Traditional Bill's Buzz

Deficit and Default - Cause and Effect

2011-07-23T16:16:00.007-05:00

Some things are just plain wrong. Deficit spending is one of them. Avoiding deficits or eliminating debt are appropriate responses. Compromising to continue deficit spending, even one dollar of it, is not.

The politically left elitists, along with their ever loyal mainstream press, propose we avoid the consequences of default without addressing the root cause. They believe we must avoid default regardeless of how we do it. It's part of their "ends justifies the means" thinking process. Moreover, they hold that the public wants both parties in Washington to compromise to "get things done". By their reasoning deficits just happen. In truth deficits are not things that just happen. They're things we cause, and unless we address the cause we cannot avoid eventual default, even if we dodge the bullet this time with more debt.

The truth is the deficit now has a stranglehold on our economy. Greece plunged into unsustainable debt and has Europe holding it's breath waiting for a domino effect. Greece is a preview of things to come for us. We'll just make a much bigger splash.

It doesn't help that the average person has little grasp of the high costs of debt until they're personally destroyed by it. We don't instruct people in public schools how to acquire wealth or how to use money. Instead we pound them with a message that credit is convenient short cut to life's enjoyable things. But that's just marketing talk, addicting us to plastic the same way we addict people to everything from cigarettes to big screen TV's. At some point Americans come to grips with reality. Lives are ruined as bankruptcy and foreclosure dockets are full.

Debt undermines all healthy financial foundations. Unsustainable debt is the root cause of the recent financial chaos in the credit, finance, insurance and real estate industries. The answer government keeps coming up with is, in effect, a Ponzi scheme. They vote to allow more borrowing to pay the bills we can't pay from tax revenues. We raise the debt ceiling. This stalls the effect but increases the debt. It makes the problem bigger. It also hides the partnership of a corrupt government accepting coffers of campaign dollars in exchange for favorable legislation, pet project funding, and good old stimulus bailout money to favored sons.

Insanity has been described as repeating something over and over and expecting a different result. We've raised the debt ceiling over and over again since 1969, always with a premise that Congress will address the debt and balance the budget, but they never do. They are addicted spenders. They influence, bribe, and reward campaign support partners by tossing arround money they don't actually have, but have the power to obligate the country to pay out, financed by debt.

Greed is not good. Gordon Gekko is a Hollywood concoction. Deficit spending is just plain wrong, and fifteen trillion dollars worth is extremely wrong. Dangerously wrong. Perhaps even criminally wrong. When the time comes for the U.S. government to really default, as it ultimately must, there is no bankruptcy procedure to fix things. Remember the U.S.S.R.? When a nation collapses, it changes governments. That's how it works.

The truth is, the only outcome of increasing deficits and debt is national financial collapse. Calling for Republicans to "compromise" without addressing the cause and balancing the budget is both cowardly and foolish. That the Senate just refused to consider the Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed by the House or allow debate about it is a very clear is indication that the Senate has no intention of stopping the train wreck.

Millions of us recognize the danger and we want it stopped now. If London Bridge must fall, let's deal with it, and not place the burden on the backs of a future generation. But the truth is, London Bridge doesn't have to fall. We can actually address the root cause, deficit spending, and fix the problem.

Those unwilling to do so are the narrow of mind, in spite of all their name calling.

Casey Anthony - Just A Bad Verdict

2011-07-10T16:26:00.002-05:00

The OJ Simpson trial taught shocked Americans that clever legalese can prejudice a jury that wants to be prejudiced. The Casey Anthony show added gloating to the sting of injustice. Both are simply examples of bad verdicts.

For the Geraldo's and misguided Hannity's touting the verdict as a victory for the constitution, it's nothing of the sort. Constitutional protections were honored as they should be. No one wants them diminished or ignored. But that fact however has nothing to do with the verdict. It was a bad one, rendered in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.

For openers, " beyond a reasonable doubt" has been hijacked by defense Guru's to become " no doubt at all". The truth is, unless you're an eye witness, some doubt is always present. Some doubt is reasonable. Caylee Anthony could have been kidnapped by slave traders. Or abducted by aliens. Or stung to death by killer bees. Or drowned in the pool. While remote and unsubstantiated possibilities exist, that hardly warrants acceptance of them over facts that are a matter of record. Casey is a confirmed self serving, remorseless, liar. She wrote bad checks with no regard what-so-ever for the victims. She lied to police, to her parents, to her boyfriend, and to her partying friends to intentionally cover the truth about Caylee. To brush this aside to consider one of the remote possibilities, as some jurors have admitted to doing, is much more "unreasonable" over considering the preponderance of facts pointing to the obvious.

Casey's demeanor as a mother during the first 30 days is horrifying. Not reporting the baby missing is incredibly morally corrupt and reckless behavior. If it doesn't prove to some people that she caused the baby's death, it certainly does prove she acted selfishly for her sake and dangerously for her baby's sake. But when you combine all the known facts and apply them to a baby found duck taped, in a trash bag, in a marsh, it becomes unreasonable to consider Casey was not the cause of Caylee's death. It's overwhelmingly clear to almost everyone except the jurors. They seem to have bought into an unreasonable requirement to "doubt" the evidence in front of them. It doesn't matter if we forensically know how Caylee died. We know conclusively she is dead. There is only one criminally corrupt, remorseless, selfish, and reckless person the evidence points to.

Casey did not get a not guilty verdict because her constitutional rights were assured. She got it because innuendo's were permitted in place of evidence, and because jurors were brainwashed into believing that any doubt at all means they shouldn't find someone guilty. I believe most of the time, when the spot lights are not so bright, we get it right. This time we didn't.

The Rhetoric of the "Clueless".

2011-06-26T12:16:00.005-05:00

Another Obama quote graced the front page of the local business section. "America must invest in high-tech manufacturing". Uh huh. Sounds profound.

The problem with this kind of rhetorical blithering is in spite of it being an essentially meaningless statement, it suggests anyone in disagreement is not in favor of a great America. But among those like myself, and a few million other Tea Party advocates, the problem is that this kind of rhetoric is actually used to make America less great. To be specific, the problem is a socialist wanna be group of legislators seizing on popular sound bites to interfere with basic freedoms, one of which is the free market system.

" America must invest in high tech manufacturing". My first response is, why? As I suspected (and in fact feared) Obama called for "a joint effort by industry, universities, and the federal government to help reposition the United States as a leader in cutting edge manufacturing". What does the last decade of political reality 101 tell us this really means? A bunch of political insiders a/k/a political donors, are going to get federally distributed dollars (500 million in this case)to feather the nests of a selected few. When the smoke clears the debt will be bigger and basic freedoms smaller. Unions will receive priority, so long as they remain democratic party supporters. When the alignment actually produces little and changes nothing, the inside spin magnates will exemplify how many jobs were "created", omitting the details about deficit increases and tax burdens.

We are soooo tired of this. A ray of light on the political spectrum shows the voting public is also tiring of the double speak leading us into the financial solidarity of a modern day Grecian utopia.

Why not a return to the free market philosophy that made this nation great. That means less government "creation" and more genuine individual American ingenuity. Drop the phrases about how we must "compete in the global marketplace" when that really means that Washington insiders will get favored contracts to open export and import operations, and factories in other nations. Americans need to build in and for America and let the world come to us, instead of the other way around.

The truth is every time these 500 million dollar programs are launched, it does more to endanger the factory worker in small town America, than to enhance him. Obligating future taxation to generations of Americans is an ugly result of "job creation".

Tesla-mania Sweeps Wall Street

2010-07-01T10:58:00.001-05:00

Were it not so tragically representative of what’s wrong with our financial market, the demand for Tesla Motors IPO offering would be laughable. Indeed the beautiful people are all agog with what they believe is the hottest stock prospect since Starbucks found a market for three dollar coffee flavored whipped cream.

What’s all the fuss about? Tesla Motors, the latest darling of Hollywood, political leftists, and amateur Wall Street enthusiasts. Anybody who’s anybody wants to be in this game. Tesla is the electric roadster car made in Great Britain designed to sell for a mere $109,000.00. Names like George Clooney and Brad Pitt top a list of 998 people with orders in for them. It is the stuff that anti oil, life is good when living off the government, environmentalists dream of. For them it is answered prayer to gas guzzlers. For mainstream America however, it is an unrealistic and unworkable alternative.

Similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which never seems to make money but enjoys government subsidies, Tesla, a British company, is politically popular. Enough to have garnered 465 million dollars from the US government in loan guarantees. Also similar to Freddie and Fannie the government insists that the names of campaign donors that coincidentally matches the names of the Tesla principals wasn’t a factor in their decision. This of course is the same denial about the 529 million in government loan guarantees issued to Fisker Automotive, a Finnish car which coincidentally boasts Al Gore’s group as investors. The rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out how high priced electric prototypes outside America benefits America.

While admittedly lacking a degree in automotive engineering or economics, I none the less hold the view, counter to our government and the political left, that a car designed to sell for over 100 thousand dollars is probably not going to be the breakthrough to resolving oil dependency. What it is going to do, in my opinion, is make a few insiders a car trunk full of money…, and then go broke.

With all the insider elements in play, the initial public offering is getting incredible interest in the financial district. Apparently everybody thinks those early in are going to make a pile of money buying Tesla stock and they may be correct. Stock is strictly a demand driven product. When a lot of people want the stock, even if the company has no prospect of making a profit, share prices rise. Similarly in a financially healthy company that is making a profit, such as BP, when a lot of people don’t want the stock, the share price goes down. Still, in the long term however, when a company has no chance of making money or surviving, the stock collapses. That stated, I for one would not be buying Tesla with a long term view.

One big problem with Tesla is that it is mired in debt on the front end. All they’ve done with the massive start up loans is manage to lose money. Hundreds of millions. Moreover the car can’t become popular because it is priced beyond reach for the average American. Even among those who can afford one, does anyone seriously think they are going to be trading in their Roadster ever year for a new one?

The founder and CEO Elon Musk is admittedly broke, in the process of a messy divorce, and desperate for cash. Tesla has already lost 246 million dollars in the first three years. None of this suggests optimism.

Recent history suggests the politically connected insiders will pocket millions and walk away rich when the company fails. Those with arms linked to Washington power will move on to new government deals and contracts. That’s how the game is played. It’s important to remember that at a casino, the dealer always works for the house while the players go broke.

My prediction for this latest hundred grand fad is that like all fads, it will run it’s course and fade away, along with the money of many small investors. Before you get too caught up in Tesla-mania, my advice is to think, “DeLorean.

Disclose Act Needs Disclosure

2010-06-28T15:48:00.002-05:00

Anytime Chuck Schumer proposes anything, suspicious minds are justified. The Disclosure Act, a Schumer and Chris Van Hollen brainchild, is another attempt to tip the scales of influence rather than correct them.

Like all legislation these days, the Disclose Act is a bill clouded with legalese and shrouded with mystery. Then again, legislation rarely is intended to be understood by mainstream America. That the Health care bill was 2100 pages of gobble dee gook was not entirely accidental. Ditto with the Disclosure Act. What Americans really need is disclosure about the Disclosure Act. Unfortunately you won’t get it from the proponents.

As is hardly a secret, Democrats are losing voters like a lacerated artery and they want to staunch the bleeding as the mid term elections near. Rather than change to honest and constitutionally mandated principles, they believe that right now would be time to limit business donors who are more prone to support Republicans. They’ve crafted a bill to inhibit Republican leaning election supporters under the guise of a Wall Street clean up.

In truth this legislation may not stand up to a constitutional challenge but that’s not the main concern of the drafters. The idea is to get it through in time for this election as a lot of incumbent Democrats are in trouble. They say the legislation is needed to control greedy businesses whose dubious methods hurt the economy. There is some truth to this. The sector they’re targeting however are those worried the Democrat congress is over taxing, over reaching, and over regulating. In other words, those that may support a Republican return to power. They’ve exempted many of the champions of wasteful spending who engage in government programs and financially support Democrats. Fannie and Freddie for example, spiraling out of control with wasteful spending and questionable ethics are exempt.

Beyond exempting Fannie and Freddie the bill would also exempt unions and those organizations enjoying collective bargaining agreements with the government. These are the special interests that pour billions into Democratic coffers. Why they are receiving an exemption to the regulation is obvious. Why they should however is inexplicable. The true purpose of the legislation is not to clean up anything, but to tilt the scales for this election.

My opposition to the Disclose Act is not so much the “free speech” argument that most Republicans echo. I believe the bill would be valid if it went further. In other words, if they stop exempting their favorite interest groups, on both sides of the aisle, I support campaign finance reform. It’s when you start making exceptions so that you can bypass the actual purpose of the legislation that I part company.

I support free speech, but not when that right is exclusively used as money dedicated to buying congressional and presidential influence. With a lobbying industry expected to spend over 3.7 billion dollars for this midterm and 5.5 billion when the oval office is in play, it’s obvious that objectivity is being purchased. Almost every reform bill crafted for the past 20 years has some special interest strings attached to it, either in terms of preferential treatment, or in government contracts being handed out. That’s why this nation is over 14 trillion in debt and Congress pretends that it’s wise, prudent, and necessary spending.

For the same reason you cannot yell “ fire” in a crowded theater, you ought not be able to purchase a party or a candidate by stuffing their pockets with money and freebies. The truth is, we’re beyond mere influence. Pay to play has stymied objective and constitutional government practically out of existence. Nor should a congressman’s job be primarily consumed almost twelve months a year with quota’s of campaign money to raise for their party leaders. That’s exactly how government now works. Everybody knows it even though politicians don’t admit it.

The Disclose Act is in fact a bad bill because it’s meant to corrupt the system further rather than correct it. It’s the same problem with virtually every reform bill that Congress generates.

Do I oppose the Disclose Act because it goes too far? No. I oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough.

For Congress Morality Is The Color Of Money

2010-06-21T16:19:00.000-05:00

As parents know, children justify all sorts of juvenile behavior. Ditto with lawmakers when public or private funds are dangled in front of them. The difference is, as parents we get to say “no” on the spot.

A June 21st USA Today story - “Legislators Trek On Private Dime” - revealed that nonprofits and special interests have spent 73 percent more the first quarter of 2010 when compared to 2009. According to the story 24 trips to places like Spain, wives often included, were paid for with $435,000 in private funds. One would think there is a bustling economy and nothing to work on in Washington these days.

Rather than see a potential conflict, many of our elected legislators perceive morality as the color of money. When they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Congress blusters a little, sometimes even admonishing a representative as a token gesture. Then before the gavel dust settles, they move on to another cookie jar.

Sometimes the cookie jar is labeled private funds. Sometimes it’s public. The stimulus package jar has been hot lately. Sometimes the jar is labeled campaign donations or “speaking fees” or perhaps prearranged book sales. Everybody knows their weakness. It’s money and freebies. Like most addicts they won’t admit they have a problem.

In 2006 the public reacted negatively and Congress passed token travel reform with the usual loopholes. It did slow things from the “conference” trip cookie jar; from $5 million in private money for 2100 lawmaker trips in 2006, to $3.5 million for 1075 trips in 2008. Things even stayed cool for a while with folks like Charlie Rangel drawing admonishments for taking Caribbean trips in 2007 and 2008. But like a dripping spigot increasing velocity, privately paid trip funding is picking back up.

If you ask anyone taking or receiving the influence package, it’s always for the purest of reasons. Representative Michael Burgess, for example, took a $7981 trip this year to Spain. He also took 7 trips in 2009. He told USA Today, “ None of the trips were done for pleasure. The other option is take trips at taxpayer expense and that would obviously raise concerns for people as well.” That’s congressional logic.

Let’s correct Rep. Burgess’s reasoning then for the record. The other option is to not take the trips at all! Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we now have the internet as a learning tool and one can stay put in Washington. If that is not sufficient, try “gotomeeting.com”. There really are other options but one has to think outside the lobbyists and special interest box. There are other ways than to travel and dine first class with one’s spouse and associates.

It’s really got to stop. Not some of it. All of it. Not just this spigot or that cookie jar, but all of it. Consider 13,746 lobbyists spent $3.49 billion in 2009, almost equally on both parties with Democrats having the edge. Before his conviction, the money Jack Abromoff filtered reached 81 Senators and 227 House representatives. And he’s a drop in the bucket. One of 13,746 registered lobbyists.

Congress will not cure itself. They will always find another cookie jar. The best solution for the taxpayer is to vote against any incumbent who votes for any spending bill, regardless. It doesn’t matter if it is to save the life of my mother. If someone is voting for deficit spending for any reason, I no longer trust that the justification is not bought and paid for by an outside influence. If that means changing out every member of Congress every two and four year election cycle, so be it.

For those who decry that the constant change means that nothing will get done politically, my reply is, that’s a lot better than the wrong thing getting done expediently. We need to keep changing the faces until they learn they cannot settle in as a lobbyist lap dog on out time.

For quite a while now we’ve had the best Congress money can buy. That has to change.

What's Missing In The AZ Protests? Please and Thank you.

2010-06-20T21:45:00.001-05:00

Sometimes “please” and “thank you” work better than “in your face“. It’s one of those age old customs your mother teaches you, universally taught because it’s so universally true. Unfortunately it hasn’t caught on yet among those protesting the Arizona immigration law.

Americans are the most charitable and considerate people in the world. For hundreds of years we have opened our doors to the oppressed and down trodden, asking that they assimilate into a culture of freedom rather than disband into groups of ethnocentric superiority seekers. We also ask for respect for our immigration laws and procedures as virtually every nation in the world requires. It’s a system that worked well, until it recently became politicized.

Because we have historically encouraged assimilation into the American way of life, we have a genuine immigration problem. More people want to experience our freedom of opportunity, because it doesn’t exist this way anywhere else. Now that we’ve matured as a nation, this desire to immigrate here has exceeded our capacity. One result is massive unlawful entry on our southern borders , especially from Mexico.

All immigrants, legal or otherwise, know that prosperity on this side of the border is real. They also know America is a compassionate nation. We don’t kill or torture violators when we catch them here illegally. We actually give them medicine when they get sick and provide education and humane living conditions for their children. That’s why millions have jumped the border and continue to do so. Still, it’s a status quo than cannot continue for any nation, ours included.

Like any situation or event where one has more people entering than space and facilities can accommodate, conditions deteriorate for everyone. That’s exactly what’s been happening in Arizona. All Arizonians are suffering the assault on their resources and their freedoms. Virtually everyone knows the federal government has shirked it’s responsibility for order at the border. For political reasons both parties, and especially the Democrats, have taken the cowardly way out. They’ve done nothing. The result is border chaos.

Now, twelve million illegal entrants later, the polls show clearly that the public is squarely behind Arizona trying to restore order. It’s not a statement against people. It’s a recognition of the requirements of fairness and good order. There are no easy solutions, but the tactic of demanding the right to live here illegally is ill advised. Americans, as kind and famously compassionate as they are, have had enough of bullying tactics, the breaking windows, the shouting insults, and the violent protests.

Illegal immigrants are placing their hope in the wrong party and their trust in the wrong people. They are being led over a cliff of discord by people seeking to use them politically for their own gain. People who have used lies, bribes, and violence as tactics. The political left. But it’s not going to work with illegal immigration. The issue is too big. The sovereignty of a nation is at stake and Americans understand that clearly.

When noncitizens begin making demands that they have no legal status to or right to make, Americans bristle. We are the most compassionate nation in the world when we are asked to help, but we can also be the most obstinate to a dictatorial demand. If Russians are experiencing difficulty in fishing villages, we respond favorably in some way. We would respond quite differently if Russians en masse crossed into Alaska and demanded land rights.

What’s missing in the illegal immigration problem? A thankful and humble attitude. That goes a long way for Americans. An attitude of gratefulness for all that we’ve already done would be a good place to start. So would supporting individual freedom and personal responsibility over entitlement demands. It won’t provide an instant fix, but it sure would be helpful if folks could perceive an attitude of gratefulness among those seeking to be a part of America.

For those illegal immigrants and undocumented sympathizers aligning themselves with the hard left, permit me a simple observation. When you want a favor from someone, saying “please” will probably go a lot further than spitting at them.

HAMP "Dumps" On Taxpayers

2010-06-18T11:39:00.000-05:00

There is a particular type of headline that runs about every three months. A version ran in the June 16 edition of the Wall Street Journal - “High Default Rates Forecast On Modified Loans”. What it means is every time someone reviews a liberal federal program, this one named HAMP, they conclude it isn’t working. That’s why it’s a repeat headline.

Basically like most liberal solutions to most problems, HAMP involves establishing a new federal department with a new federal budget to address problems not defined within the constitutional scope of the federal government. And like most liberal solutions, other than creating a lot of feel-good employment positions and power bases for themselves, more harm than good is accomplished. Were that not so, the problems would be resolved and the budget deficit would be shrinking.

It almost doesn’t matter which program or which department. They’re all bloated, over reaching, and corrupt. Unfortunately the people that keep coming up with costly bad ideas that don’t work are the same people that have the power to vote for them. Not so coincidentally, they also usually benefit personally from them as well. Money, political favor, and power always moves towards them. It’s like a private party inside the mansion. We can hear it, but we’re not invited in to see what‘s going on.

The Affordable Home Modification Program, or HAMP, is using $75 billion of TARP money, never to be seen again, to accomplish nothing. It is described officially as a “taxpayer funded program that “incentivizes” (liberals love words like this) mortgage companies to lower mortgage payments and renegotiate rates.” That the program is being administered by Fannie Mae should tell you all you need to know. That fact alone all but guarantees it will be slow, ineffective, and fiscally reckless. And it is.

The “Report on HAMP by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,” in it’s February 2010 review, summed things up this way: “By every empirical measure HAMP has failed”. Sold to Congress and the American people as a program to reach 3 to 4 million homeowners, by the end of January only 375,000 applications were in the works. That’s less than 1/30th of the original goal.

The numbers and the results get worse with each new report. As of 3-24-10 only 168,708 applications were made permanent. Now with June’s figures it is expected that 65 to 75 percent of those are going to fall back into default. Nothing about the program at all is successful. It has simply increased the reach of the federal government and its ability to waste taxpayer money. Ironically, liberals consider that a success.

Why did the program fail? Because it flew in the face of common sense. If the financial and housing markets collapsed as a result of bad loans, propping up more bad loans is probably not a very workable long-term solution. Just like TARP, the wheelers and dealers were financially covered with taxpayer bucks for their losses and rewarded with new guaranteed government business for their recklessness. If you look at the names of the TARP recipients, those allowed settlements to end fraud allegations, and those knee deep in the HAMP funding program, the names will match. The TARP gang rides again.

What does HAMP and TARP do? They “dump” on America. It’s a game to the academically indoctrinated professional government wannabe who is private sector productively challenged . They abuse constitutional trust and delegated powers to experiment, with the risks always born by the people but the profits and benefits always skimmed off the top by them.

As we continue to wallow in failed programs like HAMP and stagger nationally under unsustainable debt the Democratic machinery will continue to spin success stories. In reality HAMP is just another very dark political man-made cloud.

We can either stop funding these dark clouds, or get ready for a flood.

Dems Scream " Drill baby Drill!"

2010-06-16T13:23:00.003-05:00

As I live and breathe I never expected to hear Democrats so aggressively urge the Obama administration to lift the bans on deep water oil drilling, but that’s exactly what’s happening. For one rare political moment in history, some well known Democrat names are not only joining in the chorus calling for less government intrusion, they are actually leading the charge.

James Carville has been making the rounds and, not only is he critical of the Obama response or lack thereof, he is renouncing the moratorium on drilling, loudly. “We’re dying down here” has been his mantra, and last night on Larry King Carville added the reality that Louisiana will be economically devastated by the six month moratorium called for by the Obama administration. He didn’t say the words he helped make famous during the Bill Clinton election campaign, “It’s the economy stupid,” but it wasn’t hard to read between the lines.

Senator Mary Landrieu appeared as well. She told Larry and the world that these companies cannot afford to have the barges sit idle at $500,000 a day. She warned that there are lots of other sites BP and other oil drilling companies can go to all over the world, and they will leave the area and not come back.

A few days earlier another Democrat, Louisiana congressman Charlie Melancon, joined his Republican colleagues before Congress to argue against the moratorium as well. He stated that it would result in the loss of over 20,000 jobs. Just to show that it’s not all sentimental, he also cautioned that in with the collapse of off shore drilling companies and suppliers are the $6 billion they contribute into federal coffers.

Why are the Democrat leaders taking this posture? Because it is the economy, stupid. When it’s on their own turf and they have to bear their own burdens of their own ideology, Democrats really do get it. Much of the time liberals can posture to a focus group with programs that can’t work but often, like the Al Gores of the world, by the time the programs collapse they’ve retired to their $9 million mansions. Views change, however, when one has to live with their own created reality.

You don’t need a PhD in common sense to figure out that most liberal solutions don’t work and that they invariably ignore the long term ramifications of their actions. Every spending program bribed and rammed through Congress ignores the ultimate outcome of deficit spending. Every tax increase ignores the reality that producers won’t sit idly by and have what they produce seized from them. Every job “created” that is another government job doesn’t help the economy in the long term, but rather places a greater strain on the society that has to support it. Democrats know this. Eight-year old children know this. It’s getting a group that believes it is economically removed from the effects to care that is the challenge.

So as an oil spill larger than South Carolina drifts around the gulf threatening wildlife, marshes, beaches, and industries, leading Democrats are taking notice that posturing, spinning, and misrepresenting doesn’t do a thing to actually help resolve the problem. Even Democrat pundits now are getting in line to lambaste the President about the lack of leadership. In the presidential address last evening, Chris Mathews summed up the spin and posturing as “a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.” Keith Olbermann observed, “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for 57 days.” Even card carrying liberal Democrats are fed up with watching the oil gush out daily and having the lack of on-site leadership spun as “on it from day one.”

Sometimes we need more than a good speech and sometimes we have to take the right actions. Sometimes Democrats, even liberal Democrats, face reality.

I don’t think Landrieu, Carville, or Malancon are quite ready to endorse the Tea Party movement yet. I do, however, applaud their new mantra of “Drill Baby Drill”, even if the left media hasn’t noticed yet.

Right is right, even when the people on the left are saying it.

The High Cost Of Electing Incompetents

2010-06-14T22:17:00.002-05:00

Sometimes you do get what you pay for but sometimes you don’t. Money has become the stuff elections are made of, but in terms of principled or competent representation, America is definitely being shortchanged.

The amount of money being spent now on political elections is obscene. The 2008 Presidential office alone raised over 1.5 billion in contributions, 72 percent of which came from business interests. For all elections, the estimated amount spent was in excess of 5.5 billion. The midterm races now in full swing are expected to spend more than 3.7 billion dollars. That’s a lot of influence peddling with tons of unaccounted for cash transferring going on. Make no mistake about it, a lot of Tony Rezko’s have their hands in the till.

The Tea Party movement is a truly different response to business as usual politics. Though it lacks official organization or an orchestrated origin, the Tea Party has the establishment scratching it’s head. Why? So far it isn’t influenced by or beholden to money. It wasn’t formed by money. It was formed by people who came to town hall meetings one at a time and discovered there were many others just as frustrated as they were.

What is now called the Tea Party is a collection of these people completely turned off by the usual bought and paid for machinery of politics. They are raising their voices and voting specifically in spite of outsider money rather than because of it. Neither party knows quite how to handle a constituency that has appeared on it’s own with out being manipulated to be there. Imagine, a constituency demanding performance instead of favors.

It’s wonderfully refreshing to watch as the hand picked candidates of party bosses are losing primaries and those once considered untouchable favored incumbents are being handed their walking papers. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Christie in New Jersey, and Mcdonnell in Virginia were not flukes, nor establishment manipulations. Nor was Rubio in Florida or Sharron Angle in Nevada. These things are happening because a large block of people are voting conscience and principle. People with well worn bibles, a favorable view of tradition, and a belief in the American constitution. People who have had enough of posturing, spin, and political business conducted with open check books.

For the same reasons that we can’t yell “fire” in a public building, sometimes we have to amend free speech rights when the greater good of society is genuinely threatened. With elections now being virtually conducted as a financial business and politicians being bought and sold like a product, it may well be time to rethink campaign finance reform. Conservatives have trouble with “free speech” restrictions even when speech is expressed as dollars, but the truth is billion of bucks are being spread around casually and openly for the sole purpose of influencing government, and congress is influenced. As the nation is going bankrupt, there is no shortage of government contracts. Wheeling and dealing has replaced governing by, of, and for the people. And everybody knows it.

When can we expect change? Perhaps when Congress is shamed into action through outcry and faced with total voter rejection. When free people constitutionally educated and faithful to America demand elected leaders uphold basic constitutional beliefs. In other words, when a movement like the Tea Party's garners support.

Chief among basic constitutional truths is that the federal government is limited to specific powers and that all other powers not specifically listed in the constitution are reserved for the people and for the states. The Tea Party is that un orchestrated voice getting louder all the time demanding we return to the basics. That’s why the current election climate is so exciting.

This nation began once before with a spark for liberty. It’s long overdue that we return to a time of electing officials instead of purchasing them. It’s beginning to look like this mid term election may return to a contest of ideals rather than an exercise bought and paid for with back door dollars.

As we get closer to November it’s looking more like constitutional voter “revival”.

Can I get an amen on that!

"Illegal" Is Not A Legal Option

2010-06-11T08:11:00.000-05:00

The first shots of liberal and left inspired protests over the signing of the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law have backfired. The protesters assumed a violent and destructive posture, and America didn’t take well to their breaking things to demand we ignore the word “illegal”. For most of us, we prefer to be still a nation of laws. We’re not perfect but when we need change we do it through due process rather than mob rule.

Having failed to bully their views into acceptance, leftists are reverting to their standby, the national press corps, to rewrite history and distort reality. We are now seeing stories everyday about illegal immigrants leaving Arizona for greener pastures. Most of them repeat the mantra about how unfair the law is, as though the new law does not mirror the Federal law that‘s been in existence for over a decade.

As always, the reality that “illegal” is in fact illegal is absent from reporter logic. They never seem to ask some rather obvious questions so I’ve included a few recent examples and suggested a few questions they could have asked.

In a recent USA today cover story (Hispanics Moving Out Of AZ. By Alan Gomez) the thrust of the story focused upon the impact the law is having on the illegal community as they pull up stakes. We learned that one elementary school lost 70 children in their enrollment. To quote Superintendent Jeffrey Smith, “ They’re leaving to go to another state where they can feel more welcome.” Here’s an unasked question that might beg an answer. Why aren’t the illegal’s returning to Mexico? Do they not feel welcome there?

Then a Mr. David Castillo, co founder of Latin Association of Arizona said business serving Hispanics is down. “ It’s devastating.” Here’s a question for Mr. Castillo. What kind of business exactly depends upon illegal immigrants for it’s profitable existence? Surely all 466,000 illegals haven’t fled yet, have they?

Juan Carlos Cruz an illegal worker in plant nurseries was quoted, “ I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom”. My question for Mr. Cruz. Don’t you really mean, “I have to find a place where they ignore immigration laws?” ( The freedoms are very evenly and constitutionally guaranteed over all fifty states, provided one is here “legally”)

Finally a Jorge Vargas said he plans to move his air conditioning business to New York because his business relies mostly on Hispanics and is completely dead. I have the same question as for Mr. Castillo. Can you not sell to legal immigrants or even, heaven forbid, even native Arizonians? Is the fact that the law might actually be applied to you the real motivator here?

Missing in the stories are questions about the incarceration costs that Arizona has been burdened with. Or the crime impact. Or the drug related problems. Or questions about the costs of housing. The impact on legal wages and revenues sent back to Mexico.

Also missing for the stories are the perspectives of law and due process. Why should a sovereign nation not have the basic right to control it’s borders? Why should any group be permitted to bully their way around the laws while other applicants stand in line for years?

No one is imposing anything new or unreasonable. The federal laws have been established for years and ignored for political reasons that include cowardice and greed for power. Finally a state has taken the action to reverse the impact of the blatant corruption that’s been thrust upon them. And that’s made leftists see red.

There’s good news in all of this. The power of the corrupt political system is fading fast. Fading almost as fast is the power of the press who think like mindedly to influence the citizenry with lop sided reporting. Newspapers are shrinking and Incumbents are nail biting.

So here is my last question for consideration. How many violations of immigration law does it take to declare we simply won’t follow the law? 12 million? How about 12 million drunk drivers? Do we stop enforcing the laws then for them also?

It’s not a good idea to ignore “illegal”.

The War Against Low Speed Alternatives

2010-06-10T16:16:00.000-05:00

For all the posturing of Congress, you would think liberals would be aggressively pursuing low fuel alternatives for vehicles that Americans might actually be willing and, more importantly, able to buy. Alas, they never do. Politically, our fearless leaders seem to promote only those alternative fuel automobiles that are priced above the middle class ability to buy and only those that involve government subsidies to left wing campaign contributors to manufacture. In other words, only that which is government backed and impracticable.

A perfect example of this is with Al Gore. As he settles into his new $9 million mansion in California (saving the world apparently pays well), he can do so knowing that he’s doing his part to save the atmosphere again. He is part of an investment group backing a car firm named Fisker Automotive that received a $529 million government loan to produce a hybrid sports car in Finland designed to sell for $83,000. By the time a few friends of the rich and famous parade their new Fisker cars to show how passionate they are about saving the world, the car company will probably have gone bust and Al Gore will probably have moved into a twenty million dollar mansion.

This follows a similar US government loan of $465 million to a car company named Tesla Motors who intends to produce an electric Roadster to sell for $109,000. For the record, though both companies are laden with Hollywood names of big campaign donors to major Democratic candidates, they insist that has nothing to do with the loan approvals. Whatever the case, it appears the government and the super rich are intent on solving the gasoline problem…for the super rich. Presumably one would expect them next to design newer fuel efficient private jets, with taxpayer funding.

Meanwhile, back in mainstream America, support wanes for low speed vehicles that actually are affordable and consume less fuel. In a Wall Street Journal (May 21 -“Group Wants Low Speed Vehicles Controlled”) the IIHS or Insurance Institute for Highway Safety called cheaply priced vehicles nothing more than “souped up golf carts.” A spokesperson explained, “The vehicles are fuel efficient and cheap to own, but they aren’t built to protect people in crashes.” True, but on the other hand they don’t guzzle gas or cost $100,000. I also suspect a golf cart accident at 25 mph is probably less destructive than two electric whiz cars doing 75 on the interstate.

It seems if an idea surfaces that might be practical, affordable, and do-able, the government unleashes an agency like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to regulate the idea beyond possibility, rendering so many safety precautions that a bicycle must sell for ten thousand dollars. That’s how government protects us little people from ourselves. The solutions they find ultimately will produce something no one can buy, but their friends will get rich from making them.

For those of us who think the point of transportation is to get from point A to point B, perhaps “souped up golf carts” might be a reasonable answer, at least for small towns and rural areas with speed limits of 30 mph and below. Perhaps we could design or designate certain streets that interconnect and reserve them for anything that one can sit in and doesn‘t go above 30 mph. It would be nice if folks who are on fixed incomes, folks who are poor, folks who are too fragile to be on superhighways, could use some real alternative transport options to re-engage in life. They could shop, go to church, get to work, to school, and so on.

While we’re at it, perhaps we might open up some more industry options and employment markets creating alternative transportation options right here in America instead of Finland. It really seems so obvious that one can pretty much expect Congress will never think of it.

I don’t mind the beautiful people having their beautiful people options, which really consists of spreading government dollars into their companies. But it would be nice if the cards weren’t so stacked against the 99 percent of Americans who otherwise might have alternatives that could apply to their lives.

The Jirga - A Positive Step In The Wrong Direction

2010-06-08T19:33:00.000-05:00

This past week the Karzai administration in Afghanistan completed the much heralded “Jirga” assembly and, predictably, the Obama White House issued a statement lauding the efforts. Those on the political left always applaud inclusive gatherings so long as they don’t represent the views of Christians or Constitutionalists.

After eight plus years of “war” in Afghanistan it appears we have accomplished the removal of a corrupt government very hostile to the United States, and replaced it with a corrupt government somewhat less able to be hostile to the United States. That is progress of a sort. On the other hand, call me naïve, but as I see it the “Jirga” is a process of negotiating the Taliban back into political power. I would find it much more comforting if the Taliban views were being condemned rather than being considered. It’s like negotiating to include the views of the KKK because, after all, there are a lot of racists out there.

A State Department spokesman named P.J. Crowley issued the following statement: “We thought the Jirga accomplished its objectives and has provided a national consensus to pursue a political strategy to reduce the danger posed by the insurgency.” A lot of three and four syllable words there, but not much of a point. Do you need a national consensus to pursue a strategy? Exactly what danger has been reduced? If the Taliban returns to power, does that not pose a greater long term danger? I’m glad the State Department is encouraged, but inviting and including radical views has a track record of backfiring historically.

I question why we have remained for so long in Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported the military assault and successes of removing the Taliban from power and running Akaka out of the country. I supported the efforts to finally address the tyranny of Suddam Hussein and remove him from power. But when we pulled him up out of the hole in the ground, militarily speaking, our job was over. I would have supported coming back home without much concern for what the opposing factions do to themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan. When they adopt a constitution like ours and specifically ask for help to insure personal liberty, I might see things differently.

We have again become mired in the business of nation building without much hope that the insurgents won’t return and resume tribal competition for power. I sincerely hope time proves me wrong, but I doubt the last four years of our troops on the ground will change the long term outcomes of the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. When we leave they probably will be no more supportive of a democracy than when we arrived.

For my part I would prefer we stop being so optimistic about being inclusive to extremists and return to a policy of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Our response to 9-11 shocked the Middle East, Osama Bin Laden included. We put the world on notice that when you mess with the big dog, he bites. For a time terrorist supporting regimes were afraid to taunt the big dog any further. That’s the “strategy” I support. To be ready to strike a completely devastating blow when America is attacked in any way, and to make sure that reality is understood to any nation that provides direct or indirect support to attacks of terrorism against the United States.

America is not a bully, but we are walking in a world of bully wanna-bes. We have a responsibility to defend and protect our way of life for our own people. Being inclusive of views that are socially aggressive, politically inconsiderate, or religiously extreme doesn’t work against bullies. Especially when they are devoted to destroying your way of life. What stops them always is the fear of greater retaliation for their aggressiveness.

What they do in the Middle East is their own business, so long as it does not include attacks upon us. The best way to insure that doesn’t happen is to withdraw support for radicalism rather than to encourage it with loose words of praise.

And always have a bigger stick with the resolve to use it.

Arizona, N. Korea, Or Gaza; Anarchy is Anarchy

2010-06-04T14:53:00.002-05:00

Recently North Korea created a crisis in the usual two step process. Step one was to impose their will in some way endangering other societies around them. Step two was to demand some kind of concessions to make them stop their reckless behavior. That’s what anarchists do. This week it’s the “activists” who sailed from Turkey. It could just as easily be the protesters objecting to Arizona’s law regarding illegal immigration. . It’s always the same two step procedure. Create a crisis and demand concessions.

There are two basic kinds of people in the world. First, there are those who seek to have all views heard and debated in good faith. Secondly, there are those who believe only their views should be considered and that all opposing beliefs should be silenced. The first group of believers not only believe in rules of courtesy and social consideration, they insist upon following them. They believe in God, and in the constitution, and they feel bound to abide by those doctrines. The second group, those who believe only their view should be followed, believes the end justifies the means. To them lies, bribes, and violence justifies the silencing of any other viewpoint. That’s why we call them anarchists.

Faith in God and faith in the Constitution made America unique among all governed people in the world. We historically agreed as a majority through the application of those two mechanisms to be considerate of all views. Then about forty years ago we began veering away from both God and the Constitution. For the most part, anarchists object to these doctrines of fairness and freedom because open access to the system restricts their exclusive use of it. So they chipped away, successfully, at removing traditional American beliefs in our decision making process. They seized control of academic institutions. Then the courts. Then political offices.

Expression of almost anything Christian first disappeared from schools. Godly reference next disappeared from all government processes and buildings. Under the guise of separation of church and state, we evolved a political system that no longer restrains itself according to God’s morality, or constitutional limitations. We are now governed by and responsive to the same tactics of lies, bribes, and violence used so routinely and systematically by anarchists.

We can thank liberal democrats for that.

America is truly at a critical turning point. We can either restore our greatness and return to constitutional rule. Or we can keep ignoring it until we become another chaotic socialists mob ruled nation. If we continue to ignore the morality of our Christian roots, and the document that corresponds with that tradition called the United States Constitution, the outcome must eventually be a return to anarchy and bloodshed. That’s the reality in most of the non Christian world. Those who obsess themselves with a godless power to rule will forever compete with other godless power seekers.

One need not be a Christian to understand that Jesus speaking the words we call the Sermon on the Mount are wonderful words to abide by. One need not be a conservative or a republican to recognize that the Constitution intentionally restricts political power of a central government not to guarantee the best outcome for all people all the time, but to guarantee that they have the freedom to decide their own options for themselves, however good or bad they may be.

Anarchy is anarchy. Our obligation as citizens is to vote anarchy out, just as it has been systematically voted in.

GM & Chrysler Stiff American Taxpayer 34 Billion

2010-05-20T13:51:00.001-05:00

I came across an article in the News Gazette in Champaign, IL similar to ones running in newspapers all over America. The headline was “Treasury To Lose 1.6 Billion On Chrysler Loan.” Just another ho-hum-taxpayers-lose-again story.

There was a myriad of bad news figures in the story. It said the Treasury is writing off the 1.6 billion as a lost cause but it alerted the reader that it won’t stop there. The story continued, “Taxpayer losses from bailing out Chrysler and GM are expected to rise as high as 34 billion, congressional auditors said.” The reasons why were never made exactly clear.

I remember the positive spin on the stories about GM paying off their loans ahead of time just a few weeks ago. At the time I thought, does this might mean I was wrong about my criticism of the bailouts? Well, no I wasn’t. What actually happened was GM paid back 4.7 billion dollars to wipe the “loan” slate clean. To explain further, GM received 52 billion dollars in TARP money, but only 6.7 billion of it was considered “the loan part.” The rest of it, the 45.3 billion dollars that isn’t “the loan part” one can only assume is taxpayer tip money for doing such a great job running the American car industry into bankruptcy. That part they never have to pay back.

Just to pour salt into the wound, in hearings Senator Grassley observed that GM actually paid back “the loan part” by dipping into their other TARP funds they received. There was no great turn around, and it was certainly not the “huge accomplishment” Biden touted it to be. It’s just a rigged set of books courtesy of a pandering Congress. We’ll give you 52 billion if you promise to pay 6.7 of it back, and you can pay that out of the check we give you. Apparently the government knows the old instant rebate trick as well as the car companies do.

Since GM alone is forever short 45.3 billion and Chrysler will add to that number, it’s unclear how the projected loss can be a smaller number of 34 billion, but when dealing in government speak, there is rarely logic or mathematical sense involved. Just like Ms. Pelosi told us about the awaited numbers in the healthcare bill, they’ll let us know later what the numbers really are, but for now just go sit down and shut up (We’re the government and we can do this.).

So how are they doing? GM turned a first quarter profit of 865 million, and Chrysler lost another 197 million. Does it matter? Fannie and Freddie are still losing. We’re not getting the money back regardless of outcomes. The car companies will just join the other industries at the private slush fund party celebrating. The Fannies and Freddies and Goldman Sachs and AIGs have learned it really doesn’t matter if you win or lose. It really is how you play the game. The inside players and the governmental partners rake in personal fortunes in side deals, and management fees for bureaucratic oversight, and administrative fees for bank disbursement handling, and on and on. Plus they still get the their ridiculously high salaries and benefits. It‘s a guaranteed win-win, even if the corporate interests never recover.

As they say, when you get invited to a gamer of Poker, take a look around the table for an obvious sucker. If you don’t see one, you’re it. Or to make it easier, just look at the name tags. All will say “player” except the one that says “taxpayer”. Same thing.

I suppose while Katie Couric sadly laments the anger of the Tea Party, we’ll just have to grin and bear it until the total collapse of the nation, ala Greece style.

The question then will be, who bails us out?

Liberal or Conservative - Divided over God

2010-05-17T18:23:00.003-05:00

The Conservative movement is mostly a direct response to a determined socialist push launched in the 1960’s. What separates the two opposing political spectrums, left and right, more than anything else is not policies, philosophies, traditions, or social doctrines. It’s really God. Conservatives embrace God, or at least Godly doctrines. They consider it to be a part of their American heritage. Liberals do not.

Before the outcry I’ll acknowledge that there are conservatives who do not believe in God and Liberals who do, but they are not the rule. Christian liberals tend to hang their hat on one issue of importance, such as animal rights, and otherwise avoid the radical elements. The same on the right may happen with nonbelievers when they call themselves “fiscal conservatives,” perhaps upset with the obvious reckless overspending of Congress. These folks obviously exist but they do not make up the mainstream of either political side.

The focus of conservatism really is God based. Conservatives want Judean -Christian traditions and observances to be not only allowed, but continued in the same manner as they have been since 1776. Conservatives find their biblically based beliefs derided and openly oppressed by the very system constitutionally designed to prevent such discrimination, especially religious discrimination. The political left has taken opportunity through academic dominance to secure court appointments and use those appointments to legislate the suppression of God literally from the bench.

Along with government suppressions of their basic beliefs, Conservatives also face unwanted impositions of new ones. Abortion is one example. So is the definition of traditional marriage. Same with social indoctrination in public schools. The traditions of honest representation and personal liberty are God given rights to conservative Christian Americans, and they are being legislatively targeted and judicially removed. Under a false pretext of separation of Church and State, the left has used their judiciary advantage to stymie freedom to express religious beliefs openly. The erosion of rights and the full blown foray into socialist governing under the Obama administration has induced usually quiet Americans into activism. The recent Tea Party movement is as much a religious protest as it is a political one.

Politically liberals are Socialists with no core belief in God in general, and especially that of a Christian God. They see God as an impediment to the goal of equalizing the working class, and ruling over them. To liberals the end always justifies the means, and without a standard of God those means often include tactics of violence, deceit, bribery, and legislative imposition. They hate anything that stands in the way and as they see it, Christians are always in the way.

The Bible shines a light on ungodliness and ungodly people. People that endear themselves to promiscuity, drugs, greed, power, perversions, and dishonest gain detest biblical judgments. Hollywood actors, producers, mainstream journalists, television producers, and left oriented politicians do all they can to discredit Christ followers. As they have control of most of the microphones, they maintain a vigil of railing against anything Christian.

Liberal politicians do join religious congregations for political and social reasons, but they don’t follow Christian doctrine. They can and do make back door deals, reward campaign donors, enact shady legislation, spin truths, support abortion, and promote influence peddling, without an iota of conscience. They openly pass anti-Christian laws and policies under the banner of social justice often referencing God without following God.

Being godless leftists a tactical advantage. They have no conscience about using lies, bribes, force, or violence to achieve their aims. One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see the obvious difference between any given Tea Party demonstration and a typical Arizona Law protest, though the journalists on the left are blind to it. It’s an obvious bias.

When it comes right down to the basics, when you sift through the rhetoric about fairness and social justice, the struggle before us now is between Godlessness and Godliness. Yet in the face of all of the unfair tactics the left imposes, Christian Americans still have one tool to use that is uniquely theirs. The power of Prayer.

When you get right down to it, That’s what the fight is all about.

Shaking Down The Catholic Church

2010-05-14T18:01:00.001-05:00

Once again the revolving door of clergy abuse lawsuits is in the news, this time with a 17.6 million dollar settlement by the Catholic Church Diocese in Vermont to settle their latest round of sexual abuse allegations. Suing the Catholic Church is big business for some law firms these days, as it appears to pay handsomely.

The Church has been somewhere between a rock and a hard place for the past thirty years, under constant attack from the left for its anti-abortion and anti-homosexual stands, while simultaneously targeted in one lawsuit after another for allegations of sexual misconduct between priests and children under the age of seventeen. The current Vermont suit settles the offenses of one priest and involves 26 alleged victims. By my math that’s about 650,000 dollars per victim.

The Catholic Church has not been successful at sweeping these incidents under the rug. Unlike Wall Street, who simply pays quietly to settle their matters without ever admitting guilt, the Catholic Church admits the guilt, pays through the nose, and still gets a media pounding. The monetary pounding is huge, an estimated 2.6 billion dollars in awards and settlements since 1950, and that attracts a lot of morally outraged John Edwards.

A 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, quantified the problem.

1 - Between 1950 and 2002 there were 10,667 allegations against 4392 Priests
2 - 6700 allegations were substantiated
3 - 384 Priests were criminally charges - 200 convicted - 100 served time in jail

The Catholic Church’s problem mirrors secular society. About 2 to 4 percent of potential offenders get through their screens and in their populations. Just like in schools and other businesses interacting with children, they abuse and molest some children. But only about 6 percent of the allegations against priests actually result in criminal charges. Over one billion settlement dollars was paid out by the church during the time covered by the report. Clearly the “outrage” is more settled with money than with time served in jail.

The political leadership on the left is especially quiet. While they usually attack religion, this involves a mainstream church with millions of voters. Also, the charges involve a favorite focus group’s lifestyle - homosexuality. This past February, 26 Congressmen and women sent a letter to the Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts, officially protesting their discriminatory policy of “prohibiting gays and lesbians.” When endorsing interaction between gay men and boys, as they are, it’s pretty hard to be “outraged” when the inevitable happens.

What moral outrage there is, is aimed at the Catholic Church. They are unpopular with the media and they’ve still got deep pockets for pickings. To me that’s pretty convenient and pretty disgusting.

My solution is two fold. For the Catholic Church, I say, how about really screening priests as thoroughly as the Boy Scouts do, take the heat from the hypocritical left that’s inevitable, and treat the molesting of children as a crime, because it is. Secondly, how about allowing priests to marry. It’s not forbidden biblically, not even in the Catholic Bible. Peter (Catholicism’s foundational rock) was married. Why not ease the pressure in the obvious way?

I’m probably in a minority who thinks this is a moral outrage, but I’m also tired of the convenient argument that zillions of dollars should be paid in lieu of the pain the victim has to live with for life. Unless you treat the rest of society that way, that shouldn’t be a justification for financially sticking it to only the church. Victims of assault, robbery or school yard bullying have their lives as disrupted as any one else and they don’t get treated like lottery winners.

I could respect approaches much more that criminalize the offense and put away offenders, rather than approaching the Catholic Church as a lottery pool for lawyers. The church can make much better use of two billion dollars by actually helping society with it, and society will be better served if we actually begin putting away offenders.

Obama Prefers The Faith Of His Father...

2010-05-13T15:50:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama is a man of many firm convictions. They are just not very Godly ones. At least not the Christian God he professes to believe in.

On the basis of what he says, one would think Obama is of Christian by faith. In his speech, “Call To Renewal Keynote Address” on June 28, 2006 he described himself as a religious man, but one who discerns good religion from bad religion and is always for any religion that is for social justice for the poor. It always plays well to a Democratic audience to infer that people who actually follow the Christian faith stridently are too radical to be considerate of all.

During the speech Obama revealed some of his roots in perhaps a moment of unintentional candor. He said, “My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born a Muslim, but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I’ve ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.”

Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham was hardly faith-based anything. Despite Barack’s description of “spiritual,” she has been described more accurately as politically a left wing Marxist. She had an affair in her freshman year at the University of Hawaii with Barack Obama Senior, a Muslim who was already married to a Kenyan woman at the time. Anne became pregnant and they married on Feb 2, 1961 in what appears to be a loveless arrangement. Barack was born six months later on August 4, 1961.

Barack Senior literally abandoned the family to attend Harvard in the fall of 1962 and upon completion, returned to his native Kenya and his wife there. The Obamas divorced in 1964. Ann returned to the University of Hawaii, basically repeating the same pattern with Leo Soetoro, also Muslim, whom she married in 1966 or 1967 and moved to Leo’s native Indonesia, then back when ultimately leaving him in 1972.

Barack, then called Barry Soetoro, attended Catholic and public schools in Indonesia but always registered as a Muslim. The extent of his Muslim instruction is unclear, but it is evident that there was some instructional and social exposure to the Muslim faith. His half sister Maya said “My whole family was Muslim and most of the people I knew were Muslim.”

As an adult, Obama seems to have embraced the religion of his mother, which is faith in no religion but in academics and government. His college influences were noticeably Muslim and Arab oriented, including three Muslim roommates, one of whom paid for an around-the-world vacation with him. After graduating Harvard Obama partnered with Tony Rezko, an Arab entrepreneur who both financed and nurtured his political ambitions in a relationship that ran much deeper than Democratic journalists would expose. Tony Rezko was convicted and sentenced for his political corruption while Barack escaped scrutiny.

Obama’s entry into the Christian faith was politically convenient. Ultimately, when Barack Obama embraced Christianity it was at the Trinity Church on the Chicago south side, a church with a black separationist view of 12 precepts they call the “Black Value System,” . The pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright was famous for anti-American and racial rhetoric and Barack abandoned the church during the Presidential campaign when it became clear his continued association could cost him an election.

Though he denies a bias, his policy decisions are decidedly anti-Israel, Arab sympathetic, and less than friendly to anything remotely conservative Christian. Social justice includes mega millions funneling through unions like SEIU and community organizers like ACORN, and political friends and donors. He leads a government of bribes, closed door meetings, free market takeovers, and reckless spending designed to collapse the economy into full socialism. It’s not a transparent government. It’s a manipulative secretive one, and everyone but the press knows it.

The faith of Obama’s father is atheism. His mother’s is Marxism. He appears to govern somewhere between those two “faiths”.

As we slide further away from our Judeo Christian roots and the constitution, the results show it.

Goldman Sachs Cleans Its Dirty Laundry In DC

2010-05-11T13:46:00.001-05:00

One morning my brothers and I had a pit war in a cherry tree we were forbidden to be in. When we arrived home in our purplish-red, pit-stained shirts our guilt was obvious and our father rendered what we thought was swift and terrible punishment. We learned the penalty was too severe to return to the tree of forbidden fruit again. We were never offered a settlement or given an opportunity to “not admit or deny wrongdoing.”

As obvious as the lessons of right and wrong are to children, they seem to be oblivious to our higher educated adult counterparts, especially if they are in Congress, the SEC, or on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs is a prime example. The May 6th edition of USA Today reported that Goldman Sachs had settled all allegations with the NYSE involving short sales, for $450,000. For their part the terms stipulated that Goldman would not “admit or deny wrongdoing.”

I thought this all had an all too familiar ring, and after some checking I found that it did.

This same Goldman is back in the news lamenting a new set of charges levied against them by the SEC that could cost them more than a billion in settlement dollars, to “not admit or deny wrongdoing.” One article said “Goldman remains furious about being blindsided by the lawsuits filed by the SEC as the regulators did not give the firm a chance to settle.” If this seems audacious, it is, and it fits a pattern of familiarities between Washington, the SEC, and brokerage houses.

This same Goldman Sachs, the one that had just settled for the $450,000.00, was the same Goldman Sachs that had settled a subprime inquiry with the State of Massachusetts in 2009 for 60 million dollars, a settlement that “stopped all further action.” This same Goldman Sachs was part of a ten brokerage house SEC 2003 complaint that settled fraud allegations for 850 million dollars that they “neither admitted nor denied .” For the record, eight of the ten brokerage houses that dodged criminal accountability in that same settlement went on to receive TARP funds in 2009.

This is also the same Goldman Sachs that contributed 5.9 million dollars in campaign donations to both parties in the 2007-2008 election cycle, including $994,795.00 that went to the Obama campaign. The spread of the donations among influential members would have us believe Goldman is interested in supporting the political interests of both parties. This same Goldman Sachs has a permanent 12 person lobbying staff. This same Goldman Sachs had its CEO Hank Paulson named Treasury Secretary under the Bush administration. And this same Goldman Sachs had it’s top lobbyist, Mark Patterson, selected to serve as Timothy Geithner’s Chief of Staff.

And, oh yes, it is the same Goldman Sachs that received 10 billion dollars in TARP funds.

If you feel like the DC politicians and Wall Street are at a private party and you weren’t invited, you’re correct. Politicians see nothing wrong, whether it’s Barney Frank defending Fannie and Freddie, Chris Dodd defending Countrywide Mortgage, or both Democrats and Republicans defending the 5.3 million dollars donated in campaign funds by Wall street in this election year alone. It’s an obvious partnership rather than an oversight relationship.

The business of settling matters of fraudulent practices by “neither admitting or denying guilt” is ridiculous. DC postures by day but dines with Wall street by candlelight. The millions of dollars changing hands and inside job swapping is hardly going to change Wall Street’s fraudulent practices. Brokers now know the worst case scenario of getting caught in the cherry tree is that their benefactors will bail them out.

We don’t need new laws and agencies. We need a few honest men in office to stop the pandering, and insist frauds “admit they broke the laws” when they break them. When the watch dogs are fed steak by the people they’re supposed to be watching, and they do it in plain sight, it’s probably time to clean house.

America's Getting "Greeced" Under Obama

2010-05-09T21:21:00.002-05:00

Financially Greece is wobbling like the lead domino in the European Common Market, threatening to collapse into Portugal, and Portugal into Spain, and who knows where from there. What was initially presumed to be a unity to strengthen the monetary system for member nations may actually bind the strongest financially to the fate of the weakest. Sometimes that’s what happens when the finest progressive minds come up with a plan.

Another giant bailout is in play, this time for a country “too big too fail.” It isn’t a matter of proactively attempting to save Greece. It’s more that the member nations are trying to defensively avoid being sucked down the same drain. The nervousness of the world’s money markets, including Wall Street, reflects that no one is yet completely confident that the proposed bailout fix will work. The problem? Runaway debt Greece can’t cover.

There are very valuable lessons to be learned here. Unfortunately America seems to be learning none of them. We’re hindered with Harvard elitists leading us.

The root of the problem is socialism. In our country we can substitute the word liberalism, as they both seek the same outcome, a ruling class. Though it is a political system, financially speaking socialism is a process of governing that invariably bankrupts itself. It can produce no other long term outcome because socialism destroys motivation by its very design.

Socialism is marketed by a political party, in our case liberal democrats, like a product. It’s a government benefits sale package. It gains political favor and power by promising “have nots” a bigger share of the “haves” pie, by making free market profiteers give up more of their surpluses. This appeals to a widespread underclass seeking shortcuts to security, but the practical effect of this system is that it breaks down free markets. When someone produces something, whether it’s money or marbles, and the state seizes the increase, inevitably that person stops producing. That’s human nature. People that produce move on to another place where the rewards of their labors are not seized by the state. Hypothesizing and postulating doesn’t change that truth. That’s just the way it is and ever shall be, amen.

Under socialism ( or liberalism ) productivity declines. Simultaneously the people receiving entitlements become less motivated to produce in an atmosphere where benefits are given to them. They don’t usually rise to build new enterprises. Usually they demand more benefits. The math is simple; when you promise to pay out more than you take in it leaves a mess. Then liberal elites rule over the mess their faulty design caused, but then, that was the goal to begin with; to rule.

Socialists are promise givers rather than promise keepers. In modern times they pass laws that obligate the state to massive spending for entitlement and benefit programs. This spending forces borrowing to pay for the excesses. Since production decreases the doomsday is inevitable. In a nut shell that’s what ruined Greece financially, and that’s also the course of America right now. It is textbook liberalism. But notice the liberals remain in power.

In America under the banner of progressive change, this same liberal doctrine is promising the same shortcuts by the same methods, seizing control and profits away from the free market. We are running up unsustainable debt, enacting massive government benefit programs and establishing government bureaucracies to run them. The promises are utopian, but the long term outcome cannot be a different one than what socialism always produces. Ruination.

The end is predictable. So why do these elites do it? Because they love to rule. They believe it’s their destiny. More than that, while it’s not an equal opportunity business, liberal elitism pays handsomely. Check it out. They get elected, control lives, and become super rich.

In the end it’s all about the money. Liberal elitists believe what’s yours is theirs. And that’s simply not in your best long term interest.

Lutherans Overrule God's Word And Approve Gay Clergy

2010-05-06T12:11:00.001-05:00

What do you get when you modify God’s Word? Disobedience.
What do you call disobedience without remorse? Rebellion.
What do you call people in rebellion against God? Lost.

This week, in keeping with a modern trend of modifying God’s Word, the Lutheran Church in Atlanta, Georgia decided to change the Word of God into something a bit more suitable to their liking. The May 5, 2010 USA Today reported that the Lutheran Church reinstated a pair of gay pastors. This is in accordance with the denomination who voted eight months ago to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy. Pastor Schmeling, one of the clergy reinstated, said, “I’m grateful this journey has come full circle and the church has changed it’s policy.”

Clearly the church changed it’s policy. The question is, did God change HIS policy? There is nothing in Scripture to suggest He has.

Every description of a sexual relationship pleasing to God is between a man and a woman. There are no scriptural exceptions, beginning with the first union of Adam and Eve. Jesus Christ observed this personally and said for the record that “For this reason a man shall leave His father and mother and shall cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two but one” (Mark 10:7). But Jesus wasn’t giving us anything new. God said the same words in Genesis (Gen 2:24). The same exact words appear again in Ephesians 5:31 reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul. A marriage relationship is between a man and a woman, period.

As much as the homosexually inclined want the Bible to affirm their sexual union as acceptable to God, it isn’t there. There are, however, very specific references to the opposite; that homosexuality is displeasing to God. Here are a few.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. - Lev. 18:22

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. - Romans 1:26

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:27

There are many other references to sexual impurity, lust, debauchery and other perversions (God’s word, not mine). Entire cities were destroyed directly by God for the homosexual kind of perversion. Sodom and Gomorrah ranks on the top of the list. It is explicitly, remarkably, and scripturally clear that God does not condone homosexual relationships, any more than God’s Word condones lying or stealing.

Basically when society decides they want to accept something as a social norm, it does so. Greed is an obvious example, as is the modern trend towards promiscuity. The greedy and the promiscuous, however, don’t usually form a church and say God approves of the behaviors. That’s called blasphemy.

This Lutheran church, and others actively seeking to include a gay agenda within their congregations, are basically saying, “God means well, but He got it wrong on this one.” As diligently as they try to alter God’s actual words and infer different meanings, the Bible isn’t grey in this area. When religious leaders lead people away from God’s Word, as they are clearly doing, Jesus calls this “the blind leading the blind” ( Matt. 15:14). He also concluded that when the blind lead the blind, “both will fall into the pit.”

You can follow God or not. But when you change what God says because you don’t agree with it, you’re no longer following Him. That’s what the Word says.

Padre's Players Trash Talk Arizona Law

2010-05-05T10:17:00.001-05:00

Some baseball players are adding their own dimension to America’s favorite pastime of baseball. They are using their high public profile to trash talk Arizona for finally doing something about the problems of illegal immigration.

Two time all-star San Diego Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez told Tom Krasovich of AOL Fan House that he “probably will not attend the 2011 All Star game in Phoenix if the Law is still in effect,” adding “because it’s a discriminatory law.” Gonzalez’ team mate Yorvit Torrealba called the Arizona law “racist’s stuff.” Heath Bell, Padres closer and player union representative, said the law’s passage was “mind boggling.” They are suggesting that spring training sites should be moved outside of Arizona in protest.

Here is what Gonzalez, Torrealba, and Bell neglected to acknowledge.

Uncontrolled migration into America presents a host of problems to the United States, and border states bear the brunt of illegal immigration for obvious reasons. 9-11 did happen, and it is dangerously neglectful to ignore who enters America illegally.

Beyond increasing our exposure to terrorism, the surge of illegal immigrants represents other criminal, social, and financial problems for border states. A 2003 report indicated there were 267,000 illegal immigrants in our prison systems, 49 percent for felony crimes. A 2006 INS-FBI report indicated most of the outstanding murder warrants in Phoenix were for illegal immigrants. The effects of crime is devastating, both to victims and to the state, leaving a huge financial burden to deal with associated costs.

The educational, health, and welfare costs also burden the system and the taxpaying citizens of border states have been left holding the bag. It is estimated that wages are suppressed as much as 200 billion dollars. There are the drug smuggling related problems as well. Ignoring illegal immigration has never been a compassionate or workable solution.

What the baseball players, along with the violent protestors, contribute in real solutions is…nothing. They acknowledge none of the truths about illegal immigration and tackle none of the financial challenges. I could offer a similar one-sided view of their criticisms and be closer to reality in saying:
"Baseball players spoke out today in support of violent protest against American laws. The players took a position against sympathy for the victims of crimes committed by unlawful aliens and were in favor of suppressing legal immigration. They joined in with dissenters who believe border states should pass all criminal and social costs associated with illegals to taxpaying and law abiding citizens".

That’s the practical effect of doing nothing positive.

On the same day the baseball players were trash talking lawful attempts to protect Arizonians, a sheriff of Pinal County was shot during a ten minute battle with suspected drug smugglers, 14 of whom were illegal aliens. Perhaps the Padres players might spend a moment reflecting if the shooting of the law enforcement officer was “racist stuff.” Is it unreasonable to consider the Sheriff was probably “profiled” as a law enforcement officer? Or maybe they might think it was unfair when Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was shot to death March 28 at his Arizona ranch by an illegal alien when he went outside to investigate noises. Might Heath Bell find it “mind boggling” that Mexican drug cartels in Texas are reportedly offering a bounty of $250,000.00 to kill border patrolling officers?

It would be ridiculous to assess blame for crime in Arizona to Latin Americans when assaults occur on citizens or on police officers. That would be dangerously reckless to paint a one-sided view when millions of Latin Americans contribute daily to the greatness of America and Arizona. But it is equally as narrow minded and subjectively reckless to suggest that the state of Arizona is initiating laws acting out mindless racism and not because they have an obligation to deal with a giant problem.

If the MLBPA wants to consider boycotting Arizona, as Director Michael Weiner is suggesting, it is time for hard working Americans to consider boycotting baseball. When cushy baseball players offer nothing but subjective and baseless criticisms of Arizonians trying to protect their citizens, which includes the 30 percent who are Latin Americans, it’s time to change the channel and the rhetoric.

Sean Bielat Picks Up Steam In Mass Dist 4 Race

2010-05-03T18:59:00.003-05:00

According to Election Projections, Massachusetts is the fifth least conservative state in the union. They have 10 congressional seats and all ten are occupied by elected democrats. For any other party trying to break in, that’s 10 to 1 odds against for openers, but this hasn’t daunted Sean Bielat. He’s setting sight on District number 4.

Barney Frank happens to be the democratic congressman who holds office in District number 4 and he’s held it since 1980. Moreover he’s been reelected 14 times. He chairs the powerful House Financial Services Committee. By anyone’s definition he is a formidable opponent. But Bielat says “I think he is softer than most people imagine. If we can’t do it this year this guys going to be there until he retires”. Sean wants to be the man to retire him. In fact he calls his blog, RetireBarney.Com -a catchy way of using Franks name recognition to his advantage.

There are big contrasts. Sean Bielat is not a household name. Barney Frank is. Sean is a Republican. Frank is one of the most noted Democrats. Going into April, Bielat had a first quarter campaign chest of $80,000.00 while Frank is in the million dollar club. It is a David and Goliath matchup. Still, as history recalls, Goliath did fall.

Frank has not been without controversy during his 30 year reign. In 1989 he was censored by the house ethics committee for helping fix parking tickets for an associate of dubious character. Frank admitted and survived this error in judgment. Franks relationship with the government charted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been repeatedly attacked as they became enamored in multiple scandals involving lobbying practices, accounting procedures, and financial losses. Barney Frank heads the committee responsible for the only oversight the mortgage giants are subject to and critics hold that oversight has been sorely lacking.

Currently there are voices calling for more explanation of Mr. Franks involvement in helping a bank in his district receive TARP funds. The allegations are that he spoke to then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on behalf of the Boston based One United Bank, who was subsequently awarded $12,063,000 in bailout funds. The financial health of the bank, as well as the appropriateness of the intervention is in question.

To be fair, Barney Frank has eaten humble pie at times but he’s also been famously aggressive when responding to critics. Bielat has in fact used this to his campaign advantage saying, “ He’s abrasive. Every time he comes and speaks in the district it works for me”. It appears Barney’s allowed his tone to become a campaign issue.

What can be said about Barney Frank is this. He keeps winning elections and this can only mean people keep voting for him. On a national level conservative pundits view congressman Frank as someone who should be vulnerable, but on home turf, Barney Frank wins impressive victories. Still, Sean Bielat believes the mood of the public has justifiably changed towards Congress and towards incumbents in specific. He views the Scott Brown victory as a sign that this time is the right time for change.

Sean Bielat is not alone in the race, he has two other republicans to face in the primary, but he is gaining steam, emerging as the front runner, and leading in campaign funding. He is using the “C” word - conservative, in his appearances and that bodes well with folks in other parts of the country anxious for the kind of change that a Barney Frank defeat would represent. The Scott Brown candidacy benefited from out of state support from Tea Party advocates, as does currently the Marco Rubio campaign in Florida, and the Chuck Devore campaign in California. Sean Bielat thinks his candidacy is also nationally important and is looking forward to generating the same kind of excitement and support.

Will this David be able to slay Goliath? Time will tell, but it does appear that at least the necessary confidence factor is in place. We’ll have to hear more from him and then see how good Bielat is with a sling shot. For now it looks like he’s taking aim.

HOME SCHOOL MOMS ROCK THE POLITICAL SCENE

2010-05-01T19:44:00.001-05:00

Proverbs 6:20 concludes with this: “Do not forsake your mother’s teaching.” There is a group that can be said to be taking this quite literally. The home schooled.

The homeschool population wasn’t exactly challenging to the public school system prior to the 1970s, mostly just a few religious folk educating their own. When the state of Wisconsin insisted the Amish stop educating their own children and send them to public schools, the Amish resisted. This led to Wisconsin vs. Yoder in 1972, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that “parents have a fundamental right to establish a home and bring up children along with the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience.” Beyond the religious group involved, this decision paved the way for a much larger movement to come. It basically stated that government could establish educational standards, but parents reserved the right to meet those standards by their own methods.

The public school system suffered a set back in terms of mandatory enrollment, but not in terms of their own ambitious agenda. For the next twenty years government schools became increasingly bold and to many parents, intrusive. Among the political left who gravitate towards employment in the fields of government and academics this intrusiveness was intentional. They believe it is their duty not just to educate children, but to educate them to think like they do. The ultimate goal is to prepare them for work in government. With the backing of the United States government, professional educators molded public schools into the kind of social belief centers they wanted them to be.

By 1990, many parents taking note of how much power school systems were presuming began to be disturbed. First there was an almost complete exclusion of anything referring to Christianity. Following this was the introduction of social beliefs contrary to their own. Certain sexual teachings parents objected to were made mandatory. Academic results were declining. Added to this was school violence, drugs, sexual promiscuities, and on and on. A movement began as a forum of resistance seeking course correction but schools didn’t listen or respond. Moms felt they had a right to protect their own children and to educate them properly. The Wisconsin vs. Yoder decision allowed them a means to do it themselves and school their children at home. So they did.

Though it was more a by product than intentional, homeschooling has actually become the most successful political movement of the past twenty years, accomplishing what legislators, fundraisers, lobbyists, and political activists could not and did not. Homeschool moms overcame a corrupted system by simply withdrawing their children from it.

Since 1990 the homeschool movement has trended upwards rapidly, from 400,000 to 800,000 homeschooled students by 1997, to an estimated 1.5 million by 2007. A survey taken in 2003 by the DOE confirmed the obvious; that 72 percent of homeschooling parents said they wanted to instill religious and moral instruction. 85 percent said they were concerned with the social environment of public schools. Another US Census survey revealed 14% objected to what schools were teaching and 11 percent thought schools were not academically challenging enough. The truth is the opposing camp is not arguing these positions. They are just hoping it will all somehow go away.

The results are success on all fronts for the homeschooled kids. College exams and required SAT exams reveal they score consistently higher than their public schooled counterparts. Studies show them to be more socially adjusted. Homeschool classrooms are not crowded, the students are not absent, teachers are not inattentive, the environment is not gang or drug infested, and the teen pregnancy rate is nonexistent. As upsetting as it may be to the political left, they cannot tarnish those enviable results.

To protect and educate their children, Moms did not engage politically. They didn’t spend 200 million on lobbying, wining and dining congress like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They didn’t request, require, or demand government funding. They dropped out and did it themselves. They didn’t set out to rock the system per se, but they did.

So rock on homeschool moms! Perhaps politically the rest of us can watch and learn how it’s done.

Protests Over Arizona Law Ignores Real Victims

2010-04-28T13:08:00.001-05:00

On the surface it appears the recently signed Arizona immigration law, which is really a pledge to uphold existing immigration law, has stirred up a hornet’s nest. The Miami Herald calls it “Arizona’s wrong headed law,” a sentiment echoing on editorial pages all over America. The truth is, nothing very new is taking place. Arizona is finally addressing a problem that the political establishment has been doing little more than posturing about for decades.

There really isn’t much of a debate among the American people. The word “illegal” is understood by John Q Public. While the media is sympathetic to opponents of the law, about 70 percent of the Arizona public favors immigration enforcement. Even before the law was signed Rasmussen had national support for enforcement at slightly above 60 percent. By all accounts Governor Jan Brewer emerged on the favorable side of the controversy. Contrary to what headlines and the Obama Administration suggests, the public clearly supports enforcement of the nation’s laws.

So who exactly is objecting? When you dig beneath the headlines, almost without exception the “public outrage” is fairly limited to left wing groups who have some specific interest in legitimizing illegal aliens. Some make a living off representing them legally, some profit from them such as in the manual labor pool, and politically Democrats find illegals attractive as a future voting block.

USA Today ran an article titled “Boycotts of Arizona Immigration Law Add Up,” which included the following quote: “Many officials in Arizona’s tourism and hospitality industry fear the states new laws are anything but hospitable.” Frankly I couldn’t make the connection between tourism and illegal immigration, but in any event, the story doesn’t identify who those specific “officials” are. It did name several opponents to the new law as, Asian-American hotel owners, the National Council of La Raza - the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights group - and Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) who has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses.

Rep. Grijalva called the law “dangerous and mean spirited” in an April 23rd letter to President Obama. But like most other opponents, he doesn’t specify how the law is dangerous or mean spirited. He also doesn’t reference the estimated 460,000 illegals in Arizona, or the scope of the problems associated with them. He and others like him believe Latinos are theoretically going to be victimized. In day to day reality, however, citizens of the United States, and Arizona in particular, are being victimized in reality. It’s not something that might happen. It is happening.

It requires diligence to dig them out, but there are figures describing the impact of illegal immigration, and while they are seldom reported or discussed among the mainstream news outlets, they are shocking. An April 2005 GAO report that studied 55,322 illegals incarcerated in federal prisons revealed the following:

1- The sample group represented 459,614 arrests, or an average of 8 arrests per illegal.
2- 49% were convicted of felonies
3- 18% committed violent crimes
4 - The sample group extrapolated out to 1,288,619 crimes by illegals

In a 2006 INS-FBI statistical report on illegal immigration it was stated that 83% of the outstanding arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix, Arizona were for illegals. A 2003 report showed 267,000 were incarcerated nationwide. The numbers go on and on but the point is, being an illegal is not a victimless crime. The impact criminally is huge.

Crime is just one impact. One study estimates 200 billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages. At the same time, the potential profit to corporations by employing illegals nationwide is estimated to be as high as 2.36 trillion dollars. This is all before you get to the millions of tons of drugs flowing into our country, or the staggering health and welfare costs associated with illegals.

Everyday the costs are staggering the nation. Moreover, a nation that cannot defend its borders cannot defend its people. All this is to say, it isn’t mean spirited to address the illegal immigration problem or apply the laws constitutionally as written to protect the populace.

It would be mean spirited not to.

In Pursuit Of Wall Street's Money

2010-04-26T00:10:00.004-05:00

Wall Street is a vast complicated gambling parlor. They play for high stakes and despite the collegiate credentials and the thousand dollar suits, the odds are more contrived than Las Vegas. The main difference is in Black Jack there is one dealer, while on Wall Street many manipulators stir the pot.

The actual bets, or “investments” in wall street parlance, contain formulas that no one quite understands. Not the buyers, not the politicians, and apparently not the SEC. What is understood is that if the funds goes bust and the investors take a soaking, the money managers walk away with full pockets. And so do their friends.

And they have a new insurance plan called TARP so they can’t lose.

Outside the publics view, Wall Street money flows into campaign coffers, and into market managers bank accounts. When the inside wheeler dealers dramatically over reached in 2008, TARP was quickly passed like a gift for the bridal envelope. The buying public got a peek into how manipulated and politicized the mess really was, and as the bag holders, they got hopping mad about it. Government said the concerns were “too big to fail”. More likely the ugliness was too big to be exposed. As a few Bernie Madoffs’ surfaced like seltzer bubbles a select few finally had to go to jail, but beyond political posturing the system remained largely intact.

TARP rescued the market manipulators.

Though traditionally Republicans have romanced Wall Street, a new President and a new congress is sensing the opportunity to change the status quo. The pot is huge and not so coincidently the democrats have picked this moment in history to be concerned about Wall Street corruption. This concern however doesn’t include exposing the players, many of whom now sit in government jobs, uncovering past cover ups, or truly defining what banks and brokerage houses should and should not do. In other words the focus is not on cleaning up the town but on controlling the money that flows through it.

Do we need “derivative” legislation? We do need something but not new bureaucracies with untold funding needs and new phone book sized rules to monitor. There is absolutely no justification for a penny of new deficit spending. We have more than enough people, departments, and agencies in position now. We just need them to do their job.

We need common sense application of the laws we already have and real oversight of the bureaucracies that now exist. Virtually everybody knows the process and the purpose of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is behind the failure that snowballed into a crisis. Let‘s review that before we write new laws. Review them and if appropriate, close them.

There are things we can do right now. Banks should not be brokerage houses for reasons that are too obvious to explain, even though congress can’t quite grasp it. Brokerage houses should not be able to bet against the investments they market as good prospects, as Goldman Sachs appeared to do, by simultaneously selling the same investment short in their private portfolio. We don’t need to create new agencies to do this. We need people in the agencies that now exist with the grit to say loudly, this is wrong as it happens, regardless of how large a campaign contribution is in the wings.

To this day, even after almost a trillion in bailout funds have changed hands, no one knows the specifics of the investments labeled “toxic. No one knows what they are, or even where they are. We cannot account for how the bail out money was used. When you cannot account for what you are selling you shouldn’t be selling it. This is what needs to be changed. We can skip designing new offices and personnel courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Until there is anything resembling full disclosure of what really happened during the credit and financial market collapse and a commitment to disband the social and fiscally destructive mechanisms of Fannies and Freddies, new created agencies with new budgets are just new excesses of the future, with the old ones still in place.

IS THE GOP CREATING A THIRD PARTY?

2010-04-22T16:26:00.003-05:00

George W Bush ran and won the Presidency the first term as a “compassionate conservative”. Then the republicans under George W went on a domestic spending spree that ran up the deficit, imposed vast bureaucracies, ignored the borders, plead the cause of illegal immigration, worshipped globalization, seized telephone records, and rewarded party line players with all sorts favorable contracts and legislation.

George Bush barely squeezed in a second term, largely through the pleas of talk show hosts cautioning not to “split the party”. We held our noses and voted in a congress during the second term that proved to be less conservative and more liberal than the first. The climax came in 2008 when Stimulus 1 was rammed through on a wave of bribes, over a public outcry for caution and more explanation. That was the true birth of the Tea Party, not yet on the march, but definitely stirring within the noisy pot of discontented Americans who felt hoodwinked.

Once again as election time approaches we’re hearing rumblings from the establishment GOP about “splitting the party” with a third party endorsement, and how disastrous that would be. Once again we’re told how important it is to pour money into party campaign coffers. Pardon the skepticism, but this has a very familiar ring to it. This time many of us are not going to play party line ball, open our wallets, and endorse business as usual candidates. This time we’d rather stand for something.

The Tea Party is not a third party establishment. It’s a reminder of what the second party is supposed to believe in. If however, that second party wants to keep moving the platform to a more “progressive” one, they will do so without my vote. Call me radical but I’d rather lose fighting for what I believe in, than repeat the status quo just to say we won.

The truth is conservative values are American values. We need to win in the arena of ideas by presenting them. We cannot win by abandoning them, and even if we can, it’s not worth the victory. If the “second party” wants to move on from conservatism, then they are the ones splitting the party.

I’ll vote my conscience and sleep well over it.

ANY FAITH CAN BE VIOLENT - A STRANGE SLANT BY USA TODAY

2010-04-20T12:43:00.001-05:00

I glossed over the April 19th issue of USA Today, a newspaper. I don’t read it often anymore because I feel challenged to find an unbiased story about practically anything. They have a way of presenting views in place of news.

I read through a scant main section and came to a half page story titled, “ Any Faith Can Be Violent” written by Philip Jenkins. The writer explained that violence committed by Christians in 511 AD in Istanbul is very comparable to the widespread violence committed by Muslim extremists today. The article described a murderous mob of “Christians” on a killing rampage and the thrust of the story was to remind the reader that Christians were once just as unreasonable. Consider the following quote: “Change the names and the religious rhetoric and the extremists look very much the same”. The under stated theme was, who are we to judge.

The problem I have with the USA Today slant is simply this. We’re not living in 511 AD any more. Civilization has moved on. This is now. Christians don’t behead their enemies, or take scalps, or machete each other to death. Moreover, this modern extremism is not isolated to one city, or one region, but all over the world. Finding an incident of atrocity 1500 years ago doesn’t explain, excuse, or justify anything. The truth is no matter what the degradation I can find it appearing somewhere in history by some group. It isn’t relevant or excusable because the times, the context, and the conditions have changed.

Violence was never suggested or endorsed by Jesus Christ as a way of “spreading the gospel” or justified as a way of reacting to infidels. The gospel of Christ doesn’t call for Jihad nor does Christian society support such a notion. Even so, this also isn’t relevant to today’s extremists committing atrocious acts of violence. Atrocity should be judged on the basis of it’s own atrociousness.

We don’t need to lend a sympathetic eye or ear to Islamists extremism or any other brand. We don’t need the logic of subtle bias suggesting a particular brand of senseless violence is excusable or explainable because “you did it first”.

DON'T DROP PRINCIPLES TO BE "INCLUSIVE"

2010-04-19T12:37:00.002-05:00

Ronald Reagan proved many things about governing. He proved that Americans respond to straight talk. That results come not from devising new principles, but in following the time tested ones that work, like the constitution. He proved the federal coffers grow when you cut regulations and lighten the tax burden. In his words, “Government isn’t the solution; government is the problem”. His results show he was right.

For reasons I will never fathom, the Republican party turned away Reagan’s proven success of following core values and declared we needed new strategies and new principles. The buzzword among party leaders became “inclusive”. Instead of explaining our truths and values, the party leaders decided to modify our values to attract people who don’t accept our values. Republicans began imitating the use of “spin” and catch phrases, vying with democrats to say anything to win, and do anything to stay in power. For all practical purposes, the two parties became one. Different mechanics perhaps, but with the same objective to stay in power at all costs, even at the expense of truth, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.

And then the Tea Party; a grass roots, leaderless nationwide throng of voters, born of pure frustration said loudly and clearly, “enough is enough”.

I agree with the pundits cautioning against a third party, but since the 90’s we’ve only have one party presently to choose from. If the Republican party decides to return to core values and principles, it can be a second party, but having been the boy who cried wolf for too many elections, I’m not buying it purely on their say so any longer.

There is a difference between being “inclusive” and inviting all people to join in with core American values. Values like, life is precious. Like the constitution must be faithfully followed. Like all people deserve equal opportunity but not imposed equality. Like a minimum federal sized government deferring to states rights. Like a balanced budget amendment and limited deficit spending for any reason.

When the Republican party becomes that party again I’ll vote for it. Until then I vote for the person of principle regardless of party label, and I’m much more inclined to do so if that label is the dreaded third party label of “ Tea Party”.

"SELECTIVE" CONCERN OVER TEA PARTY RHETORIC

2010-04-17T22:00:00.004-05:00

On March 27, 2003, 215 "Bush's war" protestors were arrested in New York City for civil disobedience. On April 7, Oakland police fired rubber bullets and beanbags into a crowd of similar protestors and dockworkers. On April 29 2003 Hillary Rodham Clinton famously and literally screamed these words into a microphone:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration”.

Her tone and words were not exactly pleas for reason and calm.

For the next five years, television newscasters did not knit brows that the words and expressions used by protest leaders might “incite“ or encourage violence, even as the violence was filmed by them. Ditto for democratic leadership. No one recalls Nancy Pelosi expressing fear of escalation, even as police intervined and arrested a group of Code Pink protestors outside her office on Mar 22, 2007 for trying to take it over. The truth is throughout the Bush Presidency civil disobedience did occur, and people were arrested in large numbers.

Fast forward to a new President and new protestors called Tea Party activists. Now the same networks, talk shows, and political spokespeople are very worried that these activists may use words that encourage acts of civil disobedience or violence. The tone is the news as every word and turn of phrase is thoroughly scrutinized.

The reality is that the Tea Party rally’s draw thousands who are exuberant but law abiding. Typically police lines aren’t crashed, windows aren‘t smashed, and women and children are smiling and waving flags. As an estimated fifty thousand tea party protestors marched in DC recently no arrests among them occurred. At the same time Cindy Sheehan led a group screaming at President Obama that did culminate in arrests. It was unnoticed and unreported.

Concern over violence is legitimate. But such concern should not be selectively applied, or used as a tool of bias to silence views that are lawfully and constitutionally presented.

It would be refreshingly different to hear Katie Couric express concern about rhetoric from both sides, and especially from the side that actually does require police restraint.

NUCLEAR DISARMING IS ALARMING

2010-04-16T10:33:00.002-05:00

Our current national policy on nuclear weapons is a mystery to both friend and foe. Friends are puzzled by it. Foes don’t understand it but they’ll take it.

Basically, in the face of aggressive nations flexing their muscles and building up capabilities, we have decided to be an example of reasonableness and reduce ours. We’re diminishing our nuclear missile strength and in effect, eliminating future weapons research. It’s the kind of strategy that might make the teacher smile but won’t work with the school bully. The problem is, we’re not making a Hollywood movie. This is real life. The bad guys aren’t going to have a “change of heart”, because we script it in that way.

Some criticize Obama for giving away superiority and getting nothing in return. I criticize him for disarming us while other nations are cranking up, period. That Russia is reassuring us that the nuclear reactor they are about to complete for Iran in August won’t be used for threatening purposes is hardly comforting. Their devotion to aggression speaks differently. Ditto for North Korea and at least a half a dozen other nations held at bay because of U.S. strength.

The plain truth is, the nations of the world do not fear our aggressiveness. We’ve never been that kind of nation. They do however fear our retaliation. And they should.., except the current administration feels they shouldn’t.

And while the “teachers” at the recent summit are smiling at our reasonableness, the bullies are ratcheting up their rhetoric along with their weapons programs. The truth is, when aggressive attitudes lose the fear of retribution, their attitudes become actions.

If this strategy works as well as the stimulus spending programs, we're in serious trouble.

WHEN THE LEFT CAN'T HEAR THE VOLUME GOES UP

2010-04-15T11:40:00.004-05:00

The boisterous protests at town hall meetings, at tea parties, and in Washington has received notice among the democratic party leaders, but the response to it has been calculated and strained. It has been too large to ignore so the focus has been to downplay the volume of the protests, ignore the content, and label the resisters as impeders of progress.

All that strategy has accomplished so far is to increase the intensity of the resistance. You'd think someone on the left would realize it isn't working.

The media outlets favorable to the political left have all but ignored the content of the protest. They discuss the anger and focus like a lazer on anything they can report as "extreme", but they predictably ignore what the protests are actually about. They report people are shouting but not what they are shouting about.

Among the ranks of the Tea Party participants, that their questions are ignored or otherwise disregarded as “tactics” fuels the volume of the anger. They're not politicians seeking a strategical advantage. They are citizens asking questions, and darned good ones that the media isn't asking. They are asking, is government historically efficient with tax money? Is government operationally bloated? Is corruption rampant? Does government abuse it's power? Is fiscal collapse a reality and is freedom genuinely at risk in the health care plan just passed?

The dominant theme in our Constitution is to preserve and protect individual liberty above all other considerations. Many sense a real threat to liberty is before us. The argument that no one should go without proper medical care in the richest country in the world is a fair one, but it should not be oblivious to concerns about honest financial considerations or the real limits placed upon basic freedoms. Even if the cause is just, even if the proposal may help that particular problem, the solution cannot be at the expense of liberty or the fiscal collapse of a nation. That’s what the protests are all about and they won’t go away as long as everyone pretends we're not on a socialists pathway.

It is the job of the media to ask these questions. As long as they pretend they are not relevant questions, the protestors will keep shouting them out.

ADOPT A SERVICEMAN OR WOMAN

2010-04-14T22:20:00.004-05:00

Heading the list of those the Tea Party holds dear are our men and women serving our nation in the military. They believe the folks serving are patriots and that it is patriotic to support them. I completely agree.

On a national level about the only spending I can agree with is that spent on our military. Ironically it is also the area that liberal Democrats place at the head of the cutting list. No surprise there. But beyond political wrangling before Congress, there is much we can do on an individual basis to support our military. We can “adopt” a serviceman or woman.

This year my wife and I decided one of our missions would be to support a soldier. We selected a name from our church bulletin and decided that’s our guy, a young private returning to Iraq for his second tour. As a family of four we made sure to send him a package every other week, with cards, notes, refreshments, batteries, and miscellaneous news from his hometown.

It wasn’t long before the soldier began talking to us on computer, which eventually led to Skype telephone conversations. We’ve since visited with his girl back home, and had dinner with the family. Several weeks ago he popped in, home on a fifteen day pass before returning to Iraq. Needless to say, this has been an incredible experience for my family.

I highly encourage anyone who is not already actively involved directly with one of America’s true heroes to try what we did and “adopt” one. There are many fine organizations supporting the men and women in uniform, and supporting financially or donating time is wonderful. But for an up close and personal exchange, finding a service person through your local church is a personally enriching and rewarding way to send and receive love.

This is one adoption proceeding you get to approve yourself so don't worry about being turned down. Just get ready for full blown love.

Palin Bashing as Sport

2010-04-10T16:54:00.003-05:00

That Sarah Palin is under attack from the left is hardly surprising. After all, they use the free speech provisions of the constitution primarily to attack it. Understandably they resent Palin’s application, which is to actually abide by it. But here lately there is rumbling about Palin’s “lack of experience” to hold high office coming from the Republican end of the pool.

Considering it is political “experience” over principle that has brought the U.S. to the brink of socialism not to mention fiscal collapse, I find it curious that some would want more of the same, versus an emphasis on constitutional principles. Having waddled into 14 trillion dollars of debt have we learned nothing about following experienced “professionals”over the cliff?

I recently finished reading “Going Rogue” and it confirmed some of my own suspicions about Sarah Palin. She is a down to earth hard worker with core values rooted in Christ and the Constitution. My kind of girl. Her words reveal a woman who is witty, charming, articulate, and honest with herself. She used five years of life earning her journalism degree, a novelty among the upper crust of society who criticize Sarah needing an extra year to finish college, but paying your own way tends to do that. On the other hand, that gives her the kind of “experience” most of us think is sorely needed in Washington DC.

If Sarah is not a walking, talking example of using government assistance programs, forgive her that shortcoming.

Sarah Palin is unapologetically faithful to God, prayer, life, friends, family, Ronald Reagan, the Constitution, and her word. She cut frivolous spending and corruption as Mayor and as Governor. Thousands clamor to see and hear her anytime she speaks expressly because she isn't "experienced" in the art of manipulative governing. We need someone skilled in the art of saying no when the constitution says no. If not Sarah we need her clone, so why not the genuine article.

We do have some blue blood republicans who are beginning to sound remarkably like democrats. They are telling us we must not split the party. We don’t need a Tea Party, they say, we need money and organization. They tip toe around the word “progressive” by saying they are “fiscal conservatives” as though constitutional conservatism or social conservatism is faulty. These are the ones suggesting Palin is too inexperienced for high office. They say we need experienced people..., like those who can ram through more stimulus spending. Uh huh…, sure.

And what do we say? Sarah Palin is our kind of girl!

I'm a Reagan Kennedy man..

2010-03-28T21:52:00.005-05:00

I became aware of politics when John F. Kennedy was elected . I admired President Kennedy. I also admired Robert Kennedy. They were pro capitalism, pro America, pro equality, and anti criminal corruption. Also, they kept bailing out Martin Luther King, another man I admired. They stood for the values I believed in then, and I still believe in now.

During the 70’s I was often a minority voice, sometimes called “the great libertarian” with undisguised derisiveness. I was a “liberal” because I supported limited affirmative action, equal opportunity, and women’s right’s. But then the professionals took over and “social causes” became businesses. New minority voices for social justice no longer sought equality within the melting pot, but separateness from it and superiority over it. I never supported white separateness. I now couldn’t support any other varieties.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President, I admired him for the exact same reasons I admired JFK. Contrary to partisan spin, their values were remarkably similar. Instead of liberal, people now began calling me a conservative, with the same disdain. Funny thing is, I’m still the same old me. The conservative me is the liberal me. Only the label has changed.

I believe the leaders of dozens of political and social movements have become skilled in marketing “opposition“ as the cause. They’ve hijacked a vision of a common America and encouraged us to trash talk opponents. The objective now is to win and the cause itself is valued more as a slogan to raise funds than an objective of moral purpose. I suspect if we ever peel back layers of partisan indoctrination we’ll find we have far more common ground then we know and that some organizations have profited handsomely from the divisive rhetoric.

Perhaps if we remove the professionals, we’ll find we are the same old us. Perhaps we can get back to really talking again.

Bill Burton

we need to raise more money...again

2010-03-25T15:48:00.002-05:00

On Mar 21 Democrats passed the Healthcare bill. Count me among the ones vowing to oppose it until my last breath. Having said that, by the next day the calls for “Repeal” were already dominating the airwaves. By Thursday I already received my first two calls asking for donations to fight the good cause of repeal.

Somehow, in the political arena it always comes down to money.

My problem is I think money is complicit in the problem. I became a Tea Party advocate in waiting when George Bush virtually used a vast pot called “ear marks” to openly and arrogantly bribe every vote he needed to pass Tarp, or Stimulus 1. The entire nation rose up against it, but we the people were no match for a swirling bin of 880 billion dollars . Everybody got something, except we the people. We got the bill.

The Tea Party is really a rebellion against Republican corruption. We’ve always been against the Democratic version. The Republican side simply cried wolf and went to the well too often. Over and over we got the calls to donate so that they could fight the good fight and root out “the Liberal plot to destroy America.” Then the Republicans in power went about passing bills they had no money to pay for, rewarding their donors with favorable legislation and passing out sweetheart deals through a old boy network of government contracts.

Back on the Democratic side for the past year I’ve just watched bribes to buy healthcare votes honed to a new art form. Somehow in the political arena it always comes down to the money. Both sides have billions, no.., make that now trillions of dollars of reasons they need to be the holders of the money bags to get the job done, or to stop the job from getting done.

I break ranks with some popular conservative leaders in this regard. I think it’s time for real and strong campaign finance reform. No one pays anything more than lip service to the constitution anymore because money speaks louder to politicians. I also think it’s time to start demanding real results and track records before turning more dollars over to large parties. For example 34 senate republicans and 91 house republicans voted for Tarp. I want them voted out and that horrible piece of legislation reversed before I give any more money to that side, to root out the misspending of the other side.

For now I’ll give to candidates of my choosing. Genuine conservatives. You other guys who are calling for money are going to have to produce credentials that show you are a qualified wolf hunter before I’m donating any more money to buy the hunting equipment.

Bill Burton

March 21, 2010 - "America Failed To Listen"

2010-03-22T11:47:00.003-05:00

Mar.21, 2010. Not quite the ominous ring of a Dec 7, or Sept 11. Still, it is the day our government expressed by congressional mandate, a willingness to govern in spite of the people. In the words of John Boehner, We have failed to listen to America”. In the words of my fifteen year old son, “ I guess the founding fathers never thought they’d stoop this low”.

Well said, son.

We the people have been duped. At times we were complicit perhaps, but still duped. You don’t achieve 14.7 trillion in debt without partisan effort and super “duping”.

Stimulus 1 was the Republicans big cannon shot across the bows of protesting Americans. In defiance and arrogance, George Bush went against the loud outcry of the people and hurriedly cut billion dollar ear marks and side deals to bribe through a bail out of the credit industry. One year and 862 billion dollars later no one could account for the money, the purpose, or the plan. Whatever it was, it wasn’t needed.

I remember thinking, the Republicans are amateurs at this. Wait until the pro’s, the Democrats, are back in power to show them how it’s really done. And so they have. They’ve nationalized industry after industry, and now seized the prize, the healthcare industry. It’s now all about ruling and so they do, against the will of the people.

King George became so comfortable issuing edicts and levying taxes over the protests of the people that he underestimated them. It’s happening again. The people are smoldering.

All it needs is a spark, and history tells us there will be one.

Bill Burton

Home School Mom's Know Best...

2010-03-21T18:01:00.002-05:00

We the people have become pretty insignificant in the eyes of some, except as a means to an end. That end is to rule over us.

Among those who have received what they call a proper education, a select group as “elitists” also believe they now have an obligation to rule over their fellow creatures who are either lesser educated or differently educated than they are. I call them liberals. Education has in itself become their ‘god’. Instead of using education to enhance lives, they use it as certification of their right to rule.

Elitists have two purposes. The first is too promote themselves among an ever widening “educated” group, that is; to enhance their own unique society. The second, is to rule over those not in the group. Liberals believe organized morality, and especially Christian doctrine is obstructive to their world views. As they see it, they are not bound by obedience to God, or to the constitution. They play to win, and to them to win is to rule.

In the past forty years liberals have dominated the courts, TV and print media, and now all three branches of government. They systematically gained control over public schools and universities. They’ve declared themselves interpreters of knowledge and revised historical perspectives inside the classroom and outside. The GOP couldn’t stop it. The Heritage foundation couldn’t stop it. Organized religion couldn’t stop it. Then a group of Mom’s did, at least as it pertained to the indoctrination of their children.

In the face of governmental biases against their beliefs Moms simply dropped out of the “public” school system and educated their kids at home. They were challenged in courts and they also had to overcome discrimination by universities who didn't want to accept their kids, but they stayed the course and won. The courts supported their right to teach their own kids, and the generally superior test scores of home schooled children overcame the bias of colleges.

What the political power structure couldn't accomplish Mom’s did. Here's what we learned by it. Over reaching elitists need essential raw material. They need kids to control and tax dollars to finance their governmentally propelled academic views. When you deny them one, you deny the other.

If you are among those disheartened at the turn towards socialism; the dramatic nationalizing of industry, the extreme and reckless foray into debt, and the intentional shift away from constitutional limits, consider how the home school moms prevailed. Follow their lead and drop out of the system. Join their cause. One year of educating kids at home en mass would turn the system upside down.

I’ll wager parents will tend to their children's needs better than does a self sustaining union. It's not a bad way to remind the power structure that power in this country is loaned to serve the will of the people.

Bill Burton