Immigration Misinformation

Even the President, who if it were anybody else would be above the fray, is right in there with the irresponsible left-wing gangs who are baldly and openly lying about the immigration bill in Arizona.

My own analysis is that the Arizona law does nothing more than permit police to check immigration status on people they encounter in routine traffic stops and investigation of criminal complaints. There's really nothing dramatic about the bill, and the characterization from the President and his media machine are incendiary and shameful.

If reported polls are any indication, it seems a very large majority of people get that point. Which probably is the source of the shouted misinformation by those who follow the old Stalinist theme - repeat a lie often enough, and eventually people will accept it as the truth.

Everybody who isn't misled would have to hold only one of two positions:

• You think everyone in the country illegally should be allowed to stay, unless they're guilty of some heinous crime, or
• You think illegal means illegal, and anybody in the country without permission is breaking the law and should simply go home.

As I've maintained always on this issue, my siding with position #2 has nothing to do with race or country of origin. Either we are a nation of laws that puts protection of its citizens above all else, or we're no nation at all. I don't care if the person here illegally came from Mexico, Africa, Asia, or Scandanavia.

Ideological Isolation

An angry letter to the editor in the local newspaper was written in response to an article published a couple of days ago by Jonah Goldberg, who pointed out the desperation of the Left in attempting to marginalize the Tea Party movement with racism allegations.

This letter writer angrily proclaimed that the Tea Party is indeed a collection of racists and greedy rich white people who don't like the idea that poor and minorities might finally have access to healthcare.

Never mind the lack of evidence of their racism, he says; Their hatred of the President and opposition to healthcare legislation and the rest of the President's social agenda are proof positive of a deep-seated racism.

It seems this guy represents the most important reason for today's political polarization. I'm guessing he doesn't know any Tea Party activists, or he would know their agenda has nothing to do with race.

Another possibility is that he may know one or two of these folks as passing acquaintences, but has never engaged them in political conversation. Not that it would make any difference to him anyway. I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that he would tell you, "I don't know anybody who is against healthcare reform!".

That's because he won't willingly step outside of his comfort zone of like-minded friends to find out what somebody on the other side really thinks.

As a conservative-minded person, I know first-hand the futility of trying to discuss today's issues with a Democrat. For a Democrat, everything is about feeling. They believe they're the compassionate ones, and feel they are courageous in strongly supporting redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, those I've met don't think that includes redistribution of their own wealth; they of course are not wealthy. It's that evil class they call "the rich" that need to start paying "their fair share".

Any attempt in engaging them in practical or factual discussions about economic realities in a socialist society, consititutional governance, personal responsibility, or really anything that might refute their emotion-based worldview falls on deaf ears.

Lacking a reasonable argument, Liberal folks will respond with sophomoric comebacks like,

"The richest country in the world should be able to help everyone have healthcare"

"The rich have had a free ride for too long. It's time for them to step up and help"

or, my favorite:

"You've just been listening to Rush Limbaugh"

When I was young, I believed myself to be a sort of nominal Democrat. My first couple of voting cycles I tried to vote for who I thought was the best candidate, regardless of party.

Then came Jimmy Carter, who ushered in the worst economy in my lifetime, at least before this current one. I voted for Ronald Reagan, and became politically aware for the first time. And my own life got better relatively quickly, as I saw a government that actually seemed able to solve problems.

The hostages returned from Iran, the Cold War ended, and prosperity returned to the country.

Now we have this generation's Jimmy Carter in the White House. And a whole new generation has to suffer the pain he's inflicting until, hopefully, Ronald Reagan's party finds the new generation's version of the Gipper to turn things around.

I don't see him out there right now, but have faith one will emerge over the next couple of years.

Arizona Immigration

The law that has Obama and the Left in a tizzy was passed by the State of Arizona this week. To hear the press tell the story, you would think it authorizes a sort of police gestapo to shake down everybody who isn't white and arrest them on the slimmest of suspicion that they just might not have the appropriate documentation.

As is my normal practice, I made the attempt to get behind the media smokescreen and determine what the actual law says. And my conclusion is that it's quite reasonable, and certainly unrecognizable from its characterizations by the leftist establishment and their communications networks.

Crime rates in Arizona are reportedly off the charts, driven largely by their hundreds of thousands of uninvited guests. The Obama administration, which is responsible for border and immigration law enforcement, refuses to take even the most basic steps to help the state solve this problem. So Arizona decided to take steps to try solving the problem themselves.

Going back to the Bush administration and Clinton before him, illegal immigration border enforcement has been a duty abdicated by the Federal government for far too long. And for all the wrong reasons.

Clinton and Obama look at illegal immigrants and see potential votes for themselves and their party. The Bush family see low-wage employees for businesses. If compassion for the poverty-stricken uneducated masses from south of the border who simply desire a better life for themselves and their families was behind their woeful disregard for sealing the border, it seems to me that their approach itself belies that.

Because the decades-old system of telling the world in public, "No, you cannot live in work in the US without filling out the paperwork", then turning to the side and whispering, "But if you can get in somehow without getting caught, we'll look the other way" is doing no service to these millions who answered the whispered promise.

Because an illegal can't, and should not, receive the protections of the US and state government that set the minimum wage, require unemployment compensation, provide welfare assistance, and many other such things.

In the meantime, when times are hard, and 10 percent of Americans can't find a job, where's the compassion in continuing to look the other way while businesses continue to hire illegals under the table at a fraction of market wages? Should a country have compassion first for their own citizens who are hurting, or for people from other countries who managed to sneak across the border?

I support Arizona's new law, and would support the idea of extending it to every state in the union. If the Federal Government refuses to enforce the law, then the citizens themselves must organize themselves to do so. For everyone's safety and welfare.

It's been posted before, but here's the recap of my proposed immigration policy:
1. Seal the borders, north and south. Use physical barriers and electronic detection as appropriate to guarantee nobody can sneak across.
2. Advertise the notice nationwide - anyone in the country illegally has 6 months to acquire the necessary permits or return to their home country. Realizing that the government will be swamped with applications for things ranging from work permits to education visas to citizenship, and those applications will likely take more than 6 months to process, those who in the initial review of their application are deemed likely to qualify can receive a deferral of an additional 6 months.
3. No person illegally in the US who has committed a felony may qualify for any legal residence.
4. Those who return to their country of origin voluntarily may apply for re-admission to the country and be considered if they meet these basic criteria: Proven English literacy, sponsorship by a US-based employer that promises to employ the person on re-entry or proof of adequate means of support.
5. After the 6 month grace period ends, any person discovered through routine law enforcement means, such as traffic stops, sobriety checkpoints, police complaints, etc., who cannot produce evidence of legal residence in the US will be summarily arrested and deported within 48 hours.

That's fairness that applies to all citizens, Mr. President.

Earth and Venus

The old popular book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, wasn't something I ever read, but supposedly it highlighted the fact that men and women have brains that are just wired differently. It was a way of explaining why the two genders have so much difficulty understanding each other, I suppose.

There's something very similar going on in political thought, and I actually think a large part of it ties into the Mars & Venus theory, because women typically lean left and men right.

But in politics, I'm going to suggest that Conservatives are from Earth, while Liberals are from Venus.

For example, the polar opposite attitudes between earthlings and venusians on the Healthcare bill.

Venusians think the bill is terrific, because it purports to stop insurance companies from dropping coverage when their policyholders get sick. It forces them to accept new policyholders regardless of their health status. It picks up the tab for everybody who can't afford it.

Earthlings would actually agree that it would be good if everybody could afford to buy health insurance, and insurance companies should not be allowed to drop people if they get sick. But inhabitants of this world also understand there is no free lunch. Using the brains their God (whose existence is denied by Venusians) gave them, they have deduced that none of these benefits can take place without somebody footing the bill.

Unfortunately, its the Earthlings that are most likely to scratch out a living by the sweat of their own brows. And when the government shows up to promise health insurance for all, the only way they can deliver on that promise is to pay for that insurance. Earthlings know that the only way government gets the money to pay for their activities is by taking it away from them.

So government isn't simply solving a problem with access and affordability to health insurance. Instead it's using the new laws to accomplish something much more sinister: Confiscation of the fruits of Earthlings labor to hand them over to Venusians, while of course skimming off a healthy commission for themselves.

Some interesting but strange Venusian attitudes I've noticed recently also include the following:

Venutians are upset that people smoke and are too fat. So they want government to stop people from smoking and dictate what they can and cannot eat.

The strange contradiction in these attitudes is the exceptions they build in for themselves. Venutians make Earthlings' heads spin when they want to use the force of government to make people stop smoking and eat vegetables, but at the same time demand that the same goverment look the other way from their own abuse of marijuana and other "recreational" drugs.

Venutians love animals. They support laws against any development, especially if it's energy exploration, that might in any way interfere with animal habitats. Whether there's actual harm involved to any animal doesn't really matter to them. Their favorite animals, such as whales and polar bears, must be "saved" at all cost.

Venutians also object strenuously to capital punishment. They believe it's horribly inhuman to execute the most evil serial murderers.

But then they again make Earthlings' heads whiplash when the subject of abortion arises. The animal-loving, criminal-compassionate Venusians suddenly turn bloodthirsty when it comes to the execution of infants. As long as the execution takes place before that infant emerges fully from its mother's womb.

Venutians also hold contradictory attitudes about government corruption. Interestingly, when Earthling politicians were in charge, Venutians railed incessantly about Earthling corruption, even though much of that corruption existed only in their imagination.

Now that Venutians have grasped power for themselves, breathtaking corruption among their own political class is ignored. Apparently all the bribery and extortion used to pass their favored healthcare legislation is just fine with Venutians, as long as the legislation passed. Apparently sweetheart deals between their political class and the bankers and financiers that led to the current economic catastrophe gives them no pause, as long as it resulted in their ascention to power.

Venutians seem to be on a mission to eradicate all Earthlings. And so far, it seems the Earthlings are losing without putting up much of a fight.

Pro Sports Extortion

Only a couple of years ago, we heard the news reports that Robert Irsay was using the threat of moving the Colts out of Indy to someplace like Los Angeles, unless the city and state stepped up to help build him a new stadium. They did.

Now we hear rumblings that Herb Simon may be threatening to relocate the Pacers. This time not because he's demanding a new stadium, because the Pacers already have one of the best new basketball arenas in the country. No, because his agreement to cover operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse is losing him money.

The Colts example wasn't that the team was losing money, but that the owner felt it wasn't making enough. The Pacers have indeed been losing piles of money, and the owner is simply looking for relief.

Either way, it's a dirty business in play around the country. The NBA and NFL and Major League Baseball are kings of their respective professional sports. There is no viable competition, and major cities feel they must keep those franchises to maintain their image, attract tourists, and attract new businesses.

It all leads to a skewed balance of power. In what other private business can the owner go to the city or state politicians and demand they build his new plant or office building, and those politicians feel they must oblige?

Sure, tax incentives are offered to large companies all the time to entice them to locate in a city and state. Infrastructure improvement projects specifically undertaken to sweeten the deal are also fairly common. But footing the bill for building and maintaining the facilities for a private concern? Only in professional sports.

My solution to the problem, as I've stated before, is a nationwide law that prohibits any government entity - Federal, State, or Local - from passing any law that favors one company or citizen over another. This would bring the bidding process for pro sports teams to a dead stop.

Owners of sports teams should face the same challenges faced by every business owner. If you provide a quality product, you're assured of making money. If not, you'll have to close or sell.

Certainly the Pacers can make money. In the 90's they were one of the best teams in the league, and attracted plenty of fans and national attention. Until the fight in Detroit, which singlehandedly destroyed the franchise. It has yet to recover.

The NBA overall has decided to be a league that focuses on its superstars. If your team is lucky enough to sign a Kobe or Lebron, the NBA style is designed to feature them. Rather than a team game, the NBA prefers to clear the floor, give the ball to their superstar, and let him go one-on-one with his defender.

In Indiana we know our basketball. And the NBA version doesn't look much like the game we know and love. The Pacers are forced to go with a bunch of no-names, with a second-tier rising star in Danny Granger their go-to-guy. Not enough to be competitive.

If Simon wants to return to profitability, the simple answer is that he needs to put a better team on the floor. Unfortunately, players like Kobe and LeBron are extremely rare, and when a promising young star does become available, he's more likely to get picked up by a big-market team like the Lakers or Celtics.

If the NBA wanted to attract basketball fans who love the actual game, they should make one simple change.

Extend the shot clock from 24 to 45 seconds.

The reason is very simple. 24 seconds is barely enough time to bring the ball up the court, pass it to your superstar, and have him create a shot. For a basketball purist like me, that's a vile apostacy.

If you want to open up the game, make it more exciting, and achieve parity, it will be immediately accomplished with that one simple rule change. Because a 45 second shot clock, like the one used in college, permits teams to play a team game instead of one-on-one. All of a sudden, the game rewards those teams who are disciplined, unselfish, and employ the best strategic game plans. The court is leveled for the savvy coaches and players able to embrace a patient team concept to offset the advantages of the superstar-plus-4 teams.

Suddenly a team like the Pacers, with a group of no-name journeymen, can become competitive with the talent-rich teams, by employing a great coach and signing players that fit a winning system.

Imagine if the NBA playoffs looked a bit more like the NCAA tournament, where good coaching and cohesive team play often defeats superior talent.

That I would watch.

Hopeful or Hopeless?

It's tempting, after seeing Tea Party tax day events drawing thousands in cities around the country, to be hopeful that there's a chance the citizens will elect representatives this Fall who will turn back the clock on the alarming rush to the top-down socialism so favored by those now in power.

But simply electing enough conservative representatives, while still far from a certainty, is also not necessarily a guarantee that they'll do the right thing. Because the right thing is going to be very hard, and will probably turn many of the same people against their chosen representatives.

A troubling valid criticism of the Left against the Tea Party movement isn't the ridiculous and insulting charges of racism and redneck ignorance. Rather, it's the charge that many Tea Party protesters will turn their signs around and protest the opposite point of view if they actually get people in office who enact their wishes.

Because it is certain that for the government to balance their budget, they're going to have to reduce or eliminate a substantial portion of government discretionary spending. It won't take long before the folks find out this includes some of their own government benefits.

The unpopular and certainly corrupt spending that so exercises the Tea Party from TARP and the Auto Company bailouts can be cancelled and the money pulled back, and most will cheer. Except perhaps for the Auto Workers who lose their jobs when General Motors falls apart without continued cash from Uncle Sugar.

Big news this tax day is the fact that nearly half of Americans didn't pay any income tax. Most of those folks not only paid no tax; they actually received cash from the government. Euphemistically called 'Tax Credits', in reality they're cash kickbacks from a President and Congress that hope to buy those votes from the grateful recipients.

Hopefully Tea Party folks realize that the first government goodies to get cut have to be these handouts. No more homebuyer credits, 'cash for clunkers', earned income credits for the middle class, or all of the other varied programs designed to pay off people demographically most likely to vote for Democrats.

Much more will have to be cut for any chance to return the federal government to solvency. That means no more massive handouts to states to keep schools open. It means possible adjustments to the Unemployment benefits that keep getting extended indefinitely. It means cutting the featherbedding in government agencies across the spectrum.

But even those won't be enough. To really get spending under control, serious work has to be done with the biggest monsters of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, and that problem won't be solved by wishing.

The longstanding practice of raiding the Social Security surplus to fund every whim of congress has finally turned the program upside down. It's time for the government to tell the truth about Social Security; it is not a retirement savings and insurance plan, but an income transfer between workers and retirees.

The government told the mother of all lies when they sold our great-grandparents on Social Security. See, if every dollar of the 15 percent of our earnings actually went into some sort of interest-bearing account that paid off when we retired, we could all retire pretty comfortably (at least those of us who work). But that's not how the program ever was intended to work, because if it actually worked that way, then it would serve no benefit to the political class.

Now the baby boomers are retiring. And the numbers just don't work. The tipping point is here. The ratio of payers to payees is too low, unless we decide to take 40 percent from all the payers.

Something has to give. And there aren't any painless options.

I just hope everybody in the Tea Party understands the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for ..."

Indiana 9th Debate

I seldom do this, but last night I made my way to the Jennings County fairgrounds to take in the 4-way debate between the four guys fighting for the chance to take Baron Hill's seat in the US House.

Here's the cast of characters:

The Grizzled Veteran - played by Mike Sodrel
The Regular Guy - played by Rick Warren
The Lawyer/Politician - played by Todd Young
The Evangelist - played by Travis Hankins

Each candidate has a very specific and readily-identifiable set of positive and negative attributes. If there were any surprises for me in seeing this debate, they were with Sodrel and Young. I expected to be more impressed with Young and less with Sodrel, and the opposite held true.

If I were to name an overall "winner", in terms of performance, I'd have to give the nod to Sodrel. Which is something I would have bet against going in.

In my opinion, the big "loser" on the night was Young. He failed to connect with the regular folks, and wasted too much time looking petty by incessantly attacking Sodrel.

They're all conservatives, they're all republicans, and any policy differences among the four are insignificant. I'd have no problem voting for any one of them against Baron; but then again, I'd probably vote for a convicted felon if it facilitated our current congressman's immediate retirement.

Here's the breakdown of each candidate, with advantages and disadvantages:

Sodrel, the old veteran, has been there, done that. He knows the ropes, he clearly knows what he's talking about and how to navigate Washington.

His positives are experience and grasp of the issues, his 'regular guy' persona. During the debate, he was at his best when just speaking off-the-cuff, giving honest and common-sense answers to the questions posed. He was the only candidate who showed up in casual clothing, perhaps purposely attempting to differentiate himself from the others. He was especially good in responding to Todd Young's attacks with brief, concise refutations that made Young look foolish.

Sodrel's biggest negative is also his experience. He's run for the same seat against Baron Hill every cycle for as long as I can remember, and lost every time but once. He was also in office with the Republicans who made such a mess of things and got swept out by the Democrats as a result. Whether or not he supported the GOP spending spree and outrageous earmarking in his two-year stint actually matters less than the perception that he was in office at the time, and therefore part of the problem.

Warren is very much the regular guy in the race. He's far from eloquent, and obviously lacks in any identifiable qualifications for the office he seeks.

Warren's positive is his 'regular guy' approach, which is genuine. He demonstrated in the debate that he sincerely holds his views, and will hold to his principles in office.

But unfortunately, Rick will get eaten for lunch by Baron Hill's well-funded Democrat party machine.

Todd Young is the guy I've been hearing so much about, but hadn't yet seen him in person. He's a lawyer, obviously intelligent and well-spoken.

Todd's positives are his qualifications for the office, and a generally good presentation. He's sort of wonky on policy issues, and probably has very detailed proposals on the key problems faced by the country.

Todd's negatives are too many. He came off as petty and sort of the same old lawyer-politician type most regular folks feel got the country into this mess in the first place. He shouldn't have spent so much time trashing Sodrel, and the fact that no other candidate engaged in the mud slinging made him appear mean and petty. Of all the candidates, Young connected with the people in the audience the least. He came off as arrogant, and while attacking Sodrel treated the other two candidates as irrelevant.

Travis Hankins was the evangelist of the bunch. He wears his faith on his sleeve, and whenever he spoke, it sounded just like a Baptist preacher exhorting the flock.

Hankins' positives are his energy, passion, and idealism. I was convinced he was sincere in his desire to try to shake up Washington.

Hankins' negatives are not negatives from my personal perspective, but will be negatives should he earn the right to take on Baron. His emphasis on faith, morals, and values, while exciting Social Conservatives in the district, will put off the very large population of nominal and non Christians. He's also rather naieve, whether in his goals of rolling back spending to 2002 levels, building a fence along the entire southern border, or pushing through an end to abortion. All noble goals, but he can't realistically get them done in the 3 terms in which he's promised to limit himself.

In the debate, Travis irritated the crowd by several times asking the moderator to clarify that "I'm the only candidate who ....". The first time drew chuckles, but by the third and fourth repeats, he just drew groans.

If I voted my personal favorite, I'd be tempted to go with Travis. I like the idea of sending a fiery, energetic, idealistic young new face to congress. Because of the anti-Hill sentiment in the district, I think he could win, but also think he'd be very vulnerable in the next election cycle.

If I voted for the candidate best positioned to defeat Baron, I suppose it would have to be either Sodrel or Young. As mentioned above, my biggest concern for Sodrel is the 'same song, different verse'. People want real change in congress and new faces, and for better or worse, Sodrel represents the bad old days.

Strangely, I suddenly find myself wishing for one more candidate. Too late, I know. But my ideal candidate would be a local businessman, relatively young, energetic like Hankins, but obviously extremely intelligent and capable, while down-to-earth and approachable. Sort of like Mike Pence, I suppose.

How can one of these guys win my vote?

Hankins can win by toning down a tad. I'm in no way suggesting he give up the primacy of faith in all he does, but just that he brings it down just enough as to avoid turning off the voting contingent that doesn't share his faith. He also should change his speaking pattern to be less like a Baptist preacher and more conversational.

Young can win by knocking off the spitballs at Sodrel. He needs to sell me on who he is, not who Sodrel is. He also needs to find a way to be more personable, more approachable, less arrogant. That might be hard to do, since I suspect he was being himself in the debate last night.

Sodrel can't overcome his negatives, as far as I can conceive. Maybe if he talks more about what happened during his two years in office, and why those things happened, and what he learned from the experience and would do differently this time, it would help.

Unfortunately, Rick can't win my vote. I certainly like the guy, and thought he did as well as a person like him could possibly do in the debate. But he doesn't have what it takes to win the office, and I suspect he'd be swatted like a fly if he made it to Washington.

I'll keep my eye on the candidates until it's time to choose one. Then, we'll see.

New Contract for America

It probably will be named something else this time around to differentiate it from Newt's original idea that swept Republicans into power after Clinton's failed attempt to nationalize healthcare.

Whatever its name, here are my suggestions for it this time around:

1. Repeal Obamacare. Simultaneously replace it with a more practical bill that actually helps cut costs and makes health insurance more affordable and accessible without unconstitutional federal mandates. How that can be accomplished is a much more involved topic I've dealt with partially in previous posts.
2. Renew the Bush tax cuts. Even make them permanent. The economy desparately needs the boost it can get by simply reassuring individuals and businesses that they won't be hit with massive new taxes.
3. Cancel the Obama Stimulus. Whatever hasn't already been spent will simply be pulled back. Also the government will remove itself from the Financial, Automotive, and Insurance industries completely, selling off government interests to private investors.
4. Solve Illegal Immigration. Give the Border Patrol whatever resources they need to be successful. Announce a 6 month grace period for all those in the country illegally - they have 6 months to get their affairs in order and move back to their home country. Create a legal means for those who can prove they are self-supporting and want to return to apply for re-entry. Again, there's more, but it's a much longer discussion.
5. Outlaw Earmarks. Simply stated, no more earmarks. Every project must be proposed, subject to hearings and debate, and voted on by both houses.
6. Balance the Budget. Have the federal budget balanced within a reasonable time period, but make it less than 10. As long as unemployment exceeds 5% and budget deficits continue, no member of congress or federal employee may receive a salary increase.
7. All Laws Apply to Everyone Equally. No longer can congress exempt itself from laws they pass for everyone else. No longer can favored individual or corporate or special interest groups be singled out for tax exemptions nobody else may receive.
8. Domestic Energy Development. All available oil, natural gas, and coal reserves are open for exploration and development to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime, tax incentives will be made available to anyone that finds innovative, practical, and low-cost energy alternatives.
9. Scale Back Unnecessary Spending. Every federally funded program must demonstrate that it is meeting its mission, or be defunded. If a federal program does not fulfil its mission, which in all social programs must involve moving clients to self-sufficiency, it will be put on probation with no increase in funding for 2 years, and after those 2 years will be defunded entirely if no progress is made.
10. Commitment to Transparency. Every major piece of legislation will be posted in plain english (no legalese) online during debate, giving constituents the opportunity to comment and express their own opinions. With the possible exception of national security matters, if a congresspersons' constituents oppose a major bill by more than 60%, that congressperson will commit to vote their constituents' wishes.

Demographic Proof

This from the latest Zogby poll:

The poll revealed three demographic groups in which Obama still has support:

• American voters who are not required to pay federal income taxes (roughly 36 million people)
• Voters in the New England region (7 million people)
• Voters age 18-29 years old (24 million people)

Contrasted to the White House and their surrogates' consistent message that has become more strident in the last month, that those who do not support Obama are racists. By extension, the essential charge being made in regard to the racism of Americans who oppose his government policies apply to the majority of all groups not included in the above three.

Specifically named in the poll, describing those who oppose Obama:

• Taxpayers
• Gun Owners
• Evangelical Christians
• Business Owners

The question it raises for me is simply this: If everybody who pays taxes opposes the Obama agenda, presumably because they understand it's designed to increase their tax burden, in what way does that make them racist?

If the answer is because most folks in the #1 Obama supporting group (non-taxpayers) are non-white, then which side is racist - those who don't think the federal government should pursue an agenda that robs those who produce to "redistribute" to those who don't, or those who have concluded that these government dependents are helpless for no reason other than their skin color?

The young may not deserve their own category, since they're suffering the highest unemployment rate of all groups under the Obama economy. They just have the added burden of sitting in classrooms listening to communist instructors every day, and have to await "real life" experience later on that will teach them the truth about intrusive and oppressive government.

Could the NCAA Champs be Hoosiers?

Got to be careful calling them 'Hoosiers', since Indiana University currently claims that moniker.

But if you like the real-life story of the Butler Bulldogs, which seems so congruent with the best sports movie ever made, not to mention the real-life story of Bobby Plump and Milan High School, you have to love watching this play out.

Here are the Bulldogs playing in Indy just a few miles from campus in front of a world-wide audience against the big, bad Duke Blue Devils. Duke's bigger, they're more talented, and they boast one of the best basketball coaches in the history of the game.

So once again, just like they did in every round of the tournament, nearly all the sports broadcasters and writers are giving little Butler zero chance of knocking off the Dukies for the national title.

If they're so smart, the Bulldogs wouldn't have made it past game 1. They said Butler couldn't beat Syracuse, but they did. Butler couldn't beat Kansas State, but they did. Butler was going to fall victim to the experience of Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans, but they didn't.

I don't know what will happen tonight, but it will be a lot of fun watching to find out.

This true drama will always be better than anything else they can put on TV. That includes the NBA, not to mention '24'.

A Butler victory would be the greatest sports story since the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team.