Thoughts on the Republic

Where's "Occupy the West Wing" protests?

2011-10-05T06:09:00.000-04:00

Where is the "Occupy the West Wing" movement?

On 11 July 2011, President Obama talked about his ideas of who should pay more in income taxes. His notion is one of "need", in that those who earn more than they "need", should pay that which they don't need (or perhaps only a portion thereof?) in more taxes. [Note: it is not clear if he consulted with Michelle and his girls about their ideas of "need" prior to his discussion.]

Mind you, presumably those who have "excess" to their needs, have already paid the amount required by law and US Tax Code. Here is what President Obama said:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

So, my question is this: Clearly, President Obama has not only identified that he has income "excess" to his needs, but he has identified that he has a possibility based on his moral view, of providing that money to others who have "needs" that are excess to their income. Yet he has not. Is he not "guilty" of greed and inaction when he has the ability, and self-identified what he could/should do?

Where are the protesters marching on Pennslyvania Avenue?

Hard to Argue

2010-12-21T05:53:00.003-05:00

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX 18 Nov 2010 --

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza ..... get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings .... get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime, and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360.... get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the“common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules..

Before you say this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,”consider that it wasn’t that long ago when taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville, Texas

Very hard to argue with Mr. Evans. Indeed, much of what he wrote I've been saying for years. "Assistance" is voluntary, if you don't like the rules, don't sign up for the help. We need to hold all those who are ceipients of tax money accountable --- be they contractors, the military, our elected officials and certainly those who receive from Uncle Sam's largess, but contribute little to the country.

Self esteem comes from standing on your own two feet. And it is not something the taxpayer should be taxed to provide.

I'd also go one further: those who receive welfare, food stampes, public housing, etc, should not vote. In order to vote, one should be a net contributor to society. We can work out the details, but the simple truth is that those who receive from a government more than they pay in, will always vote to keep the cash flowing. And thus can be easily manipulated by self-serving politicians.

But this is not good for our Republic or any democracy.

Pearl Harbor

2010-12-07T11:34:00.004-05:00

69 years ago today, December 7th, 1941, the Imperial Japanese forces launced a surprise attack on the US forces stationed on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

Thus, America was thrust into a war that already had been raging on the European continent since 1939.

The following 4 years would see the world embroiled in the most destructive war the world has ever known, leaving very few parts of the world untouched.

Today, 69 years later, those who lived through the attack on Pearl, which cost upwards of 2,400 American and Hawaiian lives, are thinning at an accelerated pace.

And this blog salutes those who still are among us to recall what happens when a nation ignores the blowing winds of war, and chooses to sleep when the call to action should be heard.

Pearl Harbor, like 9/11, show what happens when America fails to act decisively, pre-emptively, in its own best interests. Those who parrot the lines like "Bush Lied, people died" would have you forget history... Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the USS Cole, etc.

Remember Pearl Harbor! Today and always.

Obama-Care

2010-12-07T11:25:00.000-05:00

A Christmas Carol

2010-12-03T11:07:00.000-05:00

We The People Video

2010-11-16T04:26:00.000-05:00

Nearly 7 million views so far. Perhaps it has touched a nerve?

Education - The Thread of Freedom's Cloth

2010-10-09T07:23:00.003-04:00

There are few who disagree that our education system is not holding up to its promises. Indeed, in a country that ranks near the top of per student spending on education, the results are dismal, especially for those who need education the most.

How can this be?

Simply put, "In business terms, we have a system that rewards the providers and punishes the customers," according to a very interesting editorial penned by News Corp's Rupert Murdoch.

I couldn't agree more.

Eisenhower warned us that Freedom is always just one generation away from death. I'd argue that our decline in an educated citizenry will hasten that death, which just may be what "progressives" are hoping for.

Hitler isn't happy about Mass. Election Either

2010-01-22T07:12:00.003-05:00

Gotta love this latest variation on the "Hitler Downfall subtitles" meme:

Best quote: "Obama probably failed lunch".

A Rallying Cry

2009-12-17T07:19:00.004-05:00

Totally powerful. Totally unvarnished. Totally honest, and totally correct.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West sounds the call to arms!

Best quote: "Everyone who has served in the US military took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There is no statute of limitations on that oath."

A Moral Obligation: Health Care Reform

2009-09-17T09:50:00.001-04:00

I have heard all too often recently that “we have a moral responsibility” to enact health care reform this year.

This thought bounced around in my head for some time. How could it be that a secular government would find anything to be a “moral imperative” or an action “moral”. Is this right?

I went to my (online) dictionary, and found that the definition of “moral” (#3) is: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral]

Then I pondered: How ironic that liberals who have spent my lifetime taking moral standards, moral norms, and moral judgements out of play using legalities, enactments and by contravening customs, is now claiming that something THEY want to foster on us all, has a moral obligation attached to its attainment.

How can those who have battled so long and hard against moral stands and moral customs now claim any legitimacy with morality? How can they make this argument with a straight face?

And why do we let them get away with it?

Feel Good Policy

2009-09-14T17:03:00.001-04:00

The new left asserts the noble claim that healthcare is a right. A right by definition requires nothing of anyone else except that they do nothing to infringe upon that right. To claim healthcare as a right requires more than that others step out of the way; it requires that others provide it.

Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com

Shared via AddThis

The Hyphen

2009-09-10T18:20:00.001-04:00

... we're American, that says it all.

NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK

2009-09-05T15:47:00.001-04:00

AS HIPPIES PARTIED

By RICHARD K. KOLB

August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm

NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."

The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."

Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.

The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."

Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.

So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.

They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.

Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.

Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.

Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.

So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."

NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK

Timely, pertinent quote

2009-09-04T05:59:00.001-04:00

"A danger foreseen is half avoided."

--Thomas Fuller (1608-1661)

Hubris...

2009-08-21T08:32:00.002-04:00

As quoted on CNN, our President said:

Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. "Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo," he said. "These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear."

My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.

Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.

Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.

This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.

A Few Quick Thoughts...

2009-08-21T07:59:00.003-04:00

... on the ongoing debate about the Health Care proposals by President Obama.

1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.

President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".

2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.

3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?

4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.

I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.

Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook

2009-08-15T02:23:00.003-04:00

Why is this not a hate crime?

Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook

Ann Coulter recently challenged Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al, to come up with one "Hate Crime" that wasn't a hoax. This sort of thing just proves her point.

Posted using ShareThis

Republican Discrace: SC Governor Sanford

2009-08-10T03:52:00.002-04:00

Those we elect to represent us in Government... be that government at the local, state or national level... serve US.

Their jobs are not a right, they are a priveledge that WE provide to them for limited periods of employment.

What Gov. Sanford (Republican, SC) has done may or may not be illegal, and the penalties may be non-specific. But he has tarnished his position, and the public perception is that he has serious ethical, and moral, problems.

If he is still in office at the next election, the electorate will get a chance to say if they want to continue to employe him. But that is too late. The right thing for him to do is resign. Now.

We the people, the employers, need to demand that all elected officials follow a Code of Conduct that we promulgate. That Code of Conduct must include immediate resignation for the good of the republic, state or municipality at any time the incumbent's conduct brings the perception of scandal to the office. Zero tolerance.

If we had employees who showed such poor judgement, repeatedly, in our family business, that employee would be fired. Short of impeachment, there is no way to "fire" elected officials before the next election. But, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be pressed to do the right thing and resign. It'ds what a true leader does when he screws up

AP: Sanford Used State Planes for Personal Trips - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

On Socialism

2009-08-07T09:58:00.001-04:00

"SOCIALISM is a philosophy of FAILURE, the creed of IGNORANCE, and the gospel of ENVY, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of Misery."
--- Winston Churchill

Congress Wants Say on Wall Street Pay

2009-07-31T06:45:00.003-04:00

Yet more proof that our employees in Washington think they know better how to do everything than we do. And now, they want to have a say over how much people earn in certain jobs.

Congress Wants Say on Wall Street Pay - Political News - FOXNews.com

Can any one show me in the Constitution where it says congress has the right to do this?

Corporations have owners. These owners decide who gets paid how much. Large, publicly traded financial corporations are no different... the owners are called stockholders, and many Americans are part owners of these corporations.

If the government can set limits on pay for financial traders... what is next? I'd sure love to hear the screams from Hollywood if the liberal elite out there started getting salaries comennsurate with what they are worth, and dictated by Washington. And how about our athletes, who get horrendously large salaries for playing childrens' games?

But I digress.

Just as we Americans largely don't want Washington deciding who lives and dies, and what care we can get in a "health care system", we should also raise up in a loud and vigorous voice and tell them to stay out of business decisions that belong to the owners of business, not to government.

Posted using ShareThis

Thomas Payne Rants about our Current Predicament

2009-07-27T11:39:00.002-04:00

Has the 2nd American Revolution begun? Are we ready to turn off our Gameboys, Xbox 360's and iPods, and actually do something about the mess we've been hypnotized to accept?

I sure agree, that if we don't take back our country soon, we will all need a gun to defend ourselves.

Freedom Contracts

2009-07-22T01:45:00.001-04:00

"As government expands, freedom contracts."

-- President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address.

Declaration of Independence

2009-07-04T07:47:00.005-04:00

On this 4th of July weekend, I provide for your reading pleasure, the document that started it all.

One would hope that all Americans have read this document, and indeed have referred to it often. After all, it is a document that not only laid the foundation for our nation, and its constitution --- but also is the genesis for an experiment that has inspired people around the world for for over two centuries, and continues to do so today.

For those that are too lazy to read the document at the link, they are also probably too lazy to really understand the gift that the document and the signers gave us. Or to bother with defending the nation it gave birth to. But, I have also provided a link to an excellent recording of a reading of this document by Scott Ott here.

Happy Birthday, America and American Independence. Long may you remain the shining example of freedom and liberty for all the world.

It's About Honor, Stupid

2009-07-01T05:24:00.000-04:00

“Nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong” - Thomas Jefferson

Dead White Man Quote

2009-03-27T09:09:00.000-04:00

"Of those men who have overturned the liberty of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton

The Ship of State, or the Barge of Broken Dreams?

2009-03-26T13:55:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting video from our cousins across the sea.

Replace "pounds" with "dollars", and "Prime Minister" with "President". (And insert a teleprompter), and it could certainly be about the US of A.

Video

That is, if our elected officials were able or willing to put the truth out there like Parliment does.

Remember folks, no matter what your favorite politician may tell you, there is no way to pick up a turd by the clean end.

CP

We interupt the dismantling of capitalism to bring you this important message...

2009-03-25T08:24:00.006-04:00

Change.

It's what we want.

Our materialism has been impacted by a "recession".

Everyone is running scared. After all, we've been told to run scared by the media for the past two years.

And, we've listened. We believe.

We've elected a president and congress that has promised to save us. They will change everything.

We can go back to our gameboys, our American Idol, our Dancing With The Stars, our NFL, NASCAR and MBA. All will again be right with our worlds.

Don't worry your little heads over it.

Yes, it might cost us some freedom. It might change our way of life completely.

But don't worry about it. We'll take more money from the evil "rich". They will pay their "fair share".

Business is bad. Its "greedy". But not our elected officials. They have no greed. They are virtuous. Honest. Clean. Almost Godly. But, we really shouldn't use that word.

Here is a blast from the past, when Phil's hair was longer, and not pure white. And when Milton Friedman still walked amongst us.

When we forget the past, we are condemned to repeat it. It's what some are counting on.

"Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste"

2009-03-24T12:55:00.001-04:00

Not in my name.

Chaos Manor

2009-03-24T08:57:00.000-04:00

1983 ~ 2009

Some things have changed.

Saddly, others have not.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Tyrants seldom come openly, their hands dripping with blood, their eyes blazing with hate. More often they come as friends of the people, tireless workers for the public good, heroes who will save the nation; who will cut the Gordian knot of parliamentary babble; who will carry out the people’s will."

The Scandal Hidden by the Scandal

2009-03-21T12:58:00.002-04:00

As I write this, many citizens are writhing in angst against the AIG bonus payments being paid by a company that sought, and received, $170 BILLION in taxpayer money to be "bailed out".

And, almost as if it were planned*, congressional "leaders" are crafting legislation to "tax away" the bonuses.

There has been back and forth accusations, SEN Chris Dodd (D-Conn) first denied, then admitted to inserting an amendment into the Stimulus package protecting bonuses agreed to before the bill was signed. (When other than elected officials do this, it is normally called "Lying".) But, he says he did so at the urging of the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims he didn't learn of the bonuses until 10 March. But then again, he didn' t know about having to pay taxes until sometime after 4 November 2008, either.

Reportedly, some of the bonus recipients are feeling threatened by the public outrage... and I don't doubt it.

But all this is a smoke screen. All of this is really distracting from the true scandal.

Actually, two scandals.

The first scandal is that our congress is pushing to "tax away the bonus". This, of course, appeals to many who find these bonuses stupid and downright wrong. Its a mob-mentality thing. But, the people to whom this "punishment" appeals are missing the bigger point.

As wrong as the bonuses are. As dumb-headed as they are from a PR perspective. As utterly unethical and immoral... they were not illegal to be made. They were not limited by anything as of the date they were agreed to. To now go back and punish the company, and the employees for something that when done was not "wrong" in the legal sense, is itself wrong.

There is, of course, a Latin term for this: ex post facto. In legal terms, if you make something illegal retroactively, it is ex post facto. Congress is attempting to do just this.

In criminal law, ex post facto is supposed to be prohibited in a nation that adheres to the "rule of law". At least to the extent that someone can be convicted for something that wasn't illegal when he did it. The reverse is allowed, where a crime is repealed or punishment reduced after the crime was committed, or punishment decided.

But this is very scary ground being broken by our congress in its rush to do something. Today, maybe it is silly bonuses by some executive big-wigs. Maybe tomorrow, that investment you made expecting it to be tax-free, will be taxed retroactively to when you made it. Maybe that thing you did which was perfectly legal when you did it will be made illegal retroactively, and you will be in jail.

When our lawmakers can retroactively change rules, clauses, and laws... nobody is safe. And, nobody can count on anything. The bedrock of not only our economic system but even our very lives is removed. Who would enter into contracts in a place where they can be disregarded because of mob rule? Who would invest money if they can't even be sure their money is legally safe? This is not a good thing.

The other scandal is just as bad, but hardly a precedent.

Our legislative branch was purposely made by our founding fathers to be deliberative in nature. To take its time to grapple with the big questions. To pursue changes only after much thought, debate, deliberation and discussion.

Every time congress rushes to "fix" something, it almost always ends up making things worse. This is a prime example, but sadly not the first nor likely the last.

Remember, the "Stimulus" package that spent $789 BILLION of your and mine tax dollars was 1200 pages. It was not read in total by any single member of congress or the President before it was passed and signed into law. Much less we the people being able to read and comment to our elected officials. The single most expensive spending by our government in history was rushed... horribly rushed... and this is what you get for it. This, and the pork.

The scandal is that we send people to Washington to be our proxies. They are there to work for us, to do our bidding in the legislature (and the executive) so that we can go about our lives trying to make a living and raise families. Yet, despite their salaries and staffs. Despite the perks of office. Despite their responsibility --- they cannot even bother to read the legislation before voting on it.

This total lack of responsibility is the second scandal being covered by all the smoke and mirrors.

I believe the time is coming soon when the American people will no longer tolerate such sloppiness from our employees in Washington. I believe congress knows it too, and are desperate to keep the majority of us from learning it, or thinking too much about it. I believe they know what will happen when we do.

CP

To Muliply Wealth by Dividing it?

2009-01-28T18:23:00.002-05:00

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~

(three-time past president of the Southern Baptist Convention)

If you just don't understand the above passage after reading it, go back and read it again. And again. Until you get it.

CP

MLK Day, 2009

2009-01-19T18:42:00.004-05:00

I dare say this day has taken on much more meaning, much greater consequence this year than all the others.

With the first black president set to be sworn in to office tomorrow, it is hailed as --- and certainly is --- the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream.

Surely, that President-Elect Obama was able to be elected by a sizable majority of the electorate, disproves the myth that America is (still) a racist nation. Certainly, there are racist individuals yet among our citizens. But the country is not racist itself, if it ever was.

As George Will points out, Obama received a higher percentage of the white vote than did either Al Gore or John Kerry in the previous two elections. And Mississippi has more black elected officials than any other state. Clearly, white America can be color-blind in its selection of whom to vote for.

Surely, we can now end the divisive and unconstitutional treatment known as "Affirmative Action". What possible reason could there still be to not judge everyone on merit alone? Isn't this, after all, what Dr. King really marched for? Equal treatment under the law, not preferences and quotas?

Yet, more black Americans voted for Obama (by percentage and by volume) than had voted for the Democratic ticket in recent elections. All too many, it seems, did so for one reason: to elect "one of their own". Elect a man with scant experience to arguably the most important office on earth, based solely on that man's race. A racist vote... just not one in the terms of the word we normally associate it with.

So, maybe Dr. King's dream isn't yet fully realized*. There are still sizable segments of our society that are blatantly racist, that will vote for someone based solely on the color of their skin. But it isn't the segment of society that Dr. King once railed against.

CP

* Many who today praise the work of Dr. King in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's, likely have not heard or read the full "I have a dream" speech he made on 28 August 1963, and are thus speaking from ignorance. As a public service to those who have not, here is the link. Please note, throughout the speech he talks about equality, not preferences and quotas.

Happy New Year

2009-01-01T19:29:00.002-05:00

It is hard to believe a year has gone by already. But, I think most adults say that this time of year.

My New Year's wishes for our world are simple:

1. I wish for our President Elect to govern with the skill, intelligence, character, integrity and humility of the greatest of our Presidents. He has many challenges he is facing right off the bat.

2. Increasing numbers of scientists are openly questioning the supposedly "settled" theory of Global Warming... so much so that the promoters of the notion now call it "Climate Change". Well, yeah... the climate is constantly in change. I wish for our people, and our government, to awaken to the reality of this hoax, and not try to fix things that are not truly broken.

3. I wish for our government to stop spending our money to prop up failing business models. Let the bankruptcy courts do their jobs. It is called "destructive creation". Yes, it will hurt many people a lot... but one cause of this was government meddling (the home-finance market meltdown was caused by the government forcing sub-prime lending to people who should never have gotten loans), so why would anyone believe that government will make it better? Yes, we need regulations, but they should be few and fair. America works best when the government gets out of the way (and gets its hands out of our pockets).

4. I wish for our media to stop being a propaganda arm, and get back to its charter of unbiased, objective reporting. Bias is not only found in what is said, but in what is not said, and how often something is reported or ignored. The machinery of democracy works best with copious lubrication from journalism. If it is only oiling some of the gears and not others, the machine will seize and fail.

5. I wish for accountability. I long for the time when the people who cause problems, vote for things that later turn our poorly, and say things that are blatantly not true (we call them lies) are held accountable for their actions and words. Especially our elected officials. When one who has sworn an oath to follow our Constitution votes for legislation that goes against that constitution, I want them to be held accountable by all concerned, but mostly by those that next vote for that person.

6. For my friends, family, associates and colleagues; I wish a full and healthy year of the things that matter most to each of you. May your days be warm, and your nights restful. Have faith in yourselves, in your co-workers, in your God, and in your tasks.

Now, buckle up and hold on tight.... this is going to be a rough ride.

CP

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag...

2008-11-17T16:35:00.003-05:00

I pledge allegiance

to the Flag

of the United States of America,

and to the Republic

for which it stands,

one Nation

under God,

indivisible,

with liberty

and justice

for all.

This is the pledge as I remember reciting it each day in school. I don't remember exactly when that ended as a daily practice. Perhaps around 3rd grade. That would put it around 1971.

What do you say, Mark? Did we recite it in Mrs. Eckerd's class?

So, here is a story of how a small school in the small town of Woodbury, Vermont is mishandling the issue.

As an aside, way to go Ted Tedesco and other parents for trying to bring the practice back! Hang in there and keep fighting the good fight!

Maybe, just maybe, there is hope for our Republic after all.

CP

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

2008-11-15T07:04:00.000-05:00

I was away from civilization from 2-14 November. In the back-waters where I found myself during that period, I could monitor the news to some degree, but could not post to this blog.

Like many conservatives, I was disheartened by the win (by a sizable margin) of team Obama, and other Democrats for seats in the House and Senate.

Being unable to post, I was pretty frustrated. Now, however, I think that might have been a blessing in disguise.

As I said at the outset, the purpose of this blog is to expound on, and discuss, the issues that face our Republic. It is not an echo chamber (come on, my various correspondents, lets have some discussion here!) Neither, do I want it to become just another bleating, moaning forum for an outcome I (we) don't like.

We don't like the outcome, to be sure. But, lets discuss why we don't like it, in substantive, objective, unemotional terms. Lets discuss how we move on from here. Lets discuss ways to safeguard the Republic from the ills and evils we imagine possible in the next 4-8 years. Or at least until the next election in 2010.

Maybe, just maybe, this will be (in the perspective of history) a good thing for conservatism and our Republic. But only if we make it so in the long run.

Pre-Election Summary

2008-11-01T17:18:00.008-04:00

I haven't written much on here since the middle of summer. There are many reasons, most prominently work and life have kept me hopping.

Many have been the times that I have read an article, and saved it with the intention of linking to it and commenting on it as I have done in the past. Alas, as you have seen, few of those intentions have been followed through upon for the past 5 months.

Now, I find myself just days away from the presidential election. I have so much pent up inside that I want to expound on. But, tomorrow morning I leave for an "exercise" that will have me away from home for nearly 2 weeks, and I still have much to do before I can get a few short hours of sleep before departing.

But, I can't let these last few hours before the election slip away without one last comment on what the stakes are for our republic on Election Day.

Simply put, neither of the two main-stream candidates thrill me. They are both flawed. Neither, in my opinion, possesses the experience that would conclusively show he was a worthy chief executive. The Presidency should not be an entry-level job for those seeking to lead. This is slightly mitigated by Senator McCain's career in the military, as a naval aviator. He learned how to lead, and for over 20 years in uniform, he lead in a number of jobs, at a number of levels. In my mind, this isn't nearly as good as having been a large-city Mayor or Governor. But, it remains far more than his opponent has done.

First-term Senator Obama has scant little experience in life, much less leadership. He touts his "community organizing" as experience, but if you dig into it, he wasn't even particularly successful at this. He served in the State Senate of Illinois, with the backing of several influential people, and the fund raising support of one who is now convicted of fraud. He's also been supported by a demonstratively racist and volatile preacher (who Obama only denounced when it got too hot for him otherwise) and an un-repentant domestic terrorist-turned-educator. As my mother always said, "you are known by the company you keep".

Obama is eloquent and motivating. But, anyone can say anything, and used-car salesmen and other con-men can make you believe any lie with their gift of gab. There is little real meat on Obama's record (due to lack of experience), but what is there points to his extreme liberal beliefs. Indeed, he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate, even more so than the avowed Socialist, Senator Sanders. My mother also used to say "you are known by your deeds".

Senator Obama's record on 2nd Amendment issues is abysmal. He is the single largest threat to honest American Citizens on this issue. His voting record clearly shows that he doesn't trust the average law-abiding citizen to own firearms. I can't get past the simple question: "why should we trust someone with the power of the Presidency if he doesn't trust us to have weapons?" As my mother would also say, "trust is a two-way street".

I've had real problems over the years with Senator McCain's position on a number of issues. The "campaign finance reform" bill he co-sponsored a number of years ago is horrible, and clearly violates the First Amendment. I think it is fair to argue that it has helped lead to increased corruption and less transparency. Not good things. He's also been on the wrong side of some 2nd Amendment issues, in my opinion, and not always the friend to the military that one might expect.

Change. It seems that so many people have believed the endless stream of anti-George Bush diatribes, half-truths and lies for the past 8 years that they believe wholesale change is required in our nation. Really? Regardless of the outcome of the election, George Bush is gone. What is so fundamentally wrong with our nation and society that we need wholesale, un-defined "change"? Is it the still-low unemployment? Is it the best medical care available in the world? Is it the opportunity for nearly anyone to go to college? Is it the tax code, that while horribly complex, has proven to bring in more taxes to our government when it is lowered than when it is raised? Perhaps it is the standard of living that is the envy of most of the world?

George Bush gets slammed with many of the temporary ills of our nations, yet most if not all were the result of congressional action, inaction or political-maneuvering.

Patriot Act? Congress voted to approve and re-authorize.
War in Iraq? Congress approved, and has repeatedly funded (and during Clinton's administration, approved a resolution for "regime change" in Iraq, and many of Bush's detractors were on record stating definitively that Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.)
"Domestic Spying" and Guantamo Bay? Both approved and funded by the congress.
Mortgage Meltdown? President Bush warned us a year ago, and the Democratic-controlled congress accused him of "fear mongering". Not only that, some Republicans (including Senator McCain) tried to tighten regulations on the industry, but were blocked by Democrats, most notably Rep. Barney Frank, who was romantically entwined with the Freddie Mac chairman at the time.
Government spending? Sure, the president has been a disappointment in this area, but it is still the congress that approves budgets, the President only proposes them.

Since 2006, both houses of Congress have been controlled by the Democratic party. Most of the ills (real and perceived) in our nation should be laid squarely at their feet. Yet, it is the combination of an under-educated populace when it comes to our civic structures, and their being ill-informed by the mainstream media, that combines to lay the blame on George W. Bush and by extension his political party. I guess it is the perfect storm!

On the other hand, I believe that McCain's selection of Governor Palin for running mate was inspired. She brings actual "chief executive" experience to the ticket (something Senator Joe-I've-been-in-the-Senate-since-I-was-29-Biden, like his running-mate Obama, doesn't have). She is an "outsider" to Washington, and while perhaps short on foreign policy experience, is long on common sense, conservative values and credibility. As an aside, I've watched with amusement all the liberal NOW types falling all over themselves that a woman would be on the conservative ticket, not the liberal one! For those who hold electing a woman to be President to be the #1 priority, then the Republican ticket is the one... there is a statistically much greater chance that she would have to serve out McCain's term, and thus be the first woman president.

And that reminds me. Racism (or its cousin Sexism). Hillary tried to make the point that voting against her was sexist. Obama and his surrogates have made the point that not supporting him is racist (or if he loses, it is because America is still racist)....

But my dictionary tells me that "Racism" is "the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior." In normal usage, it connotes the idea that one chooses to hire or not hire, befriend or not befriend, support or not support someone or something because of their race. Yet, for those who are choosing to vote for Obama solely because of his race... is this not also "racism"? I don't see how we have gotten away from "racism" in America. We've merely shifted the players.

Evidence of this "racism" comes in many fashions. One of the most stark is this, however: The black population of America overwhelmingly is against Abortion, and is overwhelmingly against homosexual "marriage". Yet both of these two things are enthusiastically supported by Senator Obama, and the black population overwhelmingly supports him as their champion. What, other than "Racism", in this case prejudice for a particular race, can account for that?

I read a comment today from one fellow who said "I'm worried that Obama will raise my taxes. But, I'm worried that McCain will start wars. Both have positives and negatives for me, and people like me." From my perspective, I think it is an absolute certainty that Obama will raise taxes. On the other hand, I believe that McCain will only send Americans to war if it is necessarily. Few that have worn this nation's uniform would whimsically send our servicemen into harms way, so I don't worry about that facet of his personality. I believe he is simply signaling to our friends and foes alike, that war must not be taken off the table as an option (not the first option). To preclude any option in negotiation is naive at best.

In a discussion the other day, a fellow much smarter than I, commented that when it comes to dictators, there are two flavors: those that are "benevolent dictators". They are all about the power, but unless you threaten them, they are likely to pretty much leave you alone. The other flavor is the "true believer". He isn't only concerned with power, but with anyone who disagrees with him. He will ruthlessly seek to convert or silence all those who don't agree with him, and make it very hard for any dissenting voices to be raised. There are some examples in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. My smart colleague stated that he believed Obama to be a "true believer" as well.

I started this posting by saying that I have problems with both candidates, and I've just laid out some of my concerns. I am not nearly as excited about this election as I was with Reagan, or the Bushes. That is probably why only today I mailed my Absentee Ballot.

For me, my choice came down to the lesser of two evils. Or, more precisely, it came down to voting against the candidate that I feared would do the most harm if elected to office. Senator John McCain is a flawed candidate. He has a host of negatives to his potential presidency. His running mate at least has some executive experience, but is otherwise fairly untested. Still, these negatives fail to come close to the negatives that an Obama/Biden presidency would have.

So many Americans seem to be not just supportive of an Obama Presidency, but nearly hypnotized by the Obama campaign. So many people seem to be ready to vote diametrically opposed to their own self-interest... I can only assume it is because they have been completely manipulated by the Obama campaign and a supportive media.

Any American who has honestly and dispassionately, looked at the issues, the voting records and the behind-the-spin statements of the candidates has my respect, regardless of whom they vote for. They are exercising both the right, and the responsibility inherent in the privilege of voting. Those who vote for one or the other candidate based on knee-jerk reactions, blind adherence to the endorsement of others, racism, sexism, or hatred of the outgoing administration will earn my scorn, and I would hope the scorn of all who truly care about our nation, and our future.

Be careful and thoughtful, America. Our future very much depends on getting this one right.

CP

Good for the goose... good for the gander

2008-10-28T07:49:00.001-04:00

Can you just imagine how loudly the Obama campaign and supporters would scream if what is depicted in this cartoon had actually happened?

Yet somehow there is no philosophical problem with taking other people's money and "redistributing" it.

In a capitalistic system, "wealth" is redistributed every day by the manufacturing, buying, selling, trading of goods and services. Wealth is redistributed by employers to those whom they employ. When we start redistributing wealth not based on productivity and "value added" relationships, but on who has more and less, then we are no longer in a capitalist system. We become socialist or even communist.

Karl Marx wrote about this in his manifesto. It doesn't matter if you restrict your governmental plunder to just the "very rich", or keep the jackbooted-collectors away from the "truly poor" or even "middle class". You are still moving into the realm of socialism/communism... it is then only a matter of degrees.

Taxes are a necessary evil. They are needed to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Our federal government has very limited functions as delineated (enumerated) in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We've gone very far away from those limited functions already. Redistribution of wealth to "even it out amongst our population" is not a legitimate function of our government (as far as our Constitution and Bill of Rights is concerned). It is armed robbery, using the power of coercion of the state.

Is that what we really want to perpetuate on our citizens? Is that really what is in the best interest of our nation?

Be careful, America. Be very careful.

CP

When the Lap-Dog bites...

2008-10-19T18:39:00.001-04:00

Recently, in an interview on a Florida Television station, Senator Biden was asked some very relevant questions about his, and his running mate's positions. He wasn't very happy with these questions. His response was to ban the station from further interviews with the Obama/Biden campaign.

What does this say about how the Democratic ticket truly feels about the 1st Amendment and the citizen's right to know?

Be very careful, America. We are on the brink.

Change?

2008-10-15T07:45:00.001-04:00

Change is not always good.
Wholesale change is usually bad.
Be careful of what you wish for, it just may be imposed on you!

A Hero Passes

2008-09-15T15:36:00.000-04:00

Ed "Too Tall to Fly" Freeman

A measure of heroism that is not so obvious in the Mel Gibson movie: "We Were Soldiers Once......And Young"

Imagine...

You're an 18 or 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley, November 14,1965. LZ Xray, Vietnam. Your Infantry Unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the medevac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see a Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because no medevac markings are on it.

Ed "Too Tall" Freeman is coming for you. He's not a medevac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the medevac's were ordered not to come.

He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, they load 2 or 3 of you onboard, as they drop off much needed water and ammunition.

Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the Doctors and Nurses.

And, he kept coming back...... 13 more times..... and took about 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out otherwise.

Medal of Honor Recipient Ed Freeman died Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2008 at the age of 80, in Boise, Idaho.

Greater Love hath no man than he who lays down his life for his fellows. The miracle of Ed Freeman is that he risked all for men he likely didn't even know, 13 times, and survived to tell his grandchildren about it.

What have the rest of us done for our country and fellow citizens?

Putting Lipstick on a Pig

2008-09-11T15:56:00.007-04:00

When is a comment... just a comment and not some sort of attack, slur, racist or sexist remark?

The latest news cycle was awash with the charges --- and counter charges --- that Obama's remark, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig" was some how a sexist or inappropriate remark against the GOP VP candidate, Sarah Palin.

Now, I truly believe that the Democratic party, and leftists in general are in a tizzy about the GOP having a female VP candidate. After all, aren't all true feminists supposed to follow the Democratic line (hook, line and sinker)? How can a successful woman be a GOP operative?

But, in this case, from the evidence I've seen, this comment is coincidental to Mrs. Palin's remark at the GOP convention that "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

This is much ado about nothing. It is a fairly common metaphor... denoting that you can pretty something up, but it is still that which it started as. A rose by any other name... etc.

John McCain is even on video tape using the same comment earlier in this seemingly decade-long election season.

Issues like this detract from the true purpose of our elections. We need to know the substance of what each candidate has planned. We need to ask "where's the beef", not " was that a sexist remark"?

There are rightly plenty of things both tickets can question the other on. Fair, open, honest discussion is not only allowed, it is required. Personal attacks are not, and tell us a lot about the candidates who stoop to that level. This, however... is neither. Its a coincidence at worst. Everyone needs to get over it, past it, and focus on the substance of the issues.

CP

What are they thinking?

2008-08-05T04:09:00.001-04:00

I recently saw a lady with an "Obama" T-shirt. I had a strong urge to ask her if she would hire me to be her brain surgeon.

Is this the (Left's) game plan?

2008-08-03T13:59:00.000-04:00

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - H.L. Mencken

2008-08-01T15:32:00.000-04:00

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-- George Orwell ("Animal Farm" 1945)

Political Humor

2008-06-30T05:54:00.001-04:00

Recently received a joke in my email that hit the spot:

Five surgeons are discussing the types of people they like to operate on.

The first surgeon says: 'I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

The second responds: 'Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.'

The third surgeon says: 'No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

The fourth surgeon chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.'

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: 'You're all wrong... Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There are no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine. Plus, the head and the ass are interchangeable.’

Hey, you gotta be able to laugh; or else you might have to cry.

CP

Economics 101 and responsibility

2008-06-26T05:52:00.000-04:00

The major story for the past several weeks has been the ever climbing price of gasoline in the USA.

To be sure, it is climbing to unprecedented levels in the US. But even $4.09 /gallon is cheap compared to many parts of the western world. In Italy, the locals pay Euro 1.57 per liter. That works out to something like $2.50 per liter, or $9.11 per gallon. To put this into perspective, I recently paid slightly over $32 to fill up the 5-gallon gas tank on my motorcycle!

But perhaps I digress.

Regardless of how much others pay for gas, Americans are feeling the pinch in their wallet. Those that have little in the way of discretionary income, are having to cut back in other areas to afford the gas they need to get to work, school, etc.

In Salt Lake City, a pair of "angry" kids protested, because their mother decided to cancel the Cable contract to save money for gas.

Whilst I applaud the kids for using democratic means to voice their opinion, it also shows that the mother missed a golden opportunity to teach her children basic economics, not to mention to reinforce the notion of responsible money management. She probably can't be blamed for the former, as like most Americans she is probably woefully undereducated about economics.

Gas prices have raised because of the simple principle of supply and demand. Simply put, demand has steadily increased globally while supply is constrained. Those that say that drilling in Alaska or offshore would have no effect are lying or naive. Increase supply, and cost will go down. And it will happen sooner than the ability to actually get any of that oil to market, as it will send the speculators out and cause others (OPEC, Venezuela, etc) to increase production now.

Of course, there are other parts of the equation, not the least of which is our woefully inadequate US refinery capacity, currently working at near 100% capacity. This needs to be increased with new refinery construction using the newest technologies. But the first and foremost thing that will help the prices we pay at the pump is increased output, and you only get that from more drilling.

True, you can attack the problem on the demand side, as well. And we should. Alternative sources of energy, conservation, etc... all will help on the demand side. But we must realize that demand is global, and while we may conserve and shift our sources of energy, other economies will continue to increase demand overall. So again, the best way to address this is to increase production.

Mrs. Vance missed this opportunity to teach her kids a basic truth. Rather, she was apparently happy to have them go out and "demonstrate", as if there is some power (government? big oil?) that can wave a magic wand and reduce the prices we all pay... for anything?

The other opportunity Mrs. Vance missed was in instilling in her children the notion of responsible income management. How great it would have been for Sadie and Pyper to participate in the budget discussion at the dinner table... to compare income with what they spend, and analyze just what was necessary, and what was discretionary. Then help the family to decide what to give up to save the required amount. Perhaps they would have come up with something different... eliminating the weekly pizza dinners, or reducing some other area of their lives. Maybe they would have agreed with the cable reduction, but if they were a part of the process, they would have not only better understood the situation, and had buy-in for the solution, but would have learned something very valuable as well.

There are no free rides, and in life we have to make decisions and compromises. Responsible people choose to pay for necessities first, and only then to buy those things that are nice to have, but not required.

CP

Patriotic Triplets in Cadillac, Michigan

2008-06-25T05:44:00.001-04:00

In the heart of the flat-lined economy, in Cadillac, Michigan, comes a story of unusual patriotism.

Three triplet siblings, two boys and one girl, have all joined the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370641,00.html

This wasn't some sort of publicity stunt. Apparently each came to the decision to enlist separately, and for different reasons. Still, what an awesome display of patriotism and maturity by these three young adults.

It is stories like this that buoy my soul when I fear too much for our Republic.

Semper Fi, Andrew, Sam and Elizabeth Foltz

Slim Pick'ns!

2008-06-10T06:19:00.001-04:00

The last sitting Senator to be elected President of the United States was John F. Kennedy.

When the current election season started, we had a number of Senators vying for the office, but also a few prominent current or past Governors, and a former mayor of New York City. One of the former Governors also had successfully planned and executed an Olympics... no small feat considering the construction, security and logistics involved over numerous years.

But now, we are basically down to two Senators to choose from: one Republican and one Democrats. By the time November rolls around, they will have done everything in their power (and the power of their war chests) to make people believe they have had much more actual experience than they truly have. They will still be "just" Senators.

I don't mean to belittle Senators. They are a significant part of our government, a pillar of the Legislative branch. Their name and responsibilities hearken back to the Roman Empire, and the first Senate.

But as superior a legislative body the Senate is, it is fairly easy to be all things to all people over time. Like John Kerry, it is no big trick to be able to say you were for something before you were against it. The way bills are crafted, with amendments and riders... it is nearly impossible for the common citizen to truly know what his Senators stand for and represents.

The sad fact is, many of them only truly stand for themselves and their re-election.

And let us not forget, they are not held accountable for their results. It is all too easy for our congressman to avoid responsibility when bills they voted for or even sponsored go wrong, have unintended effects or are later ruled unconstitutional.

Governors, mayors and businessmen are ultimately and immediately accountable when things go wrong (they seldom get the credit when things go right, however). Chief executives, of government or business, must be cognizant of the bottom line. They must achieve results. They have run large organizations and have the experience we should want in the highest office in the land.

Obama has only organized campaigns for his political pursuits. He hasn't had to make a profit, nor has he been responsible actually run something.

Hillary (who may end up on the Democratic ticket as the VP candidate?) likewise has only been a Senator, an occasional lawyer and investor, and a spouse. Granted, keeping Bill Clinton's many faults obscured, and his scandals controlled counts for some experience, but not like running a business or state.

McCain, led people in combat and in non-combat military positions for a 22 year career. He acted honorably and courageously while in combat and even more so while in captivity as a Prisoner of War. But, almost immediately after retiring from the Navy, he went into politics, first as a US Representative, then a Senator. Aside from the military, he also has never been accountable to be a chief executive of something, ultimately responsible.

The office of the President of the United States of America is arguably the most powerful and important position in the world. Decisions made by the President affect nearly everyone on the planet, and certainly every American... good or bad, permanently or temporarily. It is a position for a proven, seasoned veteran of executive management and leadership, not an intern. It isn't an entry-level executive position. We elect someone inexperienced at our own peril... unfortunately the field of contenders at this point in 2008 doesn't contain anyone thusly qualified.

CP

If the Republic Shall Fall...

2008-06-09T09:24:00.005-04:00

... it will not be because of patriots like this. It will be because succeeding generations were not worthy of their sacrifice.

Jack Lucas Dies At 80; Earned Medal Of Honor At 17

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into the military to serve in World War II and became the youngest marine ever to receive the Medal of Honor, died Thursday in Hattiesburg, Miss., where he made his home. He was 80.

Mr. Lucas had been hospitalized with leukemia and died after asking doctors to remove a dialysis machine, said his wife, Ruby.

Jacklyn Lucas, known as Jack, was just six days past his 17th birthday when, in February 1945, his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the medal. He used his body to shield three members of his squad from two grenades and was nearly killed when one exploded.

“A couple of grenades rolled into the trench,” Mr. Lucas said in an interview with The Associated Press shortly before he received the medal from President Harry S. Truman in October 1945. “I hollered to my pals to get out and did a Superman dive at the grenades.”

But “I wasn’t a Superman after I got hit,” he added, recalling the scream he let out “when that thing went off.”

Mr. Lucas was left with more than 250 pieces of shrapnel in his body and had 26 operations in the following months. He was discharged as a private first class.

The youngest member of the military to receive the Medal of Honor in any conflict other than the Civil War, he became a symbol of patriotism in the ensuing decades, meeting presidents and traveling the world to speak with frontline troops and fellow veterans.

Mr. Lucas, born in Plymouth , N.C. , on Feb. 14, 1928, was a 13-year-old cadet captain in a military academy when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor .

Big for his age and eager to serve, he forged his mother’s signature on an enlistment waiver that would have allowed him to join the Marines at 17 rather than the usual 18. But in fact he was by then only 14, though the military did not learn of that until censors discovered it through a letter he had written to his 15-year-old girlfriend.

“They had him driving a truck in Hawaii because his age was discovered, and they threatened to send him home,” said D. K. Drum, who wrote Mr. Lucas’s story with him in the 2006 book “Indestructible.”

Mr. Lucas eventually stowed away aboard a Navy ship headed for combat in the Pacific. He turned himself in aboard ship to avoid being listed as a deserter, and volunteered to fight.The officers aboard “did not know his age,” Ms. Drum said. “He didn’t give it up, and they didn’t ask.”

After the war, Mr. Lucas earned a business degree from High Point University in North Carolina and raised, processed and sold beef in the Washington area. In the 1960s, he rejoined the military, becoming an Army paratrooper to conquer his fear of heights, Ms. Drum said. On a training jump, both of his parachutes failed, she said, and Mr. Lucas later said his stocky build and a last-second roll as he hit the ground had saved his life.

In addition to his wife, Mr. Lucas is survived by four sons, a daughter, seven grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

What have you done for your country lately?

CP

Nothing New Under the Sun?

2008-06-08T15:35:00.003-04:00

It has been said that the "information age" has changed all the old paradigms, has rendered old truths to be invalid.

Perhaps.

But maybe it has just sped up things more.

I stumbled on an interesting blog recently that illustrates what I mean.

In the not-so-long ago days before the internet... or even Television. When Radio was a novelty, and few private homes had a phone line, we had blogging of a sort.

They just called it writting letters.

Of course, instead of instant-mass media, it was usually addressed to just one person, or perhaps a small intimate group like a family.

The media was different, but the purpose largely the same.

During WWI, a young soldier with the British 9th Battalion, York and Lancaster Regiment, sent letters to his wife and other family members from the front. In their entirety, they constitute a runnning dialog on the things that mattered most to him (and by extrapolation, one can assume most of the soldiers in the same situation).

Private Harry Lamin's grandson has established a blog, www.wwar1.blogspot.com, and is posting the individual letters on the dates they were written plus 90 years. Thus, a letter written by the Private from the trenches of France on July 1, 1917, was posted on July 1st, 2007. And so on.

90 years ago, the battles were still raging in France, it was the summer of 1918. The cannons did not fall silent until November 11th, so there are 5 more months of blog entries to look forward to... if Private Lamin survived, which his grandson is not saying. An intriguing concept for a blog, methinks.

Once we accept that freedom is not free, we owe it to those who have paid for it to understand what they went through for us. This blog provides just such an opportunity to learn. I recommend it.

CP

... Some Gave All

2008-05-26T01:01:00.000-04:00

US Military Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, France. On the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach, Normandy, contains the remains of 9,387 American military dead, most of whom were killed during the invasion of Normandy and ensuing military operations in World War II. The graves face westward, towards the United States. Strangely, nobody considered such numbers of dead to be indicative of a "quagmire" or called for the withdrawal of US forces prematurely.

BG Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. didn't have to be on the Normandy Beaches... but he knew it was the right place to be.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he give his life for his friends.” – John, 15:13

The drum rolls.

The marching boots kick up the dust of countless trails.

They marched toward the sound of the cannon.

They marched with fear gnawing at them, wondering if the next step would be the last.

Wondering if they would make it home to see their child, their wife, their mom and dad.

The fear was almost debilitating.

Yet, they marched on, the fear of letting down their buddies overcoming their personal dread.

The toll:

Spanish-American War(1903): 2,446 dead

World War I( 1917-18): 116,516 dead

World War II (1941-46): 405,399

Korean War(1950-53: 36,574

Vietnam War(1964-75): 58,209

Iranian Hostage Rescue (1979): 8

Lebanon Peacekeeping (1982-84): 265

Urgent Fury, Grenada (1983): 19

Just Cause, Panama (1989): 23

Persian Gulf War(1991-92): 383

Restore Hope, Somalia (1992-94): 43

Uphold Democracy, Haiti (1994-96): 4

Global War on Terror (2001-current): approaching 5000

In the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st, over 625, 000 American servicemen and women paid the ultimate price in combat. (Source: Congressional Research Service)

How many potential Nobel laureates were among those numbers? How many scientists that would discover medical cures; artists who would inspire and awe. How many who would discover things to make our lives better, longer or more meaningful?

It is meaningless to analyze (as some have anyway) the demographic breakout of those who died. The races, religions, genders, economic strata they came from. In death, they are equally exalted as heroes, regardless of their background. They gave their last full measure of devotion for our country and our way of life.

More importantly, how does a nation honor such heroes?

In the United States of America, we set aside the last Monday in May as Memorial Day to honor and commemorate those that paid the ultimate price for our freedom. One day in 365. It hardly seems enough.

But we are a nation of short attention spans, and shallower knowledge of history, by and large. Even that one day a year all too often becomes an excuse for a party, or the first trip to the beach, or a trip to the mall. How many of our countrymen don't even realize what the holiday is really for?

Sad. Disrespectful. Dishonorable.

But perhaps, just perhaps, through no true reasoning or fault of their own... the oblivious masses and the rest of us who show such little respect and admiration for what they sacrificed for us are the penultimate honor and tribute to their devotion.

That we can go about our lives, generally free of fear from tyranny and oppression. That we can take off from work whole weekends and weeks. That we can travel freely throughout our country, and indeed through much of the world. That we have the ability and freedom to work where we want, study at a college of our choice, spend our incomes on the material things we want... actually speaks volumes about the sacrifices made on our behalf.

These 625,000 men and women; predominately young and with their whole lives in front of them; traded their tomorrows so that we can wallow in our oblivious lives, enjoying our today's and planning for our own tomorrows. In their deaths, they displayed the pure, unadulterated love of country and their fellow countrymen that only such sacrifices reveal.

General George S. Patton, Jr. once said "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived."

Is it a shame that we don't better and more fully honor those that gave up all their tomorrows? Absolutely, it is. But maybe in some small measure, we are still honoring them by just living.

So, in living our lives, perhaps we are indeed celebrating Memorial Day every day.

Happy Memorial Day, my fellow citizens. Freedom is not free.

All Gave Some...

2008-05-25T16:36:00.006-04:00

Memorial Day weekend. 2008

Amidst all the barbeque's, parties and "big box" store sales, almost in spite of the 4-day weekend most Americans get to take, there is a holiday that is meant to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died while answered their country's call to arms.

Officially, the holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War, it was expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action. Over time, it has come to also honor all those who marched off to war, and maybe even to a larger extent, those who served in any capacity to support a war effort. To be sure, all the "Rosie the Riveters" who manned America's assembly lines when the men went off to fight can take justifiable pride in their accomplishments, this weekend more than most. Freedom's fought for and won in numerous ways.

But to be sure, the holiday is first and foremost about those who died in the defense of America and America's freedoms.

Growing up, even in the midst of the Vietnam conflict, when I thought of Memorial Day, I thought of WWII's veterans. The greatest generation. I forget how old I was, but I'm sure not too old, when I realized with some amazement that my own father was among that generation, among that cohort. The man whom I knew as a fairly nondescript salesman and manager, father, husband, golfer and bowler... braved the flak-filled skies over Europe as a tail gunner in a B-26 medium bomber.

As most of that generation, he didn't (and doesn't) talk much about the war. Even getting small tidbits out of him took years. He preferred to be known for his accomplishments after coming home: college, family, sending his only child off to college. But, I'm sure also that the war experience defined him as much as anything he did, before or since.

Official reports from the Veterans Administration, among other agencies, tell us that the WWII veterans, once so many, are leaving us at the rate of 1500 each day. WWI veterans are all but gone, perhaps one or two still alive in America. Korean and Vietnam War vets are still plentiful, but they too are creeping toward old age. Grenada, Panama, Operation Desert Storm; these veterans too answered America's call and while fairly small in number, still represent the notion that America is worth defending.

Of course, we are currently growing a new cohort of war casualties and veterans. Citizen soldiers who have marched off to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are now joining their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and older brothers in the ranks of those we should memorialize this weekend. Sadly, over 4000 have joined the heroic ghosts of Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries around the country.

Anti-war protesters naively protest against particular wars, or any war. The City of Berkley, California, and others, make it nearly impossible for military recruiters to do their all important job of gaining new recruits for our all-volunteer military. College campuses around the nation happily take federal grant dollars, even in some cases to work on military-related projects, but steadfastly refuse to allow recruiters or ROTC on the campus. The underlying belief seems to be that if America doesn't have a military, it won't get into any wars.

How naive.

To paraphrase a common quote, "these people are free to carry on their silly protests, are free to go to the Memorial Day sales, free to picnic and party with their friends and take Monday off from work, because patriots still stand ready to visit violence upon those around the world who hate us for our liberties and tolerance." And make no mistake: there is no shortage of those who viscerally hate the USA and all we stand for. The only thing that keeps the hounds at bay is the fear of our military. If we ever loose that, we loose all.

Canadian singer-song writer Terry Kelly put together a great song, and video, several years ago that really cuts to the point. See the video here. Read the back story to why he wrote it, here.

Happy Memorial Day my fellow citizens. Sleep well.

CP

The 545 that cause our problems

2008-05-23T03:09:00.007-04:00

A friend recently sent me one of his regular emails, that included the below gem. It is perported to be written by a former columnist for a Florida paper. I don't know if it was or not, but regardless, it pretty succinctly captures a key element of the problems we face.

Charley Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper (April 22, 2008). This is the simplest, most understandable and truest explanation of the woes of the nation and who caused them, as well as how to cure them. This should be sent to every person in the United States, including the '545'.

545 People By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against
deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices: 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to
provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he or she votes.

These 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.
They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of the Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the
House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.
If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545
people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. The President cannot unilaterally declare war. The President needs the approval of Congress, as well as the budget from Congress to continue a war.
If they do not receive Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
These 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Now, with the above said, I find it interesting that Congress is currently "enjoying" an extremely low favorability in terms of consistently bad polls. Everyone seems to think Congress is doing a poor job as a group. All the congressmen should be replaced. All, that is, except for each respondant's own congressman and Senators. They, it seem, are doing a pretty good job.

Tip O'Neil used to say that "all politics are local". Our current crop of employees in Washington have perfected the game of "buying" their constituents with the "earmarks" that used to be called "Pork", and thus they keep their jobs. Each of them only has to keep their own constituents happy, and they do that with tax dollars. What a racket!

Sure makes a great case for "Term Limits", doesn't it?

CP

Character and Integrity on the Campaign Trail

2008-05-22T06:09:00.004-04:00

Back in 1992, one of the (Bill) Clinton campaign's slogans was "It's the economy, Stupid".

While in 1992, the economy was important, and in 2008 it is again, the true underpinning of our presidential elections should be"Its about Character, Stupid".

Lets face it. Any US President can gather around him world-class advisers on any subject. He can reach out to any source for expert advice. There is no shortage of people grovelling at a President's door to be an aide, cabinet member or other advisor.

But, what a President can't gather around him, and can't buy, is Character and Integrity. A President provides vision and direction. The government executes. He isn't in there working on the tax code or health care... others are doing that on his behalf, within the vision he sets forth for the task.

Recent statements by both Obama and (Hillary) Clinton call both of their integrity's and characters into question. Hillary with her several lies about her "experience" as the spouse of a president. The Sniper-fire lie, etc. Obama has struggled to keep people from seeing his character flaws too. The association with an unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a 20-year association with a racist reverend, call into question his sense of right and wrong, his integrity and ultimately his character.

A friend sent me the following article that discusses Obama's short association with the truth better than I ever could... and again highlights his problems with character and integrity.

Say What, Barrack?

By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty ccomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma , Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child.

The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years a and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

That obviously smart and learned people such as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make such egregiously inaccurate statements talks to more than their inaccurate memory or knowledge. It talks to their belief that the average American is so historically illiterate that they will believe whatever they are told, and never validate it. Remember, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propagandist, liked to say that if you tell a big lie often enough, most people will believe it. Barrack and Hillary have learned this lesson well!

Nobody can steal or otherwise take your integrity away from you. Only you can give it away. What does it say about those who seek to lead us if they do so by giving away their integrity?

CP

Stealth Attack to gain Amnesty for Criminal Immigrants

2008-05-21T10:43:00.003-04:00

Last year, I kicked off this blog for a number of reasons. A big one was to discuss the criminal immigrant situaiton, and the horrible political plans to deal with it.

Back then, a majority of Americans came together and voiced their displeasure at what our politicians were intending to do: grant amnesty in one form or other to a bunch of people in our country illegally. In other words, law breakers.

Well, right now, the Senate is debating the most recent spending authorization for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of how you feel about the wars, and I unabashedly support them, I think it is just dead wrong to attach amnesty (or anything not related to spending for the war) to this bill. Our policians on both sides of the isle, are loading this bill with pork and other spending. And, apparently they are pushing ahead with the hope that most Americans won't notice or will notice too late.

This wouldn't happen if the "Read the Bills" legislation were the law of the land. This legislation would mandate that our elected officials actually read the bills, and that they would be posed on the web for 7 days so we lowly citizens could read it, too.

But, that is not now the case.

Still, we citizens can once again mobilize to tell our employees in congress that WE STILL SAY NO TO AMNESTY FOR THOSE IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Period.

I urge you to call your Senator's office now. Have all your relatives and friends do the same. Remind them you will not forget them at the ballot box if they go against the will of the people.

You can find their contact information by clicking here: US Senate.

This webpage has more detail about what is going on in Washington as I type this. I urge you to check it out.

For me, it is as simple as this: Our elected officials have sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of our land. Criminal immigrants are, by definition, illegally in our country. They broke the law to come in, and continue to break it every day they stay. There is no way our elected officials can morally or ethically reconcile that with support for amnesty. WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM TRY! Get involved. If this bill goes through with these attachments, the President should be supported in a VETO.

CP

To write a blank check

2008-05-15T06:46:00.003-04:00

A US Military veteran, regardless of length of service, period of service, and whether or not he/she ever heard a shot fired in anger, is one who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The People of the United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

--- Received recently in an email. Hat-tip to SD

That pecular American Way of selecting our leadership

2008-05-08T17:46:00.004-04:00

The political process by which we Americans whittle down the many candidates to the two individuals who will represent each of the two major parties had been on display this season for all the world to wonder at.

Living in Europe as I currently am, I am amazed at the interest that my European colleagues have taken in the candidates. They've been keenly interested, and asked me many probing questions about the process. It has forced me to pay more attention to my own country's process for determining who will be the next leader we call "Commander-in-Chief".

I had previously thought that the push for many states to move their primaries earlier in the year was a bad thing. I felt it would truncate an already too-short opportunity to really learn what the candidates are about before they are running a "national" campaign. Only in the primary season, I reasoned, were candidates accessible by the public. Thanks to our national media, what a candidate answers to a question in Iowa no longer stays in Iowa, but is transmitted around the nation and reported on (sometimes ad nauseum). But that is good, because the answer in our global economy is relevant in Hawaii and Alaska and Florida and New York, too.

Gone are the days when politicians can routinely get away with telling different audiences conflicting things because that is what they want to hear. Remember Obama's San Francisco comments about Pennsylvania religious gun owners!

Here are some suggestions on how to further improve the process with the goal of really finding the best candidates for President... not just the most electable. And, along the way, likely generating some truly revolutionary solutions to the problems of our times:

1. Get rid of the "Super Delegates" the Democrats are using. From the party that whined so loudly about the Electoral College win that put George Bush in the White House in 2000 (but, gee, Al won the popular vote, it isn't fair!) it seems awfully strange and counter to democratic principles to have folks that are unaccountable to the voters be able to make the decision. True, at this point, it looks like they will follow the general will of the voters of their respective states... but they don't have to. And who knows if the Clinton machine has something that will swing them all to Hillary's camp at the last minute? Leave it to the voters entirely!

2. The GOP should adopt a similar proportional system as the Democrats are using. "Winner takes all" shouldn't be the case for the primaries (nor, really, for the general election, in my opinion). I'm not saying to go straight with the popular vote, however. It should be based on the congressional districts. If a district is won by a candidate, that candidate gets the district's affiliated delegates. The overall winner of the state then gets two "at large" delegates as well.

3. Keep the results of each state's primary or caucus secret until the convention. This would keep each candidate fully engaged in the process through the end. Each state would be relevant, regardless of if it was the first or last state, since neither campaign would be sure of who was leading or trailing, and what the delegate count was.

4. Return to the time when the conventions were actually working sessions that hammered out compromises and the party's platform, not just coronation ceremonies for the "anointed one".

5. Return to teaching what used to be called "civics" in school, so that our voters understand what a president (or US Representative, or Senator, or Governor) can and can't do. While we are at it, teach basic economics too, so our citizens realize that the the government can't pay for every desire without taking that money from someone's pocket... and what the effect of that would be.

This primary season has been a surprise for me in a number of ways. I fear that too many of our citizens view the presidential races like a blood sport, however, instead of the very serious task of choosing our next President. My suggestions would return the serious purpose and remove some of the sport-like qualities of the contest. But in the end, it will be about winning, hopefully America winning by electing the very best candidate from the crop.

CP

Gaming American Politics

2008-05-08T17:23:00.004-04:00

With the Presidential primary season dragging into its 5th month of actual voting and caucusing, many of the pundits and commentators have increasingly called it the "never ending" campaign.

Republicans have all but nominated John McCain... waiting only for the GOP convention to make it official. But, nobody is seriously challenging him on the Republican side, and he is campaigning nationally now as the de facto Republican Candidate... enjoying a window of opportunity whilst the Democrats continue their slug-fest primaries.

Ah, the Democrats. Despite the math, Hillary continues to campaign. Obama seems to be increasingly frustrated by her refusal to bow out. Many voices in the Democratic party have been calling on her for over a month to throw in the towel... "for the good of the party".

And, they are right, if the objective is only to elect a Democrat in November.

But, I hold that the real objective is to determine who the best candidate for President is. Not just the most electable. I think all primaries, both GOP and Democrat, should go all the way to the convention. I believe that way is the only way for truly revolutionary ideas about our way forward as a nation will form and percolate to the top of the rhetoric.

What we are seeing in the Democratic drama, is the nation gleaning from each candidate who they really are, and what they really stand for. The long, long electoral season is allowing us, the consumers of politics, to pull away the curtains of polished sound bites and key messages, and see how each deals with issues that shed light on their character. The Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the unpaid bills by the Clinton Campaign, the Weatherman friends and all the missteps by Bill Clinton all are indicators... they shed light on the character of the candidates and imply elements of each's character.

Moreover, with the elongated primary season, the liberal media is finding it increasingly difficult to avoid actually looking at the candidates' records in congress and elsewhere, and compare (and contrast) it with the rhetoric they are providing. This, too, shines a very needed light on their character and what they truly believe. Heck, anybody can say anything, and a good liar will make you believe it. But to gauge if it is true, look at what someone has actually done and said over time.

Or, believe the used car salesman and drive away in a lemon.

Over the last few years, as states scrambled to move their primary and caucus dates earlier and earlier, I thought it was a bad move. I thought it would further limit the opportunity for candidates to be close and personal with the electorate. It would limit the town-hall meeting format of campaigning and reduce our elections to very long ad campaign seasons, talking heads without any dialog, questions and answers.

At least for this election cycle I was wrong. It has actually caused states and territories (Guam) to truly have a voice in the process. Many of these states were no longer relevant in primaries past... the race had already been decided by the time their turn came. I'm glad they have had a chance this year... I believe it makes the process better and more revealing.

This has been a truly interesting primary season, especially on the Democratic side. And it ain't over yet. I salute Hillary for not giving in, for continuing to slug it out. It may be a futile effort as far as her candidacy goes, but I believe it is the right thing for our republic and democracy in general.

That's how I see it.

CP

Tolerant, but not stupid!

2008-03-28T16:14:00.003-04:00

"Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! ..."Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or you tolerate a bad cold." -- South Park

Whilst I hestitate to quote an adult cartoon show for much of anything, this quote strikes me as very relevent in our society's hyper-tolerant condition.

There is a list of 9 other relevent quotes for our society at this link, along with a little discussion of exactly why each one (and this quote as well) is very relevent today.

CP

Responsible Welfare

2008-01-15T14:58:00.000-05:00

I tend to be libertarian in my views: in most things, the government should not involve itself in our lives. Other people's rights to do things end at my front door, as do my rights to do things (end at other's front door).

But, I am not 100% libertarian, and I'd like to think I'm realistic. In terms of those who are "down on their luck", I believe it is right and just that we, as a society, provide some assistance to help them get back on their feet. This was the premise of the various assistance programs that grew out of FDR's "New Deal".

But now, circa 2008, we have third and even fourth generations of people who have lived on nothing but government support. There continue to be people who have children they can't support merely to garner more support from the government (e.g. Taxpayers). The various attempts to "reform welfare" over the past 30 years have all helped, but have not "solved" the problem of welfare dependency, and those who use welfare for a livelihood, not the "help back on their feet" it was intended to be.

This is where the libertarian view of no-government-intrusion comes to a screaching stop.

I believe that if we taxpayers, through our government(s), provide assistance to someone, we have an obligation to ensure those funds are well spent. To this end, I believe those on assistance should be held to a reasonble standard of conduct and living.

Some have proposed drug testing for those on welfare. To me, this is a no-brainer and should have been instituted long ago. Funding to run the program would come from savings of those kicked off the dole because they turned up hot on the test.

I propose the following additional measures for those on any form of assistance:

1. Living conditions must meet a mimum standard, but not exceed a maximum in terms of square footage per person or luxuries.

2. Amenities should be restricted to a bare minimum. Small, maybe 19" TV (just one) and one "boom box" type stereo. They shouldn't have big-screen TVs, cable or satellite, or large stereo systems. If they can afford those things, they don't need assistance. Furnishings should be basic and limited.... if they have time to lounge around on a plush couch or such, they have time to go out and find work.

3. Automobile should be basic, reliable, but nothing special. Those drug dealers who are on welfare and drive Mercedes, need to either unload the car or get off welfare. I'd say something on the order of a 1995 Ford Taurus is about the nicest they should have. If they can afford a better car, they shouldn't be on welfare.

4. No cigarettes, no booze, no beer, no soda, no junk food, no take-out food. Food stamps and welfare should go for wholesome, healthy food. It should also go for soap, toothpaste, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and laundry detergent, but not cosmetics. Smoking, drinking alcohol and soda, and eating junk food is demonstratably bad for a person, and we shouldn't be causing harm to our fellow citizens through our assistance. Moreover, these things don't lead to them getting back on their feet, so they shouldn't be buying it while on assistance.

5. Activities, clothing, recreation, etc... all is cut to the bare minimum essential.

Bottom line, public assistance should be just that: ASSISTANCE. If you can do these other things, you don't need it. If you are on a form of assistance and want to be able to do these other things... get off assistance. It doesn't matter to me if they earn 99% of their income through legitmate work, and get 1% assistance... as long as they are receiving even a penny of taxpayer dollars through the government as assistance, they should be restricted in how they live, what they own, and the things they do.

Such a regime would also help people to learn to better manage their lives. Some on assistance are there because of bad decisions they have made. A regimented life while on assistance may help them to learn to make better decisions in the future, something that would help them for the rest of their lives!

Many will call this proposal draconian, and an intrusion into people's civil liberties. Maybe so, but when people accept government (taxpayer) assistance, that acceptance should constitute agreement to live a certain way and be monitored for compliance. If they don't like that condition, they always have the option to not accept the assistance. Just like when we join the military, we voluntarily accept a restriction on our civil liberties for the duration of our service. Why should those not serving, but enjoying taxpayer largess, be any different?

Perhaps in this way, we would finaly break the cycle of dependence on government assistance, and truly reform welfare, while maintaining the ability to truly assist those who just need a little help to get back on their feet.

CP

2008-01-07T12:13:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year, everyone.

I know my posting here has taken a hit for the past several months, and there are many reasons for it. Changing jobs, moving, and having a baby are all valid excuses, and all have occurred this year.

My New Year's resolutions are to eat more vegitables and exercise more... and do a better job at posting on this blog. Luckily, it being an election year, that shouldn't be hard for me to fulfill.

My New Year's wish is for my fellow countrymen to see through the pandering and positioning, and select two worthy candidates to battle for President, then to select the best qualified for the job. The future of our Nation and way of life, not to mention democracy and feeedom, is very much in the balance. Maybe what I'll write over the next 11 months will help in some small way to make the choice easier for my readers.

My New Year's prediction is that during 2008, common sense, real science and continuing technology will continue to punch sizeable holes into Global Warmism, and it will begin to be seen as the cult/fantasy/hoax that I believe it largely to be.

But for now, the vistas that are 2008 are spread before us, and it is a good time to take stock of what we have, and give thanks (again) for all we've been blessed with.

The picture was taken at midnight, from our house in Italy. The neighbors, and most everyone within the area seems to have enjoyed their night of fireworks. To the best of my knowledge, nobody was hurt in the process, despite proximity to many houses and people.

The more things change...

2007-11-06T17:14:00.000-05:00

'It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.

In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact.'

- Robert E. Lee, 1863

As if there were need for more reasons...

2007-10-21T19:22:00.000-04:00

Ok, I've attacked criminal immigration here numerous times. Always before, it was on an economic, criminal or socialization basis. I approached the discussion from the American perspective, and what I believe is the best for America and Americans.

Well, today I stumbled across this little gem of a report. Now, from the criminal immigrant's perspective, there is reason to fight criminal immigration.

Clearly, if the ideas I've put forth previously to make employment of criminal immigrants less attractive for American employers, and make coming to America less attractive for those criminal immigrants themselves were put into place, you wouldn't have nearly the chances for things like this to happen.

Yet another reason to get in line with stopping criminal immigration into our country.

CP

Of High Crimes and Misdemenors (or not)

2007-10-16T16:34:00.000-04:00

Is it perspective? Changing moral codes? (In)tolerance? I just don't get it. It seems like we have no perspective anymore about what is damaging to others, and what is merely unpleasant or innocently offensive.

In Scranton, PA, a lady yells some obscenities at an overflowing toilet... much like you or I might curse stubbing our toe or smacking our finger with a hammer. Ok, maybe a bit more sustained than one outburst, but still... in her own home, and at an unexpected and unwanted occurrence.

In Minneapolis, while on a "sting" operation, a Senator is observed by police doing some suggestive actions in a public toilet stall. Each action is somewhat innocent by itself, but taken together, we are told, they are indicators of signaling for homosexual conduct. Ok, personally not what I'd like to have happen to me in a men's room stall, but if it did, I believe I'd finish my business and move out smartly. No harm, no foul. The acts that are deemed "suggestive" need not be acted upon nor reciprocated, and there appears no consequence to ignoring them. Unpleasant but hardly injurious.

Then there is a sitting Senator who drives off a bridge into river, likely while drunk. He escapes from the car and walks home, rests until morning, then reports his actions and turns himself in (escorted by his high-priced family lawyer). His passenger is not as lucky, and ends up drowning despite the likelihood that had the driver helped or sought help, she likely would have survived.

What happens to these three?

The lady is charged with Disorderly Conduct, despite the fact it happened in her own home.

The bathroom Senator pleaded guilty to Disorderly Conduct, and now his Senatorial career is in jeopardy (he is seeking to withdraw his plea, and may yet succeed). His fellow party Senators are pressuring him to resign, and there is likely to be an Ethics Committee investigation of him.

The driving-into-a-river Senator pleads guilty to "leaving the scene of an accident", and not only remains in the Senate, but has remained in the Senate for nearly 30 years since the incident. No Ethics investigation was ever initiated. And, routinely, he can be counted on to lecture the other party and/or administration about "responsibility" and "ethics".

The ACLU, of course, is not silent. They say that one can't be prosecuted for swearing at a toilet or a Cop. They are amazingly silent, however, on anonymous gestures in a public toilet stall, or the appropriate behavior after driving into a body of water and leaving your companion to drown.

We all need to step back and realize that "freedom" doesn't mean freedom from being offended or upset. It means being free from real physical threats or harm. And when it comes to punishing those who offend us, we really need to differentiate between mere offense and true harm. And act accordingly.

CP

Beating the (Criminal Immigration) drums

2007-10-16T15:50:00.001-04:00

Its been awhile since I posted anything about Criminal Immigration. Frankly, I felt I was starting to sound like a broken record.

Well, here is the subject again.

Apparently, there are a couple of bills, and possible ammendments, pending or considered likely in the very near future in the Senate. Maybe even today as I type this.

The Vitter Amendment to H.R. 3093, CJS Spending Bill, would withold federal COPS funding from any jurisdiction that establishes "illegal immigrant sanctuaries". Amazing as it seems, there are cities, towns, villages and counties that actually protect these criminals. I can't imagine why the constituents allow this to happen, unless they benefit from it, but it is happening.
This despite it having been illegal to provide sanctuary since 1996! So much for respecting the "Rule of Law". There has been no stick to enforce the law, and whether it be hooligan college students or local/state legislators, without enforcement, the law means nothing.

Apparently, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has been leading the fight against this ammendment, no surprise since the land of Lincoln has become a virtual state-wide safe haven for criminal immigrants!

Cutting off federal dollars for police in those jurisdictions would cause them to change their ways if they want to keep the dollars flowing in... something pretty hard for any city to resist. Is it blackmail? Maybe of a sort, but these are our tax dollars, and they are being used despite the violation of long standing law AND our national sentiment.

And... remember, this same tactic has worked on our nation's campuses that refused ROTC and Military recruiters while sucking at the federal-grant teet for so long. Now, if they want the greenbacks from Uncle Sam, they must allow recruiters the same access they provide to corporate America on their campuses.

Fast on the heals of the Vitter Amendment, will likely be a fight for the DREAM bill. If offered as an amendment, this "poison pill" would go into the Labor Bill, and provide Amnesty for countless criminal immigrants... in direct violation of the desires of the vast majority of the US population. Your elected officials know that, but will seek to sneak such an amendment into a "must pass" piece of legislation, like the Labor Bill, and write it off toward the "greater good".

We, the people, fought and defeated the attempt to provide Amnesty to tens of millions of criminal immigrants in the spring... lets not let our "representatives" in Washington sneak it in on us now!

Here is a number to call in Washington, to talk to your Senators' staff. If you can't get through to Washington, call one of their local offices (you'll find the number in the phone book). Following the number are some suggested talking points you might want to consider, lifted from an email to me by NumbersUSA [an anti-criminal immigration organization] (www.numbersusa.com)

Call your state's two U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 (Senate Switchboard).
You can look up the specific office phone numbers for your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm sort alphabetically by state if you don't know the names of your two Senators (shame on you)

Some talking points:

TELL THE STAFFER WHO ANSWERS THE PHONE SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

I am calling about H.R. 3093, the CJS spending bill.
I am urging a YES vote on Sen. Vitter's amendment to prohibit "COPS" money to cities that support sanctuary policies. (COPS is a federal grant program to state and local law enforcement agencies to advance community policing.)

THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY AND THEN SAY 'THANK YOU.' OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO PICK ONE TO THREE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO MENTION:

Only Senators who seek to protect illegal aliens and promote illegal immigration would vote against the Vitter amendment. I am counting on Sen. xmxmxmx to vote YES.
Sanctuary policies have been against federal law since the 1996 federal immigration law required local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But many cities have refused to do so, adopting so-called "sanctuary policies." Unfortunately, the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments have refused to bring suit against these cities.
The Vitter amendment would seek to eliminate sanctuary policies in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The amendment would ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding COPS federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
It is highly unlikely that any sanctuary cities in our state will lose funding because nearly all of them will end up ending their sanctuary policies once they see they will lose federal funding by keeping them.

BONUS AMENDMENT: When you call your Senators, also ask them to support an amendment from Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.).

It would add $75 million for 287(g) program-related training, exercises, and technical assistance.Scores of cities, counties and states across the country are in line to get the 287(g) program training so they can aggressively go after illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.
But few can get the training because Congress hasn't appropriated enough money for the training.While we put a stop to sanctuary policies in cities with officials who don't respect the rule of law, the feds should be doing everything possible to help those jurisdictions who are ready to do all they can to help identify and detain the illegal aliens in their areas.

Don't let political chicanery subvert the will of the people! Remember, this government is by, for and of all of us! Call your Senators now!

Thoughts on human-kind

2007-10-16T15:00:00.000-04:00

Ok, this isn't exactly the normal type of thing I plan(ed) to post on this blog. It isn't about our Republic, our nation or our way of life. It isn't even specifically about the "western world"... whatever that is in our Global Economy Age.

Wait. Maybe it is about our way of life... or a bit about how our way of life should NOT be.

Rather, this is about humankind. It is an open, head-shaking-in-disbelief question about how we, as the human race, can aspire to lofty things like democracy, equality and peace, when horrific, intolerable practices are still... tolerated.

Ignorance is only an excuse as long as you are ignorant. Once you know something, as much as you might like to, you can't unlearn it. You can't put that Genie back in the bottle.

And so, I present to you the following link. It is very disturbing. It is gut wrenching. Even soundless (as I watched it) it is nauseating. I don't want to listen to it.

Viewer discretion advised (don't watch with a small child looking over your shoulder)
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur_farm&Player=wm&speed=_med

Background and disclaimer: I am not a tree-hugging liberal, although I am as concerned as the next person about our ecology, environment and the future of both. I believe that animals were put on this earth, in part, to serve and sustain man. I eat meat, wear leather. I tend to think that PETA is an extremist organization, sometimes dabbling in terrorist techniques, and usually over-the-top in its antics.

I don't believe everything that comes out of PETA's mouth. However... what is displayed on this video is inhuman and inhumane. It is not fitting for any culture or society to allow this to happen. Humane slaughter of cattle and other herds for our consumption and use is one thing. Hunting in the western sense is humane and even good for the herd, in that it tends to cull the weakest and makes the herd better. (Hunters are also very interested in protecting the environment, too). Even the raising of fur-bearing animals for their hides is acceptable in my book... AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE NOT MADE TO SUFFER.

There is no doubt in my mind that animals, all animals, have feelings, are self-aware to some degree, and feel real pain. They feel anguish. One only has to look at a dog that has lost its beloved master, to know they feel heartache and heartbreak no different than we humans do. They just can't vocalize it. There is NO EXCUSE for humans to purposely inflict the sort of torture and anguish on innocent creatures as is depicted in this video, period. And certainly not to avoid a little blood on the pelt.

These are some images that are now seared into my psyche. I honestly hope that they are with you, as well. If you have a little trouble sleeping tonight because of this, then perhaps it isn't too late for our species.

Concerned Human

Temporary Access Established

2007-10-02T10:26:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile, and anyone that was visiting here has probably long ago stopped visiting. Hopefully, I can earn back a few readers over the next few months.

We are still waiting to get Internet connectivity in our house, but we think we've finally figured out the problem...or Telecom Italia's problem, I should say... as it has to do with some technical difficulty compounded by bureaucratic lethargy. So, maybe soon the postings can get regular again.

This week, I'm TDY (Temporary Duty) to an Eastern European country, formerly well behind the Iron Curtain, but now a proud member of NATO and EU. Walking around this capital city yesterday and today, has been fun... seeing the old communist era buildings in a state of decay, but seeing the people rebuilding and improving and embracing western ideas.

One would expect the internet connectivity here to be less than even in Italy, but no! I have great wireless here in my room. So, for this week at least, I can hope to post some thoughts, and get back into the discussion this site is dedicated to.

Until I get some thoughts together, and as the brouhaha about Rush Limbaugh's comments or alleged comments brews in our country and the halls of Congress (amazing how the left was silent about Moveon.org's attack on GEN Petraeus)... I leave you with this link. I've seen it before, and suspect you have too. But it is never a bad idea to go back and view it occasionally.

http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm

Hat tip to L2 for reminding us about this video, and the value of good company.

CP

Patience, please

2007-08-20T12:07:00.000-04:00

Folks,

Still no internet at the house, and just too busy at work, normally, to post anything.

However, the August holidays for the Italians are almost over, so we have hope that we may soon have internet. And, our unpacking at the casa is almost complete... so hopefully, I'll have a little more time to delve into sharing my thoughts with you. I've got a lot of thoughts brewing, too... from global warming to media ethics (wait, those two are related, aren't they?) to the nature of people wanting stuff done. Good material, I think. Hope you will think so too.

Just be patient a bit longer, and I'll be "back up on the net" soon.

Thanks,

CP

Urlaub... of a sort

2007-07-28T06:12:00.000-04:00

Hello all,

Just a quick note to let my loyal reader(s) know that I've not given up on expressing my views on those things that confront our Republic. (Nor have I given up hope that some readers will likewise contribute to the dialog).

My family and I are in the final stages of an overseas PCS move. For those with military experience, you will recognize that term as one that entails picking up and moving the family, household and life via a bureaucracy that only the US Military (or perhaps the Italian government) could conjure up.

We've crossed the pond, and after nearly a month in a hotel, have finally moved into our rental house. The national telephone company has a month to connect our phone, and only then will we know for sure if we can get broadband Internet in our house. No earthly idea when it will be connected, if we can have it at all.

This is a long way of saying that my ability to post to this blog is drastically curtailed. But fear not, I am accumulating notes, thoughts and future postings, so when we get good connectivity, the flood-gates will open and there will be more to read than you will want to look at.

Until then, please consider this like an Italian summer: everyone is on extended vacations, and nothing of importance gets done.

Ciao!

To represent

2007-07-15T14:34:00.000-04:00

It occurs to me that we ask a lot of our representatives in congress. Sure, we give them lots of perks, and we lavish staffs and other trappings of power and near-nobility upon them. I’m not feeling sorry for them.

All the same, I can see where it is a bit of a minefield for some. And when we, their constituents, don’t pay much attention, I can see where they can run afoul of their constitutional purpose.

rep·re·sent
(r p r -z nt )
tr.v. rep·re·sent·ed, rep·re·sent·ing, rep·re·sents 6. a. To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for. b. To act as a spokesperson for.

In the strictest sense, our “representatives” should subjugate their own beliefs to those of their constituents, and always vote the way the majority of their constituents want. Effectively, they would become proxies through whom their constituents speak and act.

But, on the other hand, we elect people who (purport) to have the most similar viewpoint as we do… so that in our stead, they will likely vote the way we would.

There are times that a congressman will “vote his/her conscience”. But is this their place if the majority of their constituents desire them to vote a different way? (Similarly, if a Senator is elected as from one party, and then changes to the other party in mid-term, isn’t this something of a fraud on the voting public?)

Often, I have stated that our elected representatives should show some leadership, and lead their constituents to understand why something the majority doesn’t want really is good and necessary (or conversely, why something the majority does want isn’t the best idea, and something else is the proper direction or selection).

But, we don’t elect our Senators and Representatives to be leaders, we elect them to represent us in Washington, whilst we go on about our lives.

This, it seems to me, to be one of the gaps and seams that occurs, through which our “representatives” end up not really representing us at all, but representing narrow slices of “us”. This is also the gaps through which they fall prey to self-aggrandizement (Sen. Byrd), self-enrichment (Rep. Jackson) and gross unaccountability (pork, earmarks, Sen. Kennedy).

As with most things, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. More eyes on our representatives in Washington (and in State houses, and town halls, etc.) the less corruption and graft we will endure. (One reason the “McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act” is so odious and counterproductive… but that is grist for another time). More people actively involved in what their officials are doing. More people engaged, vocal and knowledgeable. But, this runs counter to the very human reasons we send people in our stead to these representative bodies in the first place, doesn’t it?

American Heroes

2007-07-12T14:24:00.000-04:00

It has often been said that the generation of Americans that came of age, and conquered, the Great Depression and World War II, were the "Greatest Generation". Given the shear magnitude of both situations, and that they prevailed, I've always found it hard to argue with calling them "greatest".

What I wonder, and worry about, is the question of whether the current generation, or one in the future, when so called, would rise to the occassion as well?

When we first kicked off Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, many pundits proclaimed that this generation had risen to the challenge. No doubt, our servicemen and women in harms way have done just that. But has the generation as a whole?

My mother went to work in an armament factory to support the (WWII) war effort. Many other women, and mothers, went into war factories, became the iconic "Rosie the Rivetter". Those catagory "4-F" who could not serve, went to work in jobs vacated by healthier citizen soldiers. People grew victory gardens, collected scrap metal and went without for the war years. By comparison, today "the Army and Marines are at war... the rest of the country is at the mall". Can today's and future generations, pampered and accustomed to safety, fractured by partisan ideology and weakened by a massive criminal immigrant population that isn't assimilated into our society... ever hope to rise to the occassion?

It is what keeps me awake at night.

Here is an example of the shoes that future generation will have to fill [ Hat tip: to L2 (another Great American) for sending this obituary my way]:

AN AMERICAN HERO
Eugene Fluckey, iconic admiral credited with daring sub
raids

By Matt Schudel, Washington Post, July 2, 2007

WASHINGTON --
Rear Admiral Eugene Fluckey, one of the greatest naval heroes of World War
II who was awarded the Medal of Honor and four Navy Crosses for his daring
submarine attacks on Japanese shipping, died Thursday at Anne Arundel
Medical Center in Maryland. He was 93 and had Alzheimer's disease.

Admiral Fluckey, a native of Washington, was a pioneer of submarine warfare and among the most highly decorated veterans from any branch of the military.

In 1944 and 1945, as commander of the USS Barb, he became a Navy legend for his nighttime raids that sank dozens of enemy ships along the east coast of China. His bold forays were complicated by continual barrages from Japanese airplanes and boats and by shallow waters that often forced him to bring his submarine to the
surface.

On Jan. 25, 1945, Admiral Fluckey embarked on what Navy officials, seldom given to hyperbole, called "virtually a suicide mission -- a naval epic." In "an exceptional feat of brilliant deduction and bold tracking," in the words of his Medal of Honor citation, Admiral Fluckey found more than 30 Japanese vessels in a concealed harbor protected by mines and rocky shoals. Evading a cordon of armed escort boats, the Barb slipped into the harbor on a moonless, cloudy night and scored eight direct
torpedo hits on six large ships. One of them was an ammunition vessel, which
exploded and caused "inestimable damage by the resultant flying shells," according to the Medal of Honor citation.

As Admiral Fluckey watched from the bridge, the Washington Post reported in 1945, "Japanese ships were erupting in the night like a nest of volcanoes."

The Barb fled at high speed "through uncharted rocky waters thick with
fishing junks," pursued by two Japanese gunboats. Because of the shallow water,
the submarine had to stay on the surface, dodging obstacles and steady fire for
a full hour before reaching the safe depths of the open sea.

"The significance of that mission," said retired Navy Captain Max Duncan, who was
the chief gunnery and torpedo officer of the Barb, "was that we completely
disrupted the entire shipping system the Japanese had developed at that
point in the war."

On other occasions, Admiral Fluckey maneuvered his submarine so close to shore that he could bombard coastal installations with torpedoes and guns. On its final patrol in 1945, the Barb became the first US submarine equipped with ballistic missiles.

On one mission, Admiral Fluckey selected eight commandos from his crew to paddle ashore in rubber boats and place a 55-pound bomb under railroad ties on the northern Japanese island then called Karafuto. As the men were rowing back to the Barb in darkness, the pressure-sensitive charge blew up a 16-car troop train. It was the only time in World War II that US forces set foot on the soil of the Japanese home islands.

Admiral Fluckey and his 80-man crew were credited with sinking 29 ships, including an aircraft carrier, destroyer, and cruiser. He destroyed more gross tonnage than any other submarine commander. For his wartime exploits, he became known as "Lucky Fluckey" and the "Galloping Ghost of the China Coast."

"He was extraordinary," retired Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, executive
officer of the Barb, said in a telephone interview. "He immediately gained the
full confidence of his officers and crew. He made a point of walking through the
submarine several times a day. He knew everybody on board and knew a lot
about them."

Admiral Fluckey sometimes violated Navy regulations by stashing cases of beer in the officers' shower. Whenever the Barb sank a ship, everyone on board was entitled to a cold beer.
In addition to the Medal of Honor and Navy Crosses (second only to the Medal of Honor), Admiral Fluckey received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and a host of lesser decorations. His greatest achievement, he often said, was that no one under his command ever received another well-known medal: the Purple Heart.
"He was absolutely confident and absolutely fearless, but fearless with good judgment," McNitt said. "He brought his ship and his people home."

Eugene Bennett Fluckey was born Oct. 5, 1913. He graduated
from the US Naval Academy in 1935. He was nearsighted and knew he would have
to leave the academy if he failed an eye exam. After studying optics, he
designed a pair of glasses for himself and, with exercises, restored his
vision to 20-20.

He joined the submarine corps in 1938 and served in the Pacific before taking command of the Barb. After the war, he became the personal aide to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the chief of naval operations.

Later in his career, Admiral Fluckey served as director of naval intelligence and commanded amphibious units and the Navy's Pacific submarine force. He headed the electrical engineering department at the Naval Academy and led a fund-raising campaign for the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

In 1992, he wrote a dramatic account of his experiences as a submarine commander, "Thunder Below!" It won the Samuel Eliot Morison prize for naval history.

His wife, Marjorie, died in 1979 after 42 years of marriage.

Admiral Fluckey leaves his wife, Margaret, of Annapolis, Md.; a daughter from his first marriage, Barbara Bove of Annapolis and Summerfield, Fla.; four grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.

In recent years, Admiral Fluckey and his wife helped run an orphanage in Portugal. He also would treat the aging veterans of the Barb to cruises in Alaska and on the Mississippi River.

"He was imaginative, very decisive, and very quick, with a great sense of fun," said McNitt.

.

Am I Satan?

2007-07-10T11:35:00.000-04:00

Am I Satan? I’m sure there were times my parents wondered that very thing as I was growing up in the 60’s and 70s. Perhaps my darling spouse has also wondered this very thing….

But I digress.

Recently, I received an interesting email from a long-time correspondent, taking umbrage with my post of June 26th, titled “Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.". Here is what he said (I’ve made no corrections for spelling or grammar):

If I was pres, I would surmise we have two choices. Pass this bill or
invade and take over central america. because of the war in Iraq, we dont
have the resources to take over central america. The poor who live there
will continue to send their sons here to send money back there so they
can buy clean water and not drink out of the mud puddles, pay for a roof
tht doesn't leak, pay for medicinne when their children get sick,
etc.

I am a Christian. Your position is no different from
Islam. Islam says, Kill them". You say, 'Just let them die".
Both views of Satan.

Delete me from your list, you SATAN.

So, being a thoughtful American, I have to wonder: Is my erstwhile correspondent on to something?

After honest reflection, I have to conclude he is not.

There are many bad places in the world. Places where people live poorly. Places where people barely eek out a living, or are perpetually hungry. Places where people are repressed and can only dream of a portion of the freedoms we Americans take for granted.

We Americans help these people where we can. Our government spends huge sums of our tax dollars on direct aid, and works in many ways with other governments to help them help themselves. Our people individually donate vast treasures via church and civic organizations, targeting everything from famine and water supplies to democracy, rain forests and adoption. Occasionally, we even send our sons and daughters into harm’s way to help change a regime and give the people an opportunity for self-determination.

The responder has nobly spent much time in south and central America on medical-humanitarian endeavors, and has singularly sought to help one particular individual from Nicaragua, going so far as to donate one of his own kidneys, and spend undoubtedly vast sums of his own money. I recognize his sincere and righteous heart, and applaud his concern for his fellow man.

But, as sad and bad as these many places are, and how seemingly futile our governmental, charitable and direct assistance may seem…it is NOT a reason to accept unbridled, criminal immigration into our borders.

National policy must be made on the macro level, with macro concerns. While there are certainly individuals in Guatemala with leaky roofs and the need for medicine, who send their children to America to work in honest jobs to send money home… policy can’t be made for these people. Policy must be made for the vast invasion of criminal immigrants who are in our country undocumented, working (if they are working) at jobs that drive our wages down and not paying taxes; behaving in ways dangerous to our citizens (and themselves); sapping our resources by use of government assistance to which they contribute little if anything; not assimilating as true citizens of our country; and sending vast quantities of monies out of our economy back “home” for many reasons other than leaky roofs and medicine.

Our society, through our police and judicial systems, confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those engaged in illegal activities. Drug dealers loose their cars, boats, homes and cash, even before they are convicted in court of the crimes they are accused. Thieves loose their booty and belongings. Even white-collar criminals must pay steep fines (look at Scooter Libby as an example). Never is it an excuse that they needed to commit their crimes to feed their family, pay for medicine or provide a roof.

Why do we continue to allow the 12-20 million criminals in our midst, who are continuing in criminal activity daily, to not only keep the results of their criminal activities, but even send $20 billion or more annually out of our country and our economy?

We need to remember, we must be concerned with America and Americans first. As national policy, those that are in our country illegally, for the purpose of helping others outside our country are a problem that must be solved.

All religions teach that one must take care of one’s own family and people first, before going out and helping others. Logic tells us that in terms of international relations, much the same must be true. Our honest, heartfelt concern for others cannot be justification to allow all that we hold dear to crumble around our feet.

The responder also believes we have only two solutions. I disagree. We have the solution of closing off the ability for criminals to enter our country illegally, and work to remove those criminally already within our borders. (I addressed this in a post Saturday, June 23, 2007, “How to Easily Remove the Criminal Immigrants from the USA”) Then, we continue to work with the governments of these places to address their own problems internally, while opening LEGAL immigration channels to these people within reasonable limits. Even with legal immigration, we need to make sure such immigration benefits American interests first and foremost.

Does this view make me a Satan? No. I think not. What do you think?

Fairness? A practice, not a doctrine

2007-07-04T04:26:00.000-04:00

There was a time, not too long ago, when the FCC had a little rule called “The Fairness Doctrine”. Basically, what this rule did, was cause the broadcasting entities to devote roughly equal time to opposing views. If it aired 30 minutes of “conservative” content, it needed to air 30 minutes of “liberal” content.

Fairness, sounds very American and even-handed, right?

Well, sometime back in the Reagan era, this rule went away. Good news for “conservative” talk-radio, bad news for “liberal” talk-radio.

You see, when left unfettered, “conservative” talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others do well, because they get market share. “Liberal” talk radio, like “Air America” don’t do so well, despite massive infusion of donation from dedicated liberals. It seems in the marketplace of ideas, liberal ideas just don’t sell, while “conservative” ideas do. It is classic free-market economy and capitalism in practice.

Now, many on the left of American politics think the rise of “conservative” talk-radio helped cause the republican take-over of congress in 1994. Perhaps, they are right. Undoubtedly, by comparing and contrasting the two philosophies to a large audience, the American people voted what made sense to them… and brought in a more conservative legislature, and ultimately executive body.

This, of course, alarms the left-leaning portion of the leadership, and now that they are once again in the majority in both houses of congress, they would like to remove this perceived advantage for the conservatives. They want to go back to a version of the “Fairness Doctrine”, a move that would effectively remove “conservative” programming, because no business could survive devoting equal time to a message that doesn’t sell. Just look at the demise of “Air America”. So, as the thinking goes, the conservative voice would be quieted, and only liberal messages, as transmitted via the “liberal media” would be heard. No counterpoint, and no serious ideological debate means liberal views would prevail.

Conservative programming on America’s airwaves, internet, and cable programming is a product, just like cars, TVs and food. Do you want the government telling you that you must buy equally from two vendors? Do you want the government dictating that such a product be removed from the shelf of ideas, because not enough people buy the competition? If not, tell the Congressmen you employ (those that work for you) that you do not want a return to the days of limited viewpoints in our media. Tell them no return to the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Postscript: As with most things, the folks that advocate a return to the “Fairness Doctrine” totally ignore when they get beneficial airplay. John Gibson from Fox News highlights one such occasion in this commentary on the subject.

"Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me."

2007-06-26T06:07:00.000-04:00

Full disclosure: Below posting is a cut and paste from an email I received yesterday from HumanEvents.com. Quotations attributed to Sen. Kennedy and former Attorney General Edwin Meese, have not been checked for accuracy.

"Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me."

That old Scottish proverb describes exactly what Ted Kennedy and his RINO minions are trying to do.

Of course they're saying: "This is a new bill, not an amnesty bill, but a national security bill. And guess what! We've thrown in an extra $4.5 billion to beef up security along the border.

But before you swallow that line... remember that we've been down that road many times before.

According to columnist William Federer in an article titled Trust Teddy Kennedy, again?, Kennedy, when he was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, made the following -- all too familiar statements YEARS AGO:

"I want to comment on ... what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same..."

"Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area...

"Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates or those with contagious disease... As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge...

"The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage..."

And what happened?

Twenty years later, in 1986, over 3 million people came to the United States illegally, and our elected leaders tried to "solve" the problem again.

When he signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill into law, President Ronald Reagan called it what it was... "AMNESTY" but he signed it because he believed that the enforcement provisions of that bill would solve our problems once and for all.

Over 20 years later, we are still waiting for the enforcement provisions of Simpson-Mazzoli to be implemented!

Former Attorney General Ed Meese said:

"The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem... there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today.s large population of illegal aliens."

But now, in 2007, we're supposed to believe that this so-called "comprehensive immigration bill" will solve our problems... that our government will have the "political will" to enforce the security provisions -- which are frankly not worth the paper on which they are printed.

Don't believe it.

That's why we must not allow this amnesty bill to pass the Senate.

That's why the American people are being totally reasonable when they ask our elected officials to BUILD THE FENCE FIRST and pass an ENFORCEMENT ONLY bill before the topic of amnesty is ever addressed again.

Patriotism 101

2007-06-24T03:13:00.001-04:00

Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
---Adlai E. Stevenson

How to Easily Remove the Criminal Immigrants from the USA

2007-06-23T15:08:00.001-04:00

Like most things, I think we try to make matters more complicated than they actually are. Also, we tend to forget the power of capitalism to fix most things that government has messed up, if just given the free-hand to do so.

Take the criminal immigration issue for example. Most pundits will tell you it would be impossible to deport the 12-20 million criminal immigrants already in our country (so we ought to just find a way to accept them... so the story goes).

Hogwash! Capitalism would easily take care of this situation if allowed a free hand. Here's how:

1. Make it illegal to transfer money out of the country by any means unless you are legally in the country (citizen, resident alien, etc.... this would shut down the $20 billion annually that is funneled back to Mexico alone.)

2. Make the cost of employing criminal immigrants higher than the benefit: (heavy fines and jail time for employers caught with criminal immigrants on their payroll... with the real enforcement to back it up)

3. Ensure that criminal immigrants who end up in our criminal justice system (regardless of guilt or innocence for the offense that brings them there) get deported immediately to the country they transited immediately before coming into the USA. Maybe Mexico will tighten up things on their side of the border if they start getting all the people who come through their piece of territory dumped back in their laps, not just Mexican nationals.)

4. Remove all public funding for any assistance or "welfare" of criminal immigrants except to avoid death or grievous bodily injury. No school, no food stamps, no medical coverage. They didn't earn it by coming here legally, or by being born here, so why give it to them?

5. Remove any bilingual programs and support systems throughout the bureaucracy. They are going home, no use for these things since they can't take advantage of the programs for American Citizens anyway.

That should about do it. Once the financial incentives for citizens of other countries to illegally come to the USA dries up, they won't come... and many if not most already here will go home. We won't even have to pay transportation costs, except for those we deport because they popped up in our criminal justice system.

Remember, this is OUR country. We don't have to share it with anyone if we don't want to... and certainly don't have to share it with people who don't even respect our laws enough to come here legally. I feel absolutely no remorse about advocating that criminals in our country because they entered illegally, should not be allowed to remain just because it is difficult to remove them.

I think I've just shown how they will remove themselves, if given the right incentives.

That's my position. I'm a Concerned Patriot.

Action Alert: Immigration Amnesty Fiasco

2007-06-23T14:53:00.000-04:00

I'm cutting and pasting from an email I got today, because I think it pretty well sums up the situation with respect to the upcoming vote for the alive again Immigration Amnesty Bill. Why this thing has President Bush's support and strong backing is beyond me. From where I sit, support of this bill amounts to a breach of any legislator or the president's oath to uphold the constitution.

Here is the paste:

We need 41 Senators to vote NO on cloture next Tuesday or to not show up
for the vote.
Sen. Johnson (D-S.D.) is still seriously ill and expected to be a
no-show.
We believe we have solid commitments from 32 other Senators that they
will vote NO on cloture that would allow the Kennedy/Bush amnesty (S. 1639) to
come to the Senate floor for debate.
That would give us 33 of the 41 we need.

Congratulations to all of you who have elected Senators solidly in our camp
or who have persuaded Senators to move to the anti-amnesty side -- those
Senators in this list:
32 DEFINITE 'NO' ON AMNESTY CLOTURE Many of you will find ways to express tremendous appreciation and to help solidify them so that no offer from the White House or party leadership can turn them at the last moment.
Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Allard (R-Colo.)
Baucus (D-Mont.)
Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Bunning (R-Ky.)
Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Coburn (R-Okla.)
Corker (R-Tenn.)
Cornyn (R-Texas)
Crapo (R-Idaho)
DeMint (R-S.C.)
Dole (R-N.C.)
Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Grassley (R-Iowa)
Hutchison (R-Texas)
Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Isakson (R-Ga.)
Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Pryor (D-Ark.)
Roberts (R-Kan.)
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sessions (R-Ala.)
Shelby (R-Ala.)
Smith (R-Ore.)
Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Sununu (R-N.H.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Thune (R-S.D.)
Vitter (R-La.)

12 SENATORS LEANING NO ON FINAL PASSAGE BUT PROBABLY LEANING YES ON CLOTURE
(when it counts) Please do everything you can to get to these Senators and help
them understand what is at stake and where the citizens of your state stand.
Bond (R-Mo.)
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Burr (R-N.C.)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Conrad (D-N.D.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)
Levin (D-Mich.)
Gregg (R-N.H.)
Nelson (D-Neb.)
Hatch (R-Utah)
Webb (D-Va.)

ALL OTHER SENATORS APPEAR TO BE PLANNING TO VOTE TO HELP PASS A BILL THAT WOULD BE:
largest amnesty for illegal aliens in history
largest increase in foreign labor in history
largest expansion of social welfare programs in history (to handle the 35-40
million -- mostly low-educated, low-skilled -- foreigners who would get Green
Cards over the next 20 years alone

All those Senators need your constant phoning, as well. A few could still
be brought to the side of American workers, students and communities and vote NO
on the amnesty. And the rest need to be shown full wrath to help the others
decide to stay on the side of the voters.
Source: NumbersUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com

Make it a point to email and call your Senator's office first thing on Monday. Even better, grab a few of your friends and go visit his or her local office and make your point in person. These Senators need to understand that to vote for cloture is the real measure of whether they support this monstrosity of an amnesty bill or not.

Shelf Life of Politicians

2007-06-21T23:00:00.000-04:00

Our founding fathers envisioned service in the weak central government they created, to be a burden that citizens took on for a limited time, then returned to their homes and farms, to live within the laws they created.

These founders never would have thought we would create a veritable “political class” of people, who once elected, stay within the halls of power. Career politicians, they would have questioned, “who would ever want to do that?”

But that is what we have today.

I suppose there are some good reasons to have longevity in the House or Senate. Certain things come with seniority, and over time, the processes have gotten so complex, one needs some experience there before one can get anything done.

Term limits have a certain appeal, but then the seniority system would be out of wack. Perhaps that is good, level the playing field, and the processes will have to be simplified. Eliminate the entrenched representatives, and perhaps you eliminate the entrenched self-interest?

But what of those folks who go from one elected office to another, climbing a latter, without ever having to go back and live “in the real world”?

I for one would be more than a little irked if some Representative I “hired” by voting for, spent half his term running for election to another office, such as the Senate or President.

It just seems like he or she should be doing the job we sent him/her to Washington to do, not our campaigning for his/her next job. My tax dollars are still paying him as if he was putting in a full day on the job he was elected for. Reelection campaigns are nearly as onerous, but at least it is to keep his current job. I can’t see much of a way around that, except for term limits.

So, my proposal is sort of a hybrid on term limits.

No elected official can run for any office other than the one he/she is currently in while in office.

The effect of this would be that Representatives who wanted to be Senators, would have to sit out at least one term in order to run for the Senate seat they want. More than likely, they’d have to get a job and live in the real world. At the very least, they would not have the advantage of incumbency-proxy; not be able to use their taxpayer-funded staffs for anything election oriented (not supposed to now, but the fence in between the two functions has holes in it). And we’d create more turnover, and allow more fresh blood into the two chambers.

Want to run for President, Mr./Mrs. Senator? You can get right on that after you finish your time in the Senate. Do the job the people of your state sent you to do, then we can talk about a promotion. While running for President, John Kerry was reportedly only present for one Senate vote in all of 2004. Why would anyone hire somebody with such an absentee record?

So, that is my proposal. Anyone have any alternative ideas? Or, see some obvious flaws with my thinking? Please, let me know.

Concerned Patriot

Membership Committee

2007-06-21T08:03:00.000-04:00

Lets say you are the Membership Chairman for a group you belong to. It is your job to recommend to the membership at large whom to offer membership to. Let us also assume that this group is formed to further or promote the advancement of the members of the group, and is not a charity.

So, what sort of people do you look for to extend membership (with its inherent responsibilities and privileges) to?

Do you seek people who are honest and law-abiding, or do you seek those who have a demonstrated history of breaking the law, cheating and being dishonest?

Do you seek those who by their skills, education and experience will enrich the organization, or do you seek those who, by lack of skills, education and experience will become the lower-tier of the membership and drag the aggregate abilities of the organization down?

Do you seek those that will immediately assimilate and be a value-added part of the organization, or do you seek those that will take years to fully assimilate, if ever, and may never be value-added to the organization?

Do you seek those that will contribute to and enrich the organization by their labor, or do you seek those that will be net receivers and siphon off resources to send to other organizations that are in competition with our organization?

Do you seek those who will sponsor other highly-qualified members or do you seek those who will become an unobstructed conduit for others, largely unqualified and based solely on heredity, to join?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

In all the discussion about the criminal immigrants and what to do with them, we tend to forget that our Nation is not a charity for the whole world. WE should be seeking those new “members” that will add to our national capabilities, intellect and dialog. We should be seeking those that further our goals, and who become part of us, not some virtually partitioned subset.

The USA is the greatest humanitarian nation in the world. We have always targeted some regions and peoples for immigration to help alleviate suffering. But the numbers of humanitarian entries, while in the hundreds of thousands annually, are such that it won’t negatively effect the whole. And these are LEGAL immigrants.

The 12-20 million criminal (illegal) immigrants already within our borders are largely not value added. They are a drain on every facet of our system. They may well be taking bottom-tier jobs that nominally contribute to the economy, but the net result is a drain to the taxpayer and the national economy.

Ross Perot’s “big sucking sound” goes through the hands of these criminals to their relatives south of the border.

And yes they certainly ARE criminals! They broke our laws in crossing the borders illegally. They have further broken our laws by staying. More than likely, they have broken our laws by creating and/or possessing forged documents in order to work. Often, they break other laws such as traffic, driving privileges, insurance and residence. They most certainly are criminals, and must be thought of that way.

When deciding the criminal immigration issue in particular, and formulating a more rational immigration policy in general, we really ought to ensure that the vast majority of the people we allow to join us will be value-added, enrich us as a nation, assimilate and become Americans, not a cloistered sub-community of America.

That’s my thought, what’s yours?

Civil Liberty Football

2007-06-20T10:34:00.000-04:00

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an
increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why
privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of
operation, to scientific advancement and the like."
--Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

So many liberals were and continue to be up in arms about supposed infringement on “civil liberties” because of the Patriot Act that was pushed through after the terrorist sneak attack of 11 September 2001.

The administration was severely pummeled and pilloried because of this. George W. Bush is routinely likened to Hitler, and it has been said so often that it almost appears to be a given in much of America’s psyche that he has taken the country on a turn toward fascism.

Around the world, “journalists” and pundits with agendas have picked up on this notion, and continued to perpetuate the myth.

I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that the Patriot Act put our civil liberties at risk, and I don’t buy that the administration seeks totalitarian rule or anything close to it.

Purported threats to Civil Liberties, like everything else in Washington, is just another political football. It is a false notion that resonates amongst the “sheeple”, and is useful to beat the opponent down with.

Take Sen. Chuck Schumer’s latest cause:

Senator Chuck Schumer wants to amend the immigration bill to require you to get a new Social Security card with biometric information imbedded in it. Creating this new card would . . .
Cost $9 billion (before the usual government cost over-runs)
Require the Social Security administration to hire an additional 60,000 employees
Require you to spend time getting the new card
Require you to give the central government sensitive personal information
In the past only criminals had to supply the state with things like fingerprints, DNA, or retinal scans. Now, if Schumer gets his way, law abiding citizens will have to do it too, just for the privilege of earning a living.

Meanwhile . . .The people this card is supposed to control will continue to live
underground, work on the black market without papers, or forge documents. The
real control will be over you, not them.

-- Source: www.downsizedc.org

Now, if that isn’t a direct and unwarranted threat to our civil liberties, I don’t know what is. Indeed, a “dagger through the heart of our traditional freedom*”. But it isn’t the “evil” administration of George W. Bush proposing it, but a darling of the left, a complete liberal, the senior senator from New York. Bet we won’t hear much liberal bloviating about this amendment!

When you play political football these days, right and wrong don’t matter. It all has to do with who has the louder cheering section.

* Hat tip: WSJ’s Best of the Web and James Taranto

Five Lessons in Illegal Immigration

2007-06-19T14:12:00.000-04:00

1. Four of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were stopped for traffic violations by local law enforcers prior to their actions. All four were in the United states illegally, but a lack of shared information between local and federal officials allowed them to escape jail and commit mass murder.

2. Mexico’s No.1 source of foreign capital, some $24 billions a year, is money sent home from its citizens living in the United States --- many illegally. That surpasses the country’s oil and tourism revenue.

3. The U.S. taxpayer cost of the estimated 5 millions illegal immigrants with U.S. borders who are high-school dropouts is approximately $500 billions over the course of their lifetimes.

4. The average wage for a meat packer was between $15 and $20 per hour prior to the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. Today it’s less than $10 per hour.

5. U.S. Border Patrol officers apprehended 3,722 people in 2005 who originated from either terrorist states or countries where al Qaeda is active.

Source: American Legion illegal immigration forum conducted in early March in Washington. Published in May 2007 American Legion magazine.

Package Deals

2007-06-19T02:59:00.000-04:00

As consumers, we tend to like “package deals”. You know, the notion that by packaging several items together, we get them at a lesser price than if we bought them separately. Value meals work on this principle. So do option packages on automobiles.

Of course, sometimes, the seller is packaging things that consumers don’t want… they are slow sellers… with items we do want. In this case, we don’t have the option of buying them separately, and must purchase the item(s) we really didn’t want, to get those that we do want. Ultimately, a lot of those unwanted items end up in the back of drawers, in boxes in the garage, at flea markets or in the local landfill.

The way congress seems to work is similar. They “package” different legislation together to get them passed. I'm sure they would tell us it is for "efficiency". The problem is, the various pieces of legislation don’t have anything to do with each other. Often, it is like buying a “package deal” that includes a Big Mac, a left swim fin, 2-metric wrenches, a tire and a 220v hair-dryer.

And, best of all (for congressmen) it gives them “political cover”. Maybe their constituents (the few who are paying attention) will get upset about the wrenches and the hair dryer. But Mr. John Q. Congressman can look them in the eye and say, “ma’am, I agree. I didn’t like that part either. But I felt the other things were too important to vote against, so I voted for the whole package.”

It is a lot easier on them since they are “buying” with our tax money, not out of their own pockets.

This is how a lot of the pork gets bought, how a lot of our money gets thrown away. This is the sort of business that makes it very hard to hold your Representatives and Senators accountable for their votes.

I think to return to a position of accountability, not to mention some thrift in the spending, we need to limit our congressmen to legislation that is one subject at a time.

You want a bridge in Arkansas? No problem, put it on its own bill, keep it “pure” and vote it up or down.

Want to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Great… just don’t add funding for fish museums in Idaho.

One subject, one bill, one piece of legislation. It really isn’t too hard.

Maybe, just maybe, such a process would both slow down the spending of our tax dollars, as well as ensure that at election time, we really know what our representatives stood for, and stood against. And, we couldn’t so easily be lied to anymore… which is of course why our congressmen would only go along with it if they felt they had no choice.

That’s my thought, what do you think?

Concerned Patriot.

Open Letter to Harry Reid

2007-06-18T10:15:00.000-04:00

Full Disclosure: I checked with the purported author of this letter. He acknowledged ownership: "Yes, this was my letter. I mailed it to Sen. Reid on Friday, because his web-site won't accept comments from zip codes outside of Nevada. Please pass along." And so I am...

OPEN LETTER TO HARRY REID

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Senator Reid,

You are truly a shallow and petty human being.

You have accused two honorable men of incompetence in order to pander to your voting constituents.

I am not aware of any information available that would substantiate your claim to your supporters that Gen. Pace and Gen. Petraeus are “incompetent”. Instead, their records demonstrate that they are well qualified to lead our military. Unfortunately, military regulations prohibit them from publicly criticizing you. However, I am not going to stand by while you slander these honorable men.

These two men have dedicated their lives to service to their country. They have spent their adult lives in uniform defending this great nation. They are not pay-for-play politicians like yourself. Nor are they armchair generals like yourself.

They have actually served on the front lines, and Gen. Petraeus is there now.

They have had to make the one call that is hardest for any commander, to commit troops to war to dutifully execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief to the best of their abilities. They have dealt with losses over many years, both in combat and training, war and peace, and they know the cost of those decisions for the troops and their families. They also know the price of indecision and bloviating for which your Senate (you are the majority leader, so it falls on your head for their performance) is famous.

They do not have the luxury of sitting back and throwing stones, but never offering an alternative (like you and your anti-soldier crowd do every day).

You sit in the luxury of your taxpayer-provided office and throw criticisms out about honorable men, just to pander to your supporters. You declared that the war is lost which provided a great morale boost for our head-cutting enemies.

I have yet to hear from you or any of the Democrats how we might do things differently to win this campaign in Iraq in the on-going War on Terror. The only thing I see daily is your attempts to politicize every action taken in support of victory.

I contend that you have failed in your Constitutional duty as a legislator.

Did you at any point during their confirmation hearings express any concern over their competence? Can you show me where you stood and opposed the appointment of these two honorable men? If they are incompetent, why did the Senate overwhelmingly confirm them to the positions they currently hold?

Did General Petraeus suddenly become incompetent since you voted to confirm him in January of this year? Or did you just say what your political supporters wanted to hear?

Your moment of silence for our troops yesterday was great political theater, but your comments about the capabilities of the Commanders demonstrate your true feelings toward our warriors. I noticed you didn’t take responsibility for any of the losses that have been caused by your defeatist remarks.

You have disparaged two honorable men who have served their country honorably with devotion and passion and by association all those who serve beside them. You owe both General Pace and General Petraeus a public apology.

You owe a public apology to every man and woman who is serving and who has served in this current conflict. And you owe an apology to the American people for allowing your political ambitions and disagreement with the President to cloud your judgment and denigrate the reputations of true patriots.

And yes, I do question your patriotism.

Joseph S. Downs, Lt Col (Ret) USAF Herndon VA
Steve Downs(703) 793-3311
stevedowns@cox.net

Criminal Immigration Amnesty 101: Cheap Tomatoes

2007-06-18T09:18:00.000-04:00

Full Disclosure: I received this via email. I cannot verify that the author is actually a school teacher, or from California. I only know that the arguments posited herein seem plausible. I pass it on “for what it is worth” in the ongoing national discussion about (criminal) immigration. Hat tip: L2 for the email.

This should cause everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent

From a California school teacher - - -"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels. Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things so the teachers were in tears .

Free medical, free education, free food, day care, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they, LIKE their gardener and housekeeper, and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?

There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends. We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have done it the right and legal way.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correct" that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about? Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage Consumers don't want expensive produce Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. there is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
- He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
- He qualifies for food stamps.
- He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
- His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
- He requires bilingual teachers and books.
- He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at taxpayer's expense .

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash cleanup.

But, we get cheap tomatoes.

Thoughts from Papa...

2007-06-16T23:01:00.001-04:00

Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.
-- Ernest Hemingway

Why the 2nd Amendment?

2007-06-16T22:42:00.000-04:00

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army,composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."
----- Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution. Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

My understanding, based on what I was taught as a child and on research since then, is the above sentiment was the norm in the time of the founding of our republic... and precisely the reason why the 2nd Amendment was adopted in the Bill of Rights.

As for me, I am very, very concerned about any elected official, and any government, that would seek to disarm its citizens. It may be a bumper sticker, but it is also 100% correct: "Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects."

Concerned Patriot

Timing is everything

2007-06-16T09:35:00.000-04:00

It was one of those strange convergences of time and space that sometimes happen in life.

On Thursday, I noticed whilst screening the headlines on Foxnews.com, that the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, had made disparaging comments about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, USMC. Specifically, he called the general "incompetent", and noted that others, such as Sen. Carl Levin, democrats all, had made similar observations.

That evening, I had the pleasure of attending a "conversation with the chairman" at the Joint Forces Staff College. Here, General Pace had a discussion with about 500 students and guests, and answered questions in a very forthright and honest way.

The final question posed to him that evening, by a member of the local (Norfolk) radio media, asked about his feelings on not being renominated for another 2 years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His answer showed to all in attendance that while he was undoubtedly personally disappointed, his loyalties are to the institution of the US military, and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that selflessly serve our nation in peace and war.

General Pace has served in the United States Marine Corps for 40 years. His leadership positions have spanned every level from a platoon leader in combat in the jungles of Vietnam, to his current post at the pinnacle of the military hierarchy. Simply put, you don't get to that level, or that longevity, by being "incompetent" as Sen. Reid suggests. All Sen. Reid has to do to get to his position is hoodwink his constituents once every 6 years. General Pace has had to live a life of devoted service, avoiding the real and professional minefields along the way. And, he had to be ratified by the Senate 3 times in the past 6 years... I bet Sen. Reid voted for him each of those times.

But, rather than engage in a personal jousting match with Sen. Reid and others, Gen. Pace advised his boss, the Secretary of Defense, that he would fight the good fight if that was what the SECDEF desired, but that the SECDEF needed to do what was best for the institution of the US Defense Department. Additionally, he would not retire in lieu of the fight, but would retire once the announcement that he would not be renominated.... he couldn't let the soldiers in the field think that he was quitting the fight voluntarily, or as he said "I have to be told that my service is no longer required"

Our military has long held the position that we are apolitical. Our civilian masters rightly demand that we avoid political partisanship, and when we are asked our professional military opinion, we give it without regard to the politics involved. This is as it should be.

Should not Sen. Reid, et al, also avoid politicizing the military leadership, dragging distinguished, experienced professionals like Generals Pace and Petraeus into the current mudslinging against the administration that the democrats have seemingly substituted for substance?

Sen. Reid currently holds an abysmally low approval rating via several polls. Perhaps his constituents in Nevada will not return him to the senate the next time he comes up for election... hopefully the good citizens of that state will realize that personal attacks on the military who serve them are not only wrong, but unwarranted and unseemly .

Concerned Patriot.

Winning.... and losing

2007-06-13T04:57:00.000-04:00

"If you can accept losing, you can't win."

--- Vince Lombardi (American Football Coach, national symbol of single-minded determination to win 1913-1970)

A Tale of Three Trials

2007-06-08T13:34:00.000-04:00

Three communities across our nation. Three totally different "crimes". Three different legal actions. One common travesty.

--“Scooter” Libby’s perjury and obstruction conviction.

-- The Duke Lacrosse Player’s rape case, ultimately completely dismissed.

-- Paris Hilton’s release from jail after 3 days on a 23 (or 45) day sentence.

America’s Justice System (or Legal System, if you prefer) used to be one that other nations looked up to, and downtrodden peoples tried to get their country to emulate. It used to be based on impartiality, a system that was “blind” to all things but the law. In short, our nation was one where we jealously adhered to the “Rule of Law”, something we still try to implement around the world in places like Iraq, but apparently something we’ve forsaken here at home.

While the former assistant to the Vice President, Mr. Libby, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, one can argue that the case should never have been pursued in the first place. One can argue forcefully, that were it not for politics, he never would have been indicted and tried. There was no crime, something the “Special Prosecutor” new before he ever interrogated Scooter Libby. Nearly all witnesses contradicted other witnesses, and even themselves over the course of the Grand Jury appearances, interrogations and the actual trial. It boils down to a he-said-she-said case. And again, there was no original criminal act for him to obstruct or perjure about in the first case. Injustice was furthered in the way the sentencing was conducted, resulting in an unreasonable prison sentence for a man who arguably sacrificed much to faithfully serve his country in the first place.

Westward, in North Carolina, over the past year or so, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of three privileged college students being hauled in front of the populace, ridiculed and “tried in the media”. They were expelled from school, (2 of them, the 3rd graduated just prior to the indictment) and the lacrosse coach forced to resign. Almost from the beginning, there were huge questions about the veracity of the claims by the alleged victim. Eventually, the DA, Mr. Nifong, was forced to drop some of the charges, then hand the case over to the State Attorney General. It came to light that Mr. Nifong suppressed exculpatory evidence, and ultimately the State Attorney General not only dismissed all charges, but did so in a manner that clearly indicated that the three young men were innocent (not merely that he couldn’t bring enough evidence to convict). Mr. Nifong now faces possible disbarment; it appears his motivation was political pandering to the black population of his jurisdiction. The three young men are exonerated, but their reputations have been forever tarnished, they and their families have expended considerable amounts of money on their defense, and the populace is jaded towards the criminal justice system.

Going further west still, we land in Hollywood. There, a rich, morally deficient heiress to a vast fortune has run afoul of the law. Busted for DUI, then caught driving with a suspended license and warned, then caught again, she was finally sentenced to 45 days in jail. For some reason, she and her family thought 45 days was too harsh, and ultimately fought it down to 23 days. She “bravely” accepts her fate, and marches off to jail, all the while calling it an “ordeal” and “a hard time” in her blog. After three days of (reportedly) sleeplessness and crying in a “special needs” section of the jail, she is suddenly released, to “home arrest” for the next 40 days, with a monitoring anklet. Her home, by the way, is 2,700 sq ft and $2 million… much nicer one supposes than her cell had been. As I write this, she is due back in court, and it appears that the judge who sentenced her may require her to be re-incarcerated for the remaining 20 days of her sentence.

What does all this mean?

Frankly, I don’t know. But I know it all smells badly.

When a dedicated public servant, one who has served honorably at personal sacrifice, is put on trial more for political reasons than for any true criminal behavior, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine that is concerned about “Civil Liberties”. Isn’t that what banana republics do to the citizens they don’t like or that they fear… put them in jail after a show trial? The liberals scream about some alleged assault on our “Civil Liberties” in a time of war, yet fully embrace a brazen example of the same thing when it fits their desires. They are hypocrites.

When three kids can be used by a power-hungry local prosecutor to further his political ambitions, even in the face of pretty obvious problems in the case from the very beginning, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. One doesn’t have to be in the political mosh pit of Washington to fall prey to political hit jobs. One only has to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and be the wrong color or ethnicity… and look out. These kids had the good fortune of having parents with the means to put up the fight. What if they had been at some state university, and not had that ability? How many people behind bars today are in reality “political prisoners” in our own land?

When an über-rich, famous person can flaunt the simplest laws by which we live, and get out of paying the very modest consequences, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. As much as it pains me to say it, Al Sharpton is right about his characterization of the Paris Hilton debacle. Many of us have had months longer than 23 days in conditions much less agreeable than jail (can a deployment into a war zone comes to mind) and not whined about it. When someone can whimper through a couple of nights and blow snot-bubbles and blubber when people come to check on them… and it all causes them to get sprung after 3 days, there is a big problem in our system. Medical problem? No biggie… the jail has an infirmary or arrangement with a local hospital. Get fixed up then get back behind the bars.

“All too often the intersection of politics, law and the media results in a lack of responsibility by practitioners in all three areas…

“For the preamble to our Constitution, our founders stated explicitly the purposes for our Constitution. Listed even before providing for domestic tranquility or for the common defense was the establishment of justice. (Fred Thompson)”

"Equal under the law" "Blind Justice" Fairness, justice and freedom. Are these concepts of the past?

Three separate issues, three separate cases, three separate jurisdictions. One inescapable conclusion: When we subvert our judicial system to the desires of political expediency, fame and fortune, not only do the hapless defendants suffer. We all suffer a loss of an underpinning of our society, the Rule of Law. We need only wonder what "brick" will be next to fall away from the foundation our nation rests upon.

Concerned Patriot (/Rant Off)

Discrimination!

2007-06-05T12:18:00.000-04:00

Recent reports are that Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "Peace Mom" is cutting and running from her crusade.

Former activist Cindy Sheehan is selling her Crawford, Texas, property, and Move America Forward, a group that supports the troops, wants to buy, the Associated Press reports:

But Sheehan doesn't want to sell to just anyone.

"It'll be a cold day in hell before she sells it to them," her sister, Dede Miller, told The Associated Press. "She'll sell it to them for $5 million."

Funny how liberals are. If I was listing my house for sale, and a particular type of person (race, ethnicity, gender... take your pick) wanted it but I didn't want to sell to them, I'd be sued for discrimination.

But a liberal nut-job doesn't want to sell her property to a conservative outfit, and I'm sure she will get away with it. Nobody will sue, and nobody will lift a finger.

I guess it is human nature, but wouldn't it be nice if the behavior mandated for the rest of us by the liberal elites actually applied to them as well?

Concerned Patriot

Our elected officials....

2007-06-05T10:51:00.000-04:00

An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other. He says to the waiter "Want coffee."
The waiter says, "Sure, Chief. Coming right up."

He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee.
The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere and then just walks out.

The next morning the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other. He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter "Want coffee." The waiter says "Whoa, Tonto! We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday.
What was all that about, anyway?"

The Indian smiles and proudly says "Training for position in United States Congress. Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day. “

A funny joke, sent to me by a good friend (who sends many such jokes). But, isn't it true? Our wonderful elected officials, always in a rush to pander to voters and garner more support for the next election, rush to "fix" things with legislation. Often these "fixes" cause more problems than they solve, and seemingly are rarely repealed or replaced.

Our founding fathers envisioned a slow, cumbersome legislature that was populated by reluctant servants... citizens... who served briefly and then returned to live within the very laws they placed upon their fellow citizens.

Over time, we have created a near-royalty class of elected officials. They go to Washington and rarely come "home" again. They stay in the halls of power for decades, and lavish staffs and all manner of perks upon themselves, all the while trying to obfuscate from their employers (us) just what it is they do, and how they spend our money.

And, where are they when it is time to clean up the mess they made?

I understand that to really get things done in Congress, seniority is key. But, maybe we don't need much to get done. Maybe, just maybe, term limits would not have a significant effect on those things we really need done, but would very much solve some of the graft, corruption and malfeasance we do need delivered from.

Just a thought. What are yours?

Concerned Patriot

Addendum

2007-05-09T13:50:00.000-04:00

I should stress as well: while from time to time this blog may contain general observations and commentary about (military) operations, at no time will there be first-person and/or time-sensitive reporting on operational missions.

Not only would this be counter to everything I've spent my life doing, possibly harm fellow soldiers and mission accomplishment and be a potential violation of Operations Security (OPSEC), but in all honesty, it would not be germaine to the purpose of this blog.

If you are seeking such type of information or reporting, you have URL'd over to the wrong blog.

C.P.

Getting Started

2007-05-09T13:27:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

For a number of years, I've carried on a lively correspondence with a number of people, the subject of which is generally political. I have some very strong emotions about the course our country is going, the state of the body politic, and societal~cultural issues that may, or may not, spell doom for our country and our way of life.

This blog, I hope, will be a better way to capture these messages and thoughts, than my previous emails. I hope in time it will become a place for others to share their thoughts, comment and debate.

I am sworn to defend our constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take that responsibility very seriously, as I have for most of my adult life. There are very real threats to our way of life, and not all of them have to do with the current legislative and/or executive branches; terrorists; or the real and perceived threats to our civil liberties. While I tend to be conservative, this is not a conservative blog... it is about identifying and discussing all sides of issues that threaten (real or perceived) our nation, constitution and way of life.

I welcome you into this blog, and hope you will enjoy the ride.

Sincerely,

Concerned Patriot
Norfolk, VA
9 May 2007