.

The Wisdom of Luis Rodriguez, Massachusetts voter.

According to a FoxNews.com article concerning the strongly contested race between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat, a voter by the name of "Luis Rodriguez" appears to speak for many across the nation:

The 46-year-old plastics factory supervisor, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1988 from Uruguay and became a citizen last year, said he's fed up with what he calls the lies told by Washington. It's enough for him that Coakley supports Obama, who Rodriguez says has failed to make good on his pledge for openness.

"We don't buy what we can't afford. We don't spend what we don't have," said Rodriguez, echoing the anger expressed by other voters who say Democrats are too eager to bail out bankers and people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "These people, what they're doing now, they're spending money they don't have so they can get elected again."

Assuming that the attribution is correct (you never know, after all, this was reported on Fox News, which according to President Obama's administration is not a "real news organization", then I would have to say that Mr. Rodriguez has completely and correctly stated my opinion concerning Democratic lead initiatives. They are a "chicken in every pot" in order to maintain control in a government that Democrats believe should be used to "take care" of it's citizens, whether they want it or not.

'nuff said.

MSNBC Ed Schult "I'd Cheat to Keep Brown From Winning".

MSNBC's political talkers continue to prove that they are an entirely owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

As reported on January 16th by the Washington Times and then highlighted on the much vaunted (or reviled) DrudgeReport, MSNBC's Ed Schultz made the following statement:

"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."



Ed's comments were made in context of the surprisingly competitive Massachusetts Senatorial seat election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Rebuplican Scott Brown. And expectedly, he's supporting Coakley over Brown.

I'd not be surprised if you were to say "Ed who?". Ed Schultz is a MSNBC primetime opinion talker (6pm to 7pm Eastern). This puts him up against Brett Baier on Fox News, who is crushing him in the ratings.

Ed appears to be a little unclear on the whole "democracy" concept that is supposedly the basis for our government. You know, that part that says that each person gets a single vote, and when you tally up those votes, the candidate with the most of them win? (OK, the US Presidential Election doesn't quite work like that because of the Electoral College thingy that actually helps low-population states a little, which makes it possible to win the popular vote by a slim margin and still lose the electoral college vote by a fairly large margin.)

What Ed, a national (in theory) cable commentator is doing is encouraging voter fraud in the State of Massachusetts for the benefit of the Democratic Candidate.

Now say what you like about the right-wing talkers like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley but you have not heard them encourage illegal voter behavior or insinuate that they'd do it themselves.

And what do you think the "main-stream" media pundits, talkers and bloggers would be doing right now had Hannity or Beck said the same thing in support of Scott Brown? So I'm completed fascinated by the defeaning silence from them concerning Ed's angry outburst. I attribute it to one of two possibilities: One) Nobody watches "The Ed Show" on MSNBC except for other political hacks, so they're the only ones noticing, or Two) most of media in this country is friendly to left of center commentators and are willing to give him a pass on his indiscreet commentary and thereby doing a huge disservice to the voting public by failing to equally illuminate outrageous commentary from either the left or right.

As I have said to my friends many times, you must consider the source from which the comment came and then discount it accordingly.

Not Kowtowing to Special Interests? Dems are Lying to Us.

On Wednesday, after a fifteen hour closed-door session between key Democratic Senate and House leadership and Labor Union executives, it sounds like just like Senator Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback", the special tax on "Cadillac" plans will be deferred until 2017 on labor union members.

What a crock of flup. Didn't Candidate Obama run on a platform that specifically said that they would not kowtow to special interests? In fact, doesn't he specifically say in a current political ad for Candidate Coakley, the Democrat running for Teddy Kennedy's vacant senate seat, that a vote for Coakley will help cement the progress being made against special interests in Washington?

This is how bizness is done in Washington, ladies and gentlemen. It's a process where people are bought and sold. The labor unions have managed to buy themselves 7 years of protection from Health Care Reform costs even though they will be permitted to participate in it immediately.

Just like the campaign lies of "transparency and openness" in the current administration, we are now seeing that special interest involvement in the writing of legislation is alive and well.

Trent Lott and Harry Reid. There Is a Difference.

While attending the 100th birthday celebration for Dixie-crat Senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated in essence that the United States would be "better off" had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Mr. Lott was pilloried not only by the Democrats but even by his own GOP, which ultimately resulted in Mr. Lott stepping down as Majority Leader.

Now, a new controversy has arisen concerning the current Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid who is the senior Senator from Nevada and a Democrat. In a book titled "Game Change", Mr. Reid claimed that the reason that then-candidate Barack Obama had a good chance of becoming the first African-American U.S. President was because he was "light-skinned" and did not speak with a "Negro dialect" unless he chose to do so.

Republicans are now crying "racist!" while Democrats circle the wagons around the "inartfully articulating" Senator Reid. The Republicans are furious that when Sen. Lott made his "inartful" toast to Strom in 2002, they stood against his comments and were a major force in his resignation from the Senate Majority Leader position. By contrast, the Democrats, instead of declaring their abhorrence at Senator Reid's "racist" statements are in fact standing behind him.

I'm a member of the Heritage foundation and a reluctant supporter of the Republican party. But I think that in this case that the Republicans are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist.

When Trent Lott made his famous statement, he essentially said that he supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "pro-segregation" Dixiecrat platform. Equal but separate. How could any modern politician think that he could publicly articulate such an opinion and then not be held to account for it? Not to mention that segregation has been proven to be bad policy.

Senator Reid, by contrast, was stating a painful fact about American politics. White Americans in general are more comfortable with black politicians that speak Harvard English and whose appearance more closely correlates with their own. Senator Reid has been a strong supporter of civil rights legislation, especially as seen by the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus.

A far more appropriate subject for comparison would be Rush Limbaugh, who lost his NFL commentator position when he stated his opinion that the mainstream press was motivated to overstate Donovan McNabb's accomplishments in order to support the position that black quarterbacks can perform as well as whites, who at that time dominated the quarterback position. He later clarified that he felt that Donovan McNabb had the potential to be a great NFL quarterback but that at that time he did not deserve the praise that was being given him by the press.

In any case, I believe that the Republicans are making a case that is not supported by the facts or public opinion. Trying to equate Lott's comments that essentially said that a pro-segregationist president would have produced a better America with Harry Reid's analysis that Barack Obama, as a light skinned African-American who spoke very precise English are not even remotely the same class of comments.

In this situation, I think that the GOP needs to figure out that "this dog won't hunt".

Faith, Hope and Charity -- Glenn Beck Talks About These Virtues

Today on the Glenn Beck radio program at the beginning of his third hour, he talked about how he had spent the previous week closing the case on all the arguments that he had raised in 2009, but that he now wanted to look forward to 2010.

So imagine my surprise when he stated that going forward, he was going to be talking to America about "Faith, Hope and Charity". He specifically said during the second hour of his show "Faith, hope and charity is the direction we're going. Remember who you are and faith, hope and charity. And when you hear the way I define through the founders, how I define faith, hope and charity, everything's going to lock into place and you'll remember who we are and who you are and what you have to do."

I have no idea where Glenn Beck is going with this, but since he has obviously long studied the "Founders" of our government, I would not be surprised if he found these particular three words tied together through the Fraternity known as "Freemasonry" or that many of the "Founders" were proud members of the "Craft".

"Faith, Hope and Charity" are taught to every initiate who receives the 1st Degree of Freemasonry, also known as the "Entered Apprentice" Degree. They are considered by the Fraternity to be three of the most important virtues that a man can possess.

Faith gives us the ability to believe in the unseen. It is the basis of trust. Trust in our fellow man's word. More importantly, Faith is a necessary virtue for those who are obedient of God for without Faith it is impossible to believe in the Divine. And for those of us who are faithful we earnestly believe that the divine attributes of God beautifies man and gives us a worthy goal for good living by putting into execution those "divine" attributes.

Hope gives us the ability to believe that mankind can progress to a better condition than those that exist today. As a single class of people, Christians believe that God has restored to mankind the promise of eternal life through the sacrifice of his only begotten son. But notwithstanding, hope is what gives all men the ability to continue to try and be good even in the face of overwhelming evil and inequity in the world.

Charity, for Freemasons, is the greatest of the three. For charity is not more or less than the sacrifice by a man for the benefit of others. It is the embodiment of benevolence. The charitable man is the most like the divine because like the divine, he gives time, resources, or money to relieve the sorrowing or to benefit the disadvantaged. And charity will endure forever, unlike faith and hope. Faith ends when man is confronted with the truth of his belief. Hope ends when a man's goal is achieved. But charity uplifts mankind and the effects of charity and it's positive effect will outlive the charitable man.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.