More Evidence

Still more evidence of the decline of our once-great nation was provided in this morning's USA Today.

The gist of the article is that marijuana is no big deal.  Singers and actors are smoking the weed every day without consequence.  So I suppose the suggestion is, why even bother trying to enforce laws against it?

First and foremost, because it isn't harmless.  That old caricature of the 26 year old guy who is still unemployed and living in his Mom's basement, where he does nothing but toke and play video games?  It's more true than caricature.

I saw it among my peers in college.  Friends who fell in with the pot-head crowd stopped going to class, didn't bother to study or do homework, and flunked out of their program.  Often all this happened in the course of a single term.  These guys went from concientious, hard-working, pretty good students to slackers in the course of only a few short weeks.  Their attitudes changed, even their personalities seemed to change.  They just stopped caring.

Then there's the crime aspect.  All those murders on the Mexican border and in the big cities aren't over petty jealousies or old-fashioned gang turf wars.  They are killing each other over control of the drug trade. 

Irresponsible messages like the one pushed in the USA Today article are contributing to the problem.  They make pot smoking sound cool and suggest there really isn't going to be any consequence to doing so.  Why not be like your favorite actor or singer and start toking?  Nobody's going to arrest you, and you will be considered cool by your peers.

What value is it to anyone to learn that singers like Beyonce and Justin Bieber are big-time pot-heads?  Or that actors from Matthew McConaughy to Kristin Stewart are well-known tokers.  The article is basically an advertisement for the legalization group called NORML.

I think Colorado and Washington are already finding out what a huge mistake they've made in passing laws legalizing the drugs.  And the California fig leaf law permitting "medical marijuana" was a joke even before it passed.

This adds fodder to the previous post to illustrate the destruction of American society.  Pretty soon the welfare state will topple and sonny will get kicked out of Mom's basement and we'll have millions of people incapable of fending for themselves.  Will they starve to death?  Certainly it will be difficult for them to fend off the munchies when there is no longer any source of funds available to run to the grocery store or call the pizza delivery guy.  Oh, the torture!

The Secret National Emergency

Bet you haven't heard a word about it, but Sexually Transmitted Disease has reached epidemic levels.  Per the CDC, there has been an explosion of Gonnorrhea and Chlamydia among our children, the vast majority of cases occurring between age 15 and 24.  There's also an epidemic of Syphillis among homosexual men.

Bet you haven't heard anything about the explosion in the illigitimacy rate either.  The rate of births to unmarried women is now 40.8% overall.  Overall birth rates are falling precipitously, but the nuclear family is all but destroyed.  The birth rate has declined by around 60 percent in the last 20 years.

If you look at the trends of illegitimate births (a term the CDC refuses to use), it is true they are trending downward slightly over the past 5 years, but still are up 100% from 1985.  But compared to the drastic reduction in the overall birth rate, I have to assume that the decline in total unwed births is misleading. There's a trend of women having children later and later, with women over 40 having babies at a record rate for that age group.

88 percent of births to teens were illegitimate, and 63 percent to women between age 20 and 24 were also illegitimate.  Sounds like a crisis level to me.

Wonder why none of the news networks have picked this up?

Fortune Cookie

Earlier this week I went out for stir-fry.  After paying my bill, I sipped on my drink as I opened the fortune cookie.  Usually the fortune cookie has something trite and forgettable.  But this one was a little different.

Your fondest dream will come true this year.

This was an interesting fortune, in that it immediately got me thinking.

What is my fondest dream?

I remember when I used to have dreams.  As I got older, the old dreams became impossible and the newer ones seemed to become less important.  I'd have to say it's been at least a decade since I even had a dream - at least one for myself.

What if my fondest dream is for someone else?

Does that count?  What if my fondest dream involves seeing one of my sons realize his fondest dream, or involves me being able to do something really spectacular for my kids?

So I decided to run a little personal exercise.  I've made a list of all the things I can think of that could fall under the category "fondest dream".  I've rated the probability of each dream to which I might be able to make them come true through my own efforts. 

If my fondest dream does come true this year, is it due to the miraculous intervention of this little fortune cookie?  I suppose at the least I would have to credit the fortune cookie with providing the inspiration for me to make the dream come true.

I've found that only those dreams that can be realized through my own focus, dedication, and hard work have a probability above 50 percent.  What the fortune cookie has helped me realize is that to the extent that dreams can come true for anybody, the first step is to define the dream outcome and then create a concrete plan to make it come true.

My policy is to avoid publishing things deeply personal in the blog, so my dreams will never appear here.  But what I have discovered is that dreams fall into two categories: material and spiritual.  Material dreams can be achieved with focus, planning, and hard work.  Spiritual dreams can only be influenced in varying degrees, as they involve the attitudes and willing participation of others.  Material dreams are concrete and definable - you know when you're done.  Spiritual dreams are life-long endeavors, and you never really know for sure when you're done.

Now all I have to do is look at my list and decide:

Do I want this dream to come true badly enough to give the level of commitment it will require?  Even with that focused effort, there's still a pretty good likelihood I'll fail anyway.  Can I deal with that truth, or will it discourage me from maintaining that effort?  If one or more of my fondest dreams come true, will I be deleriously happy or a little disappointed?

I think I know the answers.  If somehow my fondest dreams for others were to come true, I'll be much happier than if the ones for myself came to be.

What Conclusions Would You Draw?

Based on the following stories, what would you guess the Obama administration is planning?

1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo for Homeland Security? It's time for a National Conversation.

Drones Over America.  Are They Spying on You?

Obama and FEMA Create Civilian Army Trained in Domestic Preparedness

Janet Napolitano: Domestic Terrorism is Top Concern

Obama's DOJ Targets Religious Freedom, Again

Is there a pattern here?  How much longer do we have before the tyranny and oppression begin in full?

The View from an Elitist

I found this article on Yahoo.  It's stunning.

The title is "A Guide to the Last Anti-Gay Marriage Holdouts and What They Really Believe".

It merely reproduces excerpts from a group of mostly conservative commentators in a manner dripping with derisive hostility.  If she met me and realized that I pretty much agree with most of the quotes she cited, I imagine she'd call 911 and demand they come and arrest me immediately.

The clear message from Ms. Elspeth Reeve is basically, "I don't know anybody who actually opposes Gay Marriage, and those who still do are right-wing religious whack jobs".

I don't think Elspeth has ever met a Christian, or at least someone who attends church every Sunday.  Although I am sure if she did meet somebody like that, she'd insult him or her and turn on her heel to run away as fast as she can.

I feel sorry for her.  She's everything she accuses the Right of, and doesn't even realize it.  Closed-minded, bigoted, intolerant, and wildly supportive of religious oppression.

Majoring in the Minors

What are the most critical issues facing America?

The economy
Record unemployment
Record deficits and debt
Healthcare and the Obamacare Disaster
Tax Policy
National Security/Terrorism
Foreign Policy and the Instability of the Middle East
Direct Threats from China and Russia
Energy

How many of those are being talked about over the airwaves and in your newspapers?

Instead, you'd think the most important issues were:

Gay Marriage
Global Climate Change
Immigration Reform (i.e. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens)
Raising the Minimum Wage
Raising Taxes on the Wealthy

As far as I can tell, the first list might be better described as the list of critical issues for Conservatives.  The second list is critical issues for Liberals.

Exactly right, when you take a moment to think about it.  How can we characterize the two lists, but as a list of practical and objective problems tied to the practical and objective-thinking conservatives.  And a list of esoteric and emotional issues that are less easily quantified tied to the emotion-driven liberals. 

In other words, conservatives want to solve problems, while liberals want to feel good about themselves.

So the parties seem to have picked a side, and have sparked hatred of the feelers against the thinkers.  I don't think it would be fair to say that the thinkers hate the feelers, but they're certainly frustrated with them.

Media Blitz

There's never been anything like the media blitz happening this week on the Gay Marriage issue.  Now that the Supreme Court is hearing 2 related cases, there is a coordinated effort being pushed in every media source to push a pro-Gay-Marriage message.

TV Commercials, special news segments, and even gay-themed programming dominates the TV channels.  The morning USA Today was filled with pro-Gay-Marriage ads and stories.  Browsing the internet brings up ads and pro-Gay-Marriage stories on nearly every page.

Demoralizing.

NCAA Weekend 1 a Mixed Bag

My two favorite teams split over the weekend.  Indiana's through to the Sweet 16, Butler's done.  Too bad, I really thought Butler was going to beat Marquette a second time this year.

The Bulldogs had their chances.  Rotnei Clarke missed his late 3-point attempt rather badly, then Andrew Smith was indecisive before throwing up a terribly awkward ball at the buzzer.  If Andrew had either passed that inbounds pass over to the Freshman Kellen Dunham on the right side, or squared up and taken a decent shot attempt, they would have at least had a chance to pull out the win.  Instead, Smith seemed confused and uncertain about what to do.

Alternately, as the second half of Indiana's game against Temple went on, I was feeling less hope for them pulling out the win.  But that open 3-point shot from the top of the key by Victor Oladipo insured the victory, enabling the Hoosiers to shoot free throws the rest of the way.

Can the Hoosiers beat Syracuse?  Sure.

Will they?  Who knows.  That's why they play.

The Big 10 certainly had a good weekend.

The Waste of Time that will be a Travesty

Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope that the Supreme Court is capable of applying the constitution logically or reasonably as they hear the two Gay Marriage cases next week.

It's a case that should never have happened.  Because in truth and in fact, there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.  The very definition of the word "marriage" proves the point.  Add to that the fact that marriage is not a governmental institution, but God's institution, and the Supreme Court has no business even pretending to have the power to decide.

Let's be honest, the whole issue is not even the slightest bit about the liberal talking points.  "Letting two people who love each other have the same right to marry regardless of their gender" is a lie without a point.  What the whole issue boils down to is what every issue boils down to: money.

Gays want to qualify their sexual partners for government benefits.  Survivor benefits, adoption assistance, and a myriad of government entitlements that socialist lawmakers have built into American society over the last 50 years.

If the court decides to bestow a brand new "right" on homosexuals, the next step will be the trampling of the rights of people of faith.  We've already seen it form over the past 20 years or so - merely saying out loud that homosexuality is a disordered and sinful behavior is now branded "hate speech" and can result in the offender losing his or her job and being held up to public lynching for being so intolerant.

The Supreme Court won't be able to see this for what it really is, and will rule for the gays.  My prediction is within a few short months, we'll be seeing hundreds of lawsuits brought by homosexual couples against churches, priests, and pastors all over the country.  Suing them for violating their constitutional rights by refusing to perform their wedding ceremony.

The HHS and Obamacare will follow up very quickly with new mandates on employers to cover all homosexual partners under their employer-sponsored health insurance plan.  Any employers who resist, especially those who try to claim exemption on the grounds of conscience and religious teaching, will be fined intil they're forced to close the doors.  This will include Catholic schools and hospitals, as well as anybody minding their own business while trying to run their business under principles of Christianity like Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a.

The Church will go underground.  Within a few short years, I think we'll see many clergymen arrested and imprisoned for being caught preaching "hate" from the pulpit.  Most businesses who find the extreme level of government mandates will drop their health plans and pay the fine, at least until the fine is hiked to levels that force them to close as well.

My only question is whether anyone that might stumble across this post will realize or care when all these things come to pass?  As I've seen this president do one outrageous thing after another and noted that virtually nobody seems to notice or care, I realize just how far we've fallen.

Unless the Supreme Court actually recognizes what's truly up with this case and rules correctly, they will simple add one more giant nail for the coffin of the Late United States of America.

Got My Brackets Filled Out

March Madness, the best time of the year, has arrived.

I went online and filled out my brackets last night at CBS Sportsline.  In past years I generally tried to pick based on which team I thought would win, which meant I often picked against my heart.  That hurt me in the two years Butler ran all the way to the final game.

So my bracket is mostly heart, and much less logic.  Which of course means Indiana wins it all.  That's a difficult pick for my brain, given that Indiana laid egg against Wisconsin in the Big 10 tournament last weekend.  If they are to make a run to the Final Four, Cody Zeller has to be more assertive, Victor Oladipo has to stop turning the ball over, Christian Watford needs to step up, Yogi Ferrell needs to protect the ball and become more creative as the point guard, and the team needs to do a better job finding Jordi Hulls open behind the arc.

If the Hoosiers play the unbeatable team they showed in spurts in their game against Illinois, instead of the rattled team that forgot how to run their offense that we saw late against Wisconsin, they can win the whole thing.  But their tournament opponents merely need to get hold of the tapes of their games against Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Butler and learn how to rattle Zeller & Co. and steal a win.

Butler proved that St. Louis really is better than they are.  VCU most likely is also a better team.  Fortunately, neither of those teams is in Butler's bracket, but Indiana is.  So my dream final four is destroyed, since two of my picks are in the same bracket.  But if Butler simply makes it through to play Indiana for the final four bid, I'll be happy.

There's no dominant team this year like Kentucky was last year.  So I think all of the top 5 Big 10 schools have a shot.  Duke might have a chance, except they've been inconsistent through their season.  Miami is getting a lot of encouragement from the talking heads, but I think they're vulnerable.  I think St. Louis and VCU are going to be tough outs in the tournament.  I'm not sold on Gonzaga, partly because one of their two losses came from Butler, and they haven't really played anyone else of note.  I really don't believe the west coast schools can compete with the teams from the East and MidWest, although it is nice to see Steve Alford be successful with his New Mexico Lobos.

Now all we have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride.  There will be lots of upsets, guaranteed.  That's what makes it fun, at least until it's one of my favorite teams that gets upset.

Easy Inferences

There's been a glimmer of hope showing up as the liberal press begins to ask semi-tough questions of the White House about those things they spin incessantly to try to deflect any criticism.

There's enough factual information out there on the Benghazi massacre to make easy inferences about the fundamental underlying story.  The White House has stonewalled on specific names, timelines, and details on that scandal, but it has become obvious that the president is to blame for the people who were killed by terrorists there.  We know that he received a briefing on Benghazi while the attack was taking place, then left the meeting to do whatever it is he wanted to do.  It's clear that he did nothing either to try to prevent the attack or to rescue the ambassador and his staffers once it began.  The amazingly weak story that was provided blames the Libyan government for not allowing our commandos to take off from the airport to commence a rescue mission.   It's a stunning example of presidential incompetence I don't think we've ever seen before.

Now the president's lying about the decision to end White House tours.  He of course won't tell us how or why the decision was made, but it's incredibly obvious that he or his closest advisors made the decision as part of their campaign to inflict pain on Americans for allowing the sequestration to go through.  It's disappointing that he demonstrated one of his most consistent traits, when he lied to the press in saying the White House had nothing to do with that decision. 

Now we are again recycling the same old arguments over the federal budget.  You'd think that even though the president wants only tax increases to close the deficit gap, he'd be able to identify some budget cuts, even if they're symbolic and insignificant cuts to programs that republicans like.  But he won't even do that.  Instead, he claims credit for natural spending reductions from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But instead he continues to campaign on higher taxes for the "rich" and closing "loopholes" for industries he doesn't like (namely oil).

If he wanted to be taken seriously by thinking people, why doesn't he propose slicing the tax code to the bone, removing all of the special tax deductions, credits, exemptions, and preferences from everybody.  But of course he's the most politically partisan president we've had in my lifetime, therefore everything he does is designed to help his friends and harm his enemies.  The concept of finding policies that are good for all of America is foreign to his way of thinking.  Obama's belief is that what's good for Democrats is good for the country, and what's bad for Republicans is good for the country.

So the competing budget proposals are as expected, and Obama continues to mischaracterize the Republican plan as designed to help the rich get richer on the backs of poor and seniors.  From the Right is a budget-cutting plan that cuts the fat and repeals Obamacare.  The Obamacare repeal by itself is enough to guarantee it will be blocked by the Democrats.  From the Left is a tax-hiking plan with expansion of spending on liberal policies, which by the way completely ignores even lip service to deficit reduction.  Republicans already gave Obama his tax hike on the rich, so the Left's plan will also go nowhere.

I don't see a way out of the mess.  There is no compromise between fiscal responsibility and unlimited spending with income redistribution.  There is no middle ground between gay marriage and traditional marriage.  Between destroying babies in the womb and protecting them.  Between socialism and capitalism.  Between cradle-to-grave nanny state regulation and freedom. Between energy independence and save-the-planet government destruction of cheap energy sources.

Freedom versus Fairness.

Millions to Study What?

Stories were floating around about all the stupid stuff the Federal Government is wasting their money on, and one of them in particular caught my interest.

The story goes something like this:

The NIH has awarded $1.5 Million to study biological and social factors for why three-quarters of lesbians and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of "high public health significance".  Besides being an amazing opening for a bunch of politically incorrect fat lesbian jokes, the announcement is great evidence of a Federal bureaucracy run amok.

Then I thought about it for a minute.  I wondered how they already knew that 3/4 of lesbian women are fat?  Likewise how do they know that gay men aren't?  I've been acquainted with gay men who are fat and lesbian women who aren't, but would have to say that among my limited universe of homosexual acquaintances, those ratios do seem approximately accurate.

Then I wondered whether the study will be honest.  Because if it is, I don't think they're going to like the results.  Because given my admittedly limited universe of homosexual acquaintances, I can make these general observations.

Gay men seem to be universally attracted to the pre-teen adolescent.  Therefore they assiduously cultivate that look, presumably to attract other gay men.  I'd say gay men are on the same prowl for partners as Jerry Sandusky.  Other studies that have been very carefully buried suggest that most gay males grew up in a household with a single mother where Mom maintained a revolving door of boyfriends, some of whom molested the kid (or kids).  Which brings on a horrible self-image, sexual confusion, then ending up with the kid joining an all-too-welcoming gay community.  He wasn't born that way, but by the time he comes of age he feels like he has no other choice.

Lesbians I've found have a serious problem with men in general.  It often borders on irrational.  They mistrust all of their male co-workers and hate their male bosses.  Many lesbians I know dress like men and project a masculine attitude.  So they're pretty self-indulgent and don't have time to fuss over their figure like their straight counterparts.  If a lesbian doesn't hate you, (which is more likely if you're a co-worker and not her boss) she can be fun to hang out with, because she loves to go out to drink beer and eat pizza and watch sports.  She loves to be part of the gang. So that's a pretty easy outcome to predict.

Something I find rather universal among gays in general is that they've compromised in all facets of life.  Gay men are typically cordial and polite in the workplace, even though I can't say the same of lesbians.  But regardless of gender, if you catch them in a social situation where they "let their hair down", you will quickly find out they almost universally display depraved behavior.

I've also discovered that gays and lesbians are more likely to compromise their workplace ethics.  They'll lie, cheat, steal, scheme, and undermine anybody to get ahead.  It would be a mistake to assume a homosexual in your workplace isn't a threat to your job or workplace harmony if they covet your position.  As long as you've got nothing they want, they will become your good friend and pleasant co-worker.  Not to suggest they'll always be a problem for you as subordinates, since that certainly isn't something I've seen in every case.  Of course heterosexuals are just as capable of bad behavior, it just seems to me that homosexuals can more easily put aside moral and ethical standards because they've already done so in their personal lifestyle.

My prediction is that when the study reveals results that refute the popular culture mythology, it will be unceremoniously tossed into the trash.  Don't bother to try to ask a federal bureaucrat, "Say, whatever happened to that study you guys were doing about fat lesbians?".  The bureaucrat will not give you a straight answer.

Delusional

There isn't much sanity left.  A new law was finally passed with enough Republicans and Democrats able to find cooperation.  So it must be a good, bipartisan, commonsense law, right?

I don't think so.  It's merely one of those laws designed to demonstrate politicians' good intentions.  The Violence Against Women Act.  Who is for violence against women, right?  That's the point, I suppose.  Democrats propose a fundamentally stupid and meaningless law and name it the "Violence Against Women Act", then dare Republicans to look mean and anti-woman by opposing it.  So of course it sails through, scoring a few points for the good intentions of Democrats.

The new CIA Director is sworn into office using a 200-plus year old draft copy of the Constitution.  No Bible.  There's a story out there that Brennan is a former Roman Catholic who converted to Islam and is cozy with the jihadists.  If the story's not true, why did he break with tradition and refuse to swear in on the Bible?  If it is true, what does that mean for the future of our countrygiven that the President obviously holds the same worldview as Brennan?  Obama himself was raised in a Madrassa, is the son of a Muslim, and is considered by Muslims worldwide as one of them.  So why do we choose to ignore the facts as we know them?

Rand Paul does a 13-hour filibuster in the Senate over his concerns over Obama's obsessive use of drones.  He demanded a clarification from the Administration that drones would never be used against American citizens in direct contravention of the constitution.  Eventually, he got a one-word answer from Holder to his question, "No".  But today I read that the White House released a statement that Rand's filibuster changes nothing as far as Obama's ongoing policies regarding the use of drones.

So which is it?  Are drones only to be used against terrorists on foreign soil, or is Obama plotting to use them against all enemies of the U.S. as well as all his political enemies?  John McCain says the very notion is ridiculous, and Rand Paul's filibuster was an unneccessary stunt.  I certainly hope that McCain is right, but if he is, why haven't we seen Obama on television explaining exactly how drones will never be used to spy on or kill Americans here at home?  Instead, we get the defiant White House announcement that Rand's filibuster meant nothing.

The Obama-created crisis called the "sequester" has passed with no changes to the small spending reductions.  It's abundantly clear to everyone by the most ardent Democrat that Obama shut down White House tours, not because it was forced by the sequester, but in a failed attempt to support his claims that the sequester was a bad idea.  The whole thing can be easily resolved with a budget, which of course has not been even taken up for debate in the Senate since Obama took office.

The next Obama-manufactured crisis is only a couple months away.  Paul Ryan will introduce the Republican Budget very soon, which will easily pass the House only to be once again thrown in the trash by Harry Reid in the Senate.  If Obama submits a budget, it's reasonable to expect it will be just as ridicuous as his previous budgets, which were both voted down unanimously.  Nobody seems to know that fact.

A delusional America re-elected a president who has destroyed the economy, allowed an ambassador to be abused and killed by jihadists without lifting a finger to prevent it or rescue him, and appointed a litany of communists and enemies of America to the Supreme Court and his top cabinet offices.

I find it sad that so many have been fooled.  Obama and his friends who hated the American Republic so much could have easily left for an existing socialist state of their choosing.  I mourn the fact that they instead chose to mislead Americans into handing them the power to enslave them.

Somebody I caught talking about the American economy said we've already lost the America we grew up in.  That we will not see it again without a dramatic change of the hearts and minds of the majority of citizens, and perhaps a decade of painful reforms.  We will not see those reforms in my lifetime, and there is no reason to hope the next generation will wake up to tackle them.  My generation destroyed the greatest country in the history of the world, and I'm ashamed to have been part of that.

Rand Paul Filibuster

There he was, just like Jimmy Stewart, standing up in the Senate to engage in an actual filibuster.  When was the last time somebody actually stood up to filibuster anything in these times where all it takes to delay a vote is for a Senator to say "I'm going to filibuster that".

What was Rand worried about?  Apparently not the appointment of the new CIA director, who despite many conservative pundits was perhaps the worst possible choice for that job was easily confirmed the next day.

He was concerned about drones.  We've all been hearing that drones are being deployed in bases around the country, but there's been no "official" explanation from the government telling us why.  The story behind Rand's protest suggests that the GOP senators demanded documentation on the drone program before they would allow a vote on Brennan.  They got some letters from Eric Holder that seemed to say Obama has the authority to take out American citizens on American soil with drone strikes.

Rand was concerned that the Holder letters were telling the President he could ignore constitutional protections to citizens and just take somebody out if he deemed that person a threat to the country.  That's deeply disturbing, or should be, to any American, regardless of political party.

Funny that the Democrats, who were so certain George W. Bush was going to trample their rights, suddenly are unconcerned about Obama's actions that far exceed anything Bush ever contemplated.  I suppose they figure Obama won't come after them, since they're his friends - but he can take out hated conservatives any time he chooses.

The debate is over on Obama's political philosophy, despite liberal protestations to the contrary.  Everything about Obama, from his upbringing and closest associations to pretty much every speech he gives, clearly illustrates his Marxist philosophy.  We now know his promise to "fundamentally transform America" meant Marxist revolution.

By extension, conservatives simply look at the history of Marxism around the world.  Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez brutally suppressed their country's citizens and murdered millions to eliminate all opposition.  Is it then unreasonable, as McCain derisively stated in opposition to Rand's one-man protest, to hold a concern about what objective Obama may have in his mind for how he'll use those US-based drones?

I don't think so.  Rand has kicked off a process that will draw many Americans, from both Left and Right, to his side out of that concern over what increasingly looks like a president who may fancy himself a dictator.

People like McCain and many Obama supporters suggest Rand is some sort of delusional paranoid.  Why of course Obama has no designs on destroying political enemies with drones in direct contravention of the United States Constitution!  But are they so sure?  In light of the fact it took nearly 30 minutes for Ted Cruz to drag a simple answer from Holder that no, using drones to kill an American in the country who isn't directly threatening anyone, it is not constitutionally permissable.  Why was he trying so hard to duck the question?

Go, Rand!

Bizarre Radio Stuff

Two things I've heard on the radio that are stunning:

First is Glenn Close doing some ad:
Have you ever cut off ties with a friend because she has cancer?
Or avoided someone with diabetes because you thought he was violent?
Welcome to the world of mental illness.

Say what?  Cut off somebody with cancer or diabetes because you think they're crazy?  OK, they must be trying to make a point that it's ridiculous to think of mental illness as any different than cancer or diabetes, but the ad never explains that.  It sounds like we should expect people with cancer or diabetes to be crazy.  What an awful, confusing ad.

The second is a little news item that keeps running about California's huge gasoline tax increase.  The reporter interviews some guy from the "Board of Equalization".  It was stunning when I first heard it, and I thought maybe I misheard.  But the little story ran multiple times, and that's definitely the name of the board.

Has nobody in California's state government ever read Ayn Rand?  Or did they name the board with the intention to rub it in the noses of Libertarians and Conservatives? 

For those who haven't read Atlas Shrugged, the "Board of Equalization" comes right off the pages of that book.  And let's just say that board was not a positive thing.

Values

I've just been thinking about how those basic values instilled in me as a child have been abandoned.  The more I think through those values, the more I come to realize that every major problem in America can be tied directly or indirectly to their destruction by the self-proclaimed enlightened Progressives.

The list of values:

Starts with the 10 Commandments.
Don't lie
Don't steal
Don't murder
Don't Envy
Respect your Parents
Love God
Take Sundays off
Don't Curse
Don't have sex outside your own Marriage

Then some more:
Do your best in everything you do
Always seek knowledge, get as well educated as possible
Give a solid day's work for a fair day's wage
Respect others
Tell the Truth
Keep your Promises
Choose your Spouse Wisely and raise children together
Mothers should stay home with young children unless its not possible
Men must protect and provide for their families
Accepting Charity from others is a last resort, then must be paid back as soon as possible
Use your excess to help others who are suffering
Live frugally, don't be ostentatious or show off your wealth
Go to Church
Make Bible Study and deepening your knowledge and understanding of Christianity a lifelong endeavor
Pray with your family daily
Love your children and discipline them because you love them
If you are able, go to College.  If you're not College Material, take up a skilled trade.  If you can't do a trade, take whatever unskilled job you can get and do your best every day.
The world doesn't owe you a living.
You succeed in this world only with your own effort and ability.
If  you work hard and persist, you will succeed.
Stay away from anything that intoxicates or alters your ability to think clearly.

What a contrast to the attitudes of today.  I think these values are timeless and true, but most people under 30 would deride me for holding to them.  Some would apply derogatory labels to me for holding them, such as racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, right-winger, extremist, intolerant.

The popular values these days are abortion, gay marriage, welfare expansion, and a new class of government administrators who steal from the citizens under the guise of helping the poor.  Pocketing most of the money before handing the rest out to the poor only helps the administrators, while turning the poor into helpless dependents.

Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.  We are living in such an age.

My Final Four is Looking Bleak

We're in March, when the best college basketball teams are supposed to be peaking.  My favorite teams from Indiana are not peaking, but rather are slipping.

Indiana no longer deserves to be rated the top team in the country after two straight losses.  Minnesota figured out the way to beat the Hoosiers is to get physical with Cody Zeller inside and play a chaotic defense against the rest of the team.  Thad Motta went to school on the Minnesota game plan and was rewarded last night.  His coaching and Aaron Craft's outstanding performance were the primary reasons behind Ohio State's win at Assembly Hall.

Unfortunately, Indiana didn't learn anything from the Minnesota loss.  Cody laid an egg last night, as did his teammates, who allowed the Buckeyes to rattle them into critical turnovers during crunch time.  When the team's best players are supposed to step up big to help win the tight game for their team, Cody folded.  Victor Oladipo tried to step into the gap, but seemed to try too hard, turning the ball over himself in the process.

So Butler last week proved that St. Louis truly is a better team and then got rolled by VCU.  They've looked so bad lately I'm afraid they won't get past their first game in the NCAA tournament.  Rotnei Clarke is a talented player, but he can't win games for Butler all by himself.

Notre Dame's been playing well lately, but they're clearly not a top 5 team.

Unless Indiana can figure out how they lost to Minnesota and Ohio State and correct their shortcomings very quickly, they're done.  Unless Butler can get Andrew Smith some confidence and get their guards finding their 3-point range again, they're done.

I'll still follow them and hope for the best, but I fear both teams are destined for early exits.

The Campaign that Must End

This morning I found the same message twice in the space of an hour.  First in USA Today's front page article about Jeb Bush, then an interview with Condoleeza Rice on Fox & Friends.  Both were focused on making illegal immigrants legal.

Is it possible all this is tied into Obama's stated priority, which is what he calls "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but really means "Get as many illegal immigrants voter registration cards as possible before the next election".

We're the only country in the world that refuses to enforce our immigration laws.  Perhaps the most ironic example is Mexico, which happens to be the source of most of our illegal alien population.  Mexico hands out flyers with advice for their people on how to game the U.S. immigration system and the best places to sneak across the border.  But imagine somebody in the U.S. were to sneak into Mexico.  Think they'll be welcoming, as those on the U.S. side advocating open borders demand we be to those who sneak into Texas and Arizona?  Actually, if you're caught sneaking into Mexico, you're guaranteed to be treated harshly.

The unholy alliance that keeps the borders dangerous and lawless is made up of both liberals and so-called conservatives.  Liberals want open borders because they see it as the most valuable path to permanent Democrat party rule, since hispanics vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers.  Republicans want open borders because it's a source of cheap labor.

Hiring an illegal means you don't have to worry about minimum wage, overtime laws, health benefits, or any of those other restrictive government rules.  Illegals tend to show up every day and give you an honest day's work.  Americans tend to show up when they feel like it, often late, then try to give the minimum amount of work effort that just barely keeps them from being fired.  Americans are also more likely to be stoned, and more likely to join unions that promise to make employers' lives even more difficult.

So we have the rare case of Obama being joined by John McCain and Lindsey Graham to push for an open borders bill.  USA Today and Fox News are playing along with this morning's campaign messages from Republicans like Bush and Rice to tell us why we must at least give these 12 million illegals green cards, if not outright citizenship.  McCain and Graham at least say they're demanding secure borders before they'll go along with the other provisions in the new immigration law.  Bush joins Obama on that subject, claiming border enforcement is impractical and unnecessary.

What ever happened to enforcing our country's laws?  What's so wrong with securing the borders and deporting illegals whenever we find them?  Is there any other country in the world that would show sensitivity to a teenager who grew up in their country illegally because he was brought in by his parents?

These folks who are here illegally know they broke the laws.  They likely also have manufactured false ID's and bogus social security numbers which in many cases represent identify theft.

Instead we're opening the cell doors and releasing captured illegals back to the streets, as an Obama punishment to the citizens for allowing the "sequester" to go through.

I have never been more disgusted with my country's leaders, or perhaps with the idiot citizens who gave them the power to destroy us from within.

Letting a Few People in Black Robes Decide

Who would have ever thought it would come to this?

Twenty or thirty years ago, most of us would have laughed anybody out of the room who suggested we were about to hand over the question whether homosexuals have the right to marry each other.  Now it's a reality, being argued under the "Equal Treatment" clause in our Constitution.

This is not a legal issue, and it does not belong in the courts.  The only reason it's being argued in the Supreme Court is that marriage is no longer the foundation of the family, instituted by God and administered by our Churches.  Marriage now equals benefits.

The ugly truth is this:

Marriage would not be litigated in the Supreme Court if not for the transfer payments it enables.

Gay people would have no interest in getting married to each other if there were no Social Security benefits, inheritance laws, adoption rights, or health insurance benefits to be gained.

The biggest lie perpetuated by the Gay Marriage proponents on the Left is that it is somehow the only way to bring justice to a group that's being discriminated against merely because of whom they love.  The truth is that they can love anybody they want - sodomy laws were destroyed years ago, and homosexuals are only prosecuted when they choose to act out their sexual perversions with underage children.

Most unfortunate of all is that this Supreme Court may create a brand new "Right" based solely on sexual behavior.  This new right necessarily infringes on the rights of Christians and other people of faith to practice their most deeply held values.  The next step to occur immediately after this new right is made the law of the land by the tyrranny of 9 unelected people will be the criminalization of Priests, Pastors, Rabbis and Imams who refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Which brings me to what I suspect has been the true agenda of this Gay Marriage Activist movement all along - the destruction of Religion in America.  People of faith already live in fear of proclaiming their values out loud.  Within a few short years we will be forced to hide our faith publicly and meet in secret.

Perhaps the persecuted Church is much more powerful than today's lukewarm and apathetic form of Christianity.  My prayer is for the courage to stay true to my faith even if it means my eventual persecution, imprisonment, or execution.

I am sorry for our next generation, who will certainly be oppressed by the Satan our self-absorbed and entitled generation invited into America.

Dishonest Reporting

So the media across the board is dishonest in their reporting about the "sequester".  Even the talking heads at Fox News can't seem to tell the truth, insisting on repeating the theme that since the GOP voted for it, they share "blame" for the sequester equally with Obama.

Let's review how this thing came to be, and how we arrived at today's automatic implementation of the sequester.

There was this manufactured budget crisis, I think it was called the "Fiscal Cliff".  Obama wanted tax increases but no spending cuts.  The GOP wanted spending cuts but no tax increases.  There is no middle ground between those two goals.  So they made a temporary deal in which Obama insisted on the "sequester" idea, which was a modest across-the-board spending cut that hit Defense hardest and did not touch entitlement spending (you know, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare).

Obama's strategy was that he'd continue holding out for tax increases and the GOP would eventually cave in to save the military from the big budget cuts.  But his belief that the Republicans would give in on taxes to save national security proved way off base.

The press has egregiously misreported that Obama is the reasonable party in these negotiations, failing to ever mention that he has never even met with Republicans to so much as attempt to negotiate an agreement to soften the blow of across-the-board cuts.  They've also done a criminally poor job reporting that the sequestration "cuts" aren't cuts at all, but merely a reduction in the amount of increase to each agency's budget next year.  Which may be at the root of the reason Republicans decided it's better to let the sequester go into effect than to give Obama what he wants - all tax increases and no cuts.

Obama had a meeting with Republican leaders yesterday.  It was the first such meeting to discuss the sequester, and lasted a whole 7 minutes.  Once again, I challenge anyone to find where that fact was reported outside Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio.  That's why liberals assert that conservative media lies, because if the story wasn't on ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC, then it must be false.

So liberals and all those folks Rush Limbaugh calls "Low Information Voters" believe that sequestration was a Republican idea somehow forced on Obama against his will, that Obama spent the past year trying to negotiate a "balanced" deal that mixes spending cuts and tax increases to solve the huge deficits but the GOP refused to negotiate, and that horrible consequences are in store for all of us because of drastic cuts in funding to vital government services.

All of those things liberals now believe are utterly false.  The Obama administration has created and expertly perpetuates a national mythology blindly embraced by the majority of Americans who don't take any time to seek out the truth.  That's how he was re-elected, and how he still might get his way, which is restoring every penny of spending pulled back in the sequester while adding more spending on his pet clean energy and socialist programs and hiking tax rates so he can pretend he's being responsible about all that increased spending.

The founders warned us that when the citizens become uneducated, ignorant, and uninterested in government, the United States will lose its unique free republic.  They also warned that as soon as people figure out they can vote themselves benefits, they will destroy the republic and allow tyrants to rule.  Both have come to pass.

Men of Low Character

The most troubling part of our current situation in America is the realization that our President is a man of low character.  American Presidents are supposed to be shining examples of honesty and integrity that all citizens can hold up as a model for their children.

For the last couple of weeks, Obama's been on a tour of the country demagoguing the "sequester" as some kind of draconian spending cut that will make lines longer, hamper our police and fire departments, lay off teachers, and perhaps even starve poor children.  I think it was former New York mayor Giuliani who illustrated it this way:

Suppose you make 100 grand a year and your boss promised you a ten percent raise next year.  So you're looking forward to receiving 110 grand next year.  Then your boss comes back and says, "Sorry, we can't afford to give you a 10 thousand dollar increase next year, but we will give you about 8 thousand."

Do you rant and rave about the unfairness of it all and tell your boss your children will starve and have to stay home from school if he doesn't give you the full 10 grand?  No, you're a bit disappointed that you'll get a smaller raise.  But you will adjust.

Giuliani's illustration is exactly right.  Obama's over-the-top chicken little act is dishonest.  He even sent Arne Duncan out to talk about the thousands of teachers that will be laid off because of the sequester over the weekend.  Some intrepid reporters decided to check that one out, and found one school district in West Virginia that is reassigning some teachers.  Turns out that school district's actions have nothing to do with the sequester, but a need to reorganize within their own organization for better efficiency.  Add to that fact that there may not be any teachers terminated, merely reassigned to new jobs, and the whole story is proven false.

The report came out this week that ICE is releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants from detention, to be followed by as many as 10,000.  The releases being attributed to the sequester, of course.  But when it came out that such unlawful acts may be impeachable offenses, all of a sudden the White House said they knew nothing about the releases, and laughably even Janet Napolitano denied knowing anything about it either.  They'd have us believe a decision to release thousands of illegal immigrants from custody and blame a sequester that hasn't even taken effect yet was made by some mid-level manager in ICE?  We don't need proof to presume they're lying once again.

Top it off with the iconic Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, who brought down Richard Nixon with his Watergate reporting and can in no way be called a Republican tool.  He merely told the truth, that the sequester was an idea created by Obama, who then insisted on its inclusion in last year's debt deal.  Of course, that means he's been lying when he constantly tries to blame the sequester as a GOP scheme.  Woodward was harrassed to stop telling that story by the White House, then he was threatened in an email.

You don't do that to Bob Woodward, even if you're aligned with him as a Democrat.  Bob went public with the email, proving that the White House is entering dangerous territory that suggests they are willing to use their power to suppress the first amendment freedoms of the press and expression.  Could you imaging George W Bush, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that to a reporter that's printing stories that cast them in a bad light?  Notice that the "mainstream" networks have been ignoring Woodward and his experience.

Bill Clinton was also a president of low character.  Not just because of Monica Lewinsky, although that's enough of a sin for me.  But he then used the immense power of his office to force her and others to lie to investigators, and repeatedly lied himself in his attempt to cover up the whole affair.  He was impeached, but the Senate decided to ignore the facts of the case and refused to convict him out of fear of the violence that may have occurred from liberal Americans who love the Clintons.

I sort of think it would be better to have a Jimmy Carter in office rather than Obama or Clinton.  Carter was incompetent on domestic governace because of his socialist worldview, and inept on foreign policy because of a stunning naievete.  But at least I don't recall him lying as a matter of course or strong-arming the press or other citizens to force favorable treatment of his administration.

We re-elected a man of low character, either because slightly more than half of voters were ignorant of that fact or because they don't care.  If the truth is the latter, the country is already beyond hope.

What Can You Wear to a Costume Party?

Driving to lunch today I heard some talk radio host discussing a story from New York.  I don't know any details beyond the little bit I heard while driving, but what got me thinking was just the general question about what's acceptable to wear to a costume party?

The story was about some New York Assemblyman who showed up at a party dressed in blackface and an afro wig.  The uber-sensitive New Yorkers were aghast.  According to the talk show host, they were so upset they accused the guy of being a Conservative!  He probably just said, "shoot me now" when he heard that one.  The host said the guy's just another New York Democrat, so the conservative accusation sounds like it's an attempt to suggest that only conservatives would do something so racist as to show up to a party dressed up as a black man.

Rather than discuss the politics and rampant PC nature of the story, this got me thinking something else.  Suppose you received an invitation to a costume party.  What costumes are "safe", and which will earn you a "racist" label?

Let's start with the blackface question.  Suppose you're a chubby dude who can do a reasonably good Bill Cosby imitation.  So you dress up as Fat Albert and show up at the party with a hearty, "Hey, Hey, Hey!".  Does that make you racist no matter what, is it racist only if your impression stinks, or is it not racist at all but merely an homage to Bill Cosby and one of his best cartoon characters?

Here's another one.  You put on mocassins and buckskins, add a headband with a colored feather, and maybe a few fingers of "warpaint" across your cheeks.  You do a reasonable imitation of Tonto as you enter the party, calling everyone "Kemosabe".  Is that racist?  If it is, then what about the ourtrageous costume worn by Johnny Depp in his portrayal of Tonto in the upcoming Lone Ranger movie?  If it's racist to show up to a party as Tonto in a less outrageous costume, then what would you call Depp's portrayal?

It just occurs to me that creating a costume for a party should not be a career-ending move.  Because I don't see any racism there.  If it somehow involves an elaborate insult to somebody at the party, which I can't imagine precisely how that would work, maybe it could be interpreted as racist.  But this guy in New York deserves a lot more ridicule for how silly he probably looked in blackface and an afro wig than being crucified for racism.  Perhaps either case might be a career-ender, but I don't see racism in what he did.  Of course I didn't see a picture of him in costume either - perhaps that could change my mind.

Why Government Can't Run Anything

The worst example of the petualant government punishing us for daring to try reeling them in just a bit was reported today.  Janet Napolitano has decided to release detained illegal immigrants, claiming the pending "sequester" as the cause.  This is why we shouldn't let the government run anything, because they aren't focused on doing the best thing for America, but on piling up as much personal power and wealth as they possibly can at the expense of the rest of us.

Some examples of bureaucratic dysfunction from personal experience:

Post Office:  Can we feel sorry that they're going bankrupt?  I have multiple experiences that went something like this:  I decide to run to the Columbus Post Office at lunchtime to mail a package or two.  But lunchtime is when everybody else goes to the Post Office, so the line goes out the door and way down the hall.  As I make my way slowly through the line, I observe that there are two clerks serving the line of what I've estimated to be about 50 customers.  When I'm almost at the front of the line, one of the two clerks finishes with a customer then puts the "Closed" sign up at his station and leaves.  Now there's only one clerk, and the line's still extended out the door and down the hallway.  You don't mess with a union worker's scheduled break - no matter what!  I learned to use my small-town branch, which has extremely limited hours and is actually closed at lunchtime, but if you catch them open there's never a line.

College: Got kids that went to private colleges.  Dealing with private colleges on tuition bills and financial aid questions is pretty nice.  They're very accessible, friendly, and helpful.  But if your kid goes to a public university, just flip that on its head.  Did they make a mistake on the tuition bill?  You probably will have to go ahead and just pay the mistake, because you'll never be able to resolve it.  It takes herioc persistence to actually get somebody in the Bursar's office to take your call.  If you do get that State employee on the phone, you'll be stunned at her attitude; she will make it clear to you that she really does not care in the slightest whether there was a mistake on your bill, she will be defensive in making it crystal clear to you that the mistake wasn't her fault, then she will show little to no interest in fixing the error.

Medicare and Medicaid:  We've just recently had more experience with these government organizations than anybody should be saddled with in a lifetime.  I won't go into detail, but just imagine all the worst stereotypes of the uncaring government bureaucrat rolled into one beastly government employee.  Its as if they've been trained to make any contact with them the most painful experience anyone could possibly imagine.  Excessive rules and regulations, most of which are unfathomable and random.  No compassion, no empathy, and certainly no attempt to be helpful in finding a way through the regulatory tangle to solve a problem.  I'd call Medicare and Medicaid bureaucrats bloodsucking trolls who practice Senior Abuse.  Just think, Obamacare mainly expands these programs to affect every one of us.

Now the idea of cutting back the growth of the bureaucracy about 2 percent has caused Obama to go on a campaign tour scaring everybody about all the government programs that will get worse because they can't spend all of the additional budget they were supposed to automatically receive next year.  The King of the Bureaucrats says, "How dare you cut back on my money. If you don't give it back, I'm going to make your lives even more miserable than I do already."

Is that even possible?

Sharing the Misery

For many years now, I've heard and mostly agreed with the theme about what Liberal governance brings; not an improvement in poor people's lives, but misery shared equally by all.

So now we get Forbes' list of the most miserable cities in America.

1. Detroit
2. Flint
3. Rockford, IL
4. Chicago
5. Modesto, CA
6. Vallejo, CA
7. Warren, MI
8. Stockton, CA
9. Lake County, IL
10. New York
11. Toledo, OH
12. St Louis
13. Camden, NJ
14. Milwaukee
15. Atlantic City
16. Atlanta
17. Cleveland
18. Poughkeepsie, NY
19. Gary, IN
20. Youngstown, OH

The obvious conclusion that can be reached with this list is related to the consequences of unfettered Liberal governance.  With Rockford, Chicago, and Lake County all in the top 10, it should give everyone pause about the president we somehow elected twice who is a product of that Chicago machine.

Certainly California and New York fit the bill in terms of unfettered liberal socialist governance.  But I see other trends.

What ties these cities together - Detroit, Flint, Warren, Toledo?  The auto manufacturing industry.  Wait, isn't Obama out there telling everyone he saved that industry?  Dirty little truth - he didn't save it, be merely extended and deepened the misery.  Bailing out the union pension funds and beefing up GM's balance sheet did nothing to address the structural failures of GM.  Giving Chrysler away to Fiat hardly qualifies as "saving" that company.

Fact is, Henry Ford's American automotive juggernaut is dead.  The Japanese, Koreans, and Germans are all building better cars cheaper.  Because they don't face the same obstacles the U.S. Government places in front of the American manufacturers.  Fortunately Henry's company continues to survive despite all the efforts of Washington bureaucrats to kill it.

Another group of cities - Cleveland, Gary, Youngstown.  Those cities have long been known as Steel Cities.  What has killed them?  Federal Environmental Regulation.  Gary was once a thriving metropolis with jobs for the taking that paid wages well above those people could get anywhere else.  But they were dirty jobs.  Dangerous jobs.  So the Steel Industry is all but gone from North America, moved overseas to countries who don't mind putting their poor folks to work in dirty, dangerous steel plants.

So yes, every city on the list can track its demise straight back to government.  Sometimes it's local government corruption (Gary, Cleveland), sometimes it's City and State corruption (Rockford, Chicago, Lake County, California).  Mostly it's all of the above.

Want to find out where people are thriving?  The Dakotas, where Obama hasn't figured out how to shut down their oil shale boom.  Most of the states with Republican governors.  Perhaps except for New Jersey, where we're learning that Chris Christie is not a Republican.  In Ohio, even with a Republican Governor, it doesn't seem possible to overcome the longstanding domination of places like Cleveland by liberal Democrats.  One of the most notorious places for Democrat voter fraud in this year's election was Cleveland.

Certainly Gary has always been influenced much more by Chicago politically than Indianapolis.

The trends can't be more stark.

False Assumptions Blindly Accepted

Claudia had her ETWN Catholic Radio streaming this morning, and I heard some women in a conversation about Pope Benedict's retirement.  What I picked up on was their discussion about somebody on MSNBC who was hassling a Catholic guest (I didn't pick up on who the guest was or who the MSNBC host was) about Pope Benedict's possible successor.

It was the narrative we can expect from the Left Wing people who dominate the MSNBC lineup.  Harrass the Catholic guest about the need for the new Pope to be more "moderate".  The ladies were reacting to the host's caricature of Pope Benedict as a "Conservative", and that host's insistence that the Church should be more flexible and elect a "moderate" or "liberal" replacement.

The ladies were saying that the Church doesn't care about today's divisive labels like "Conservative" or "Liberal".  The Church holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which do not change along with popular secular values.  Where I thought they went off the rails a bit was when they used an invalid assumption to argue that the Church is not "Liberal" because they care about the poor, just as they are not "Conservative" because they honor the sacrament of marriage.

They've fallen into the popular culture trap that suggests that Liberals have the exclusive franchise for the characteristic called "Caring for the Poor".  That suggestion is so ingrained that I don't think the ladies have the slightest awareness of how terribly untrue it is.

Liberal socialist government gains and holds power by creating dependency among the highest possible number of citizens.  So now we hear that somewhere around half of the total United States population gets a check or some other form of subsidy from Washington every month.  Did that happen because they "care" more about poor people than conservatives? 

No.  It happened because the most important goal of a liberal politician is always to gain office, then make sure he or she stays in that office in perpetuity.  They create massive new programs under the guise of "helping the poor" which simply allow them to hire lots of their friends into overpaid positions in the bureaucracy, where those friends are empowered to write all the rules and regulations about who qualifies, how much they get in their check, and often what they can use the money to buy.  The goal of these programs is not to move people back to self-sufficiency; rather it is to continue to grow the rolls of beneficiaries so they can hire more buddies and write more rules.

Meanwhile, Conservatives actually find ways to help people with their actual problems.  Rather than a monthly check with strings attached, a conservative prefers to deal with a poor person one at a time.  Find out who the poor person is, and what he needs.  If he needs a meal, a conservative feeds him through his church's soup kitchen or food pantry.  If he needs a job, a conservatives refers him to placement agencies.  Overall, the conservative rejects the centralized monthly check approach in favor of helping the poor person solve whatever problem is standing between him and self-sufficiency.

So the only government program a conservative might support to deal with the poor would be an agency designed to meet the immediate need, prepare the poor person through education to be able to find and hold a job, then transition that poor person into a life of self-sufficiency.  No strings attached, other than a message to the person that was helped that they should show their appreciation by contributing to help others benefit from their experience.

I'm tired of this narrative that Liberals are the only ones who care about the poor.  Who cares more about a poor man?  The one who demands the government levy higher taxes on somebody else so they can send the man a monthly check, keeping him poor and helpless his entire life?  Or the one who prefers to go out and help the man escape his poverty and become successful, independent, and free?

This Stuff Doesn't Happen in America

At least that's what I used to think, until Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama announced their Contraceptive Mandate under ObamaCare.  I just read the letter sent out by David Green, the founder of Hobby Lobby, looking for support in his newly filed lawsuit against the Feds.  He already filed a suit earlier, but a liberal judge threw it out without considering it.  So he's back to square one with the courts.

Only dictators did this kind of stuff to their own citizens.  People like Hitler, Stalin, Mao.  Over the past few years I have been reading and listening to current and former members of the Obama cabinet as they express admiration for Mao and Stalin. 

Hobby Lobby is facing fines well in excess of a million dollars per day for refusing to comply.  Sebelius says that the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient.  Is that a lie or a technical misinterpretation of the definition of "abortifacient"?

Germans elected an evil dictator who burned down the planet and killed millions while he tried to create his perfect society.  Americans have elected and re-elected a man no less evil who hasn't started killing people already born, but clearly has the annihilation of all "unwanted" (read: undesirable) children at the top of his list.

What will it take for Americans to wake up to the tyranny?  The contraceptive mandate isn't a big deal to them because they use them, and think religious objections are silly.  The destruction of the coal industry they don't know much about, because the news media refuses to report it.  The efforts to block all other carbon-based energy sources they also remain oblivious and willfully ignorant about, even as the new Secretary of State uses his very first public speech after taking over the office to promote - guess what? - Global Climate Change!  See, he says it's the single most critical threat to national security that's out there. 

So the two top priorities for the Obama government are:
1. Stop everyone not in the bureaucrat class from having children!
2. Stop everyone who refuses to comply with the tyrant bureaucracy from earning a living, heating and cooling their homes, or driving their vehicles so they can't escape to a place of freedom.

The old movie "The Time Machine" played on a cable channel over the weekend.  The one made in the 60's, not the more recent version.  And I thought about today's America when I watched the scene in which all of the Eloi marched to their slaughter as if in a trance as the Morlocks sounded the air raid sirens.  The poor sheep-like Eloi had been conditioned by the Morlocks to be complient that they didn't even really understand what they were doing, nor that by obeying their conditioned response they were willingly walking to their death.

Will it be too late to save our grand country before we find outselves being marched to our own destruction by our own Morlocks?  Perhaps if we started calling Federal Bureaucrats "Morlocks" from now on, people will begin to figure it out.  Barack Obama is King of the Morlocks.  Kathleen Sebelius is the leader of the Morlock bereaucrat class, who live underground and feast on poor unsuspecting Eloi citizens.

Good Basketball Night

Indiana and Butler were playing simultaneously.  So I used the "Previous Channel" button last night to pop back and forth between the games.  I didn't need to spend a lot of time with Butler, as they dispatched Duquesne pretty easily.  Indiana didn't have such an easy time with Michigan State, which was as expected.

Magic Johnson was highly complimentary of the Hoosiers, calling out Victor Oladipo for special recognition.  Victor was absolutely the Indiana player most worthy to be featured as the catalyst who led the Hoosiers to victory.  The Spartans made a serious bid late in the game to grab the win and consequently the sole lead of the Big 10.  But Oladipo's steals, dunks, and free throws allowed the Hoosiers to reclaim a lost lead and pull away from the Spartans at the end.

Even as a lifelong fan of Indiana basketball, I have to confess that I expected them to fall at Michigan State.  The Spartans looked fantastic in recent victories over Michigan and Ohio State.  Add the home-court advantage that is so evident in the Big 10, and I figured the Hoosiers would not be able to overcome.

Now Indiana retains their top national ranking and is very likely to be awarded a top seed in the tournament.  Unless the wheels come off and the Hoosiers suddenly go on a losing streak in their last 3 or 4 games of the season.  They may drop a game, perhaps to Minnesota or Ohio State.  But after last night's performance, I sort of doubt they'll stumble the rest of the way.  I would like to see Cody Zeller become a bit more assertive on offense, something Magic Johnson pointed out last night.  If the Hoosiers go into the tournament with Cody dominating the paint, Vic Oladipi creating and slashing to the hoop, Jordi Hulls burying 3's, Yogi distributing the ball and eliminating turnovers and looking more like Isaiah, Watford hitting open shots and dunking offensive rebouds, and Sheehy going on scoring tears off the bench, they've got to be a favorite for the national championship. 

As Magic said last night, "Indiana has to be a favorite in the tournament, because they have it all".  Sure, they do have all the pieces to win, but all those pieces don't quite show up as expected every game.

Butler looks healthy and they're certainly rediscovering their signature tough team defense and dead-eye shooting.  They still struggled in some areas against Duquesne last night, but played the best I've seen since before their loss in St. Louis.

The Bulldogs get the Billikens next at home.  I hope to have a chance to see that game, and am curious to see whether Hinkle Fieldhouse will help them find their game and reverse the effects of that Billiken blowout of a couple of weeks ago.  They need to beat STL at home to convince me that they really might have a chance to go deep into the tournament next month.

The tournament will be more fun than it's been in many years, if my predictions hold true.  Especially if my final four picks actually make it through.  Butler has to beet the Billikens to win my confidence for them, Duke and Indiana must close out their conference titles, and Michigan must start playing a lot better.  If Michigan doesn't improve, I may have to replace them with Michigan State in my Final Four.  Whatever Butler does, I'll still root for them to make it through because I'm a fan, even though their performance against STL will tell me a lot about their chances.

Drones in Our Skies

There are recent stories about drones being deployed here in the United States.  The stories I've seen so far are vague about the purpose of the drones, aside from suggesting they might be used in law enforcement.

The brand new policy and practice of the Obama admnistration is to use unmanned Drones extensively to kill enemy terrorists in the middle east.  My initial reaction was that it sounds like a good idea.  If we can get the intelligence that helps us figure out exactly where an Al Quaeda leader is hanging out, a drone strike can kill him without risking the lives of American military personnel who would otherwise be called upon to mount a risky commando raid to accomplish the same thing.

But then I hear that the drone strikes routinely take out not only the Al Quaeda leader, but also lots of people who happen to be in his vicinity.  Including women and children.  In war, women and children get killed if they're in the way - I understand that.  But if I think for a moment about how I'd feel if a Drone strike killed my children who just happened to be in the way when it took out a terrorist target, it certainly wouldn't endear the country that's operating that drone to me.

All that aside, my biggest concern is that now it seems Drones will be based domestically.  Obama himself is said to identify all targets himself.  So naturally the next question I have is, who will Obama target for death by Drone here in America?  I'm having trouble finding a good rationale for using drones domestically, for any purpose.

Adding to my unease is all the talk I hear from folks like Janet Napolitano about "Domestic Terrorists".  As far as I can tell, a domestic terrorist is some sort of right-wing anti-government activist who is willing to attack American government facilities and personnel.  Beyond Timothy McVeigh, who is she talking about?  Maybe abortion clinic bombers?  It's frightening to think that the current Leftist administration seems to view Conservatives as dangerous enemies to their brand of governance.

Sure, we may be their political enemies, but we're not a physical threat to them.  We're hoping to get a chance to remove them from power, not with bombs and bullets, but at the ballot box.  Now, if they succeed in their efforts to overturn the second amendment, I can't guarantee there won't be some folks who will resist strongly - maybe even violently.  But today's Liberal imagination about Conservative violence is no more than fantasy.

Here's the scenario I think we may see play out very soon.  The news headlines report a disastrous explosion and fire at, say, Rush Limbaugh's home in Florida.  It takes place at 3AM while Rush and his wife are sleeping.  Neither of them survives.  The official government explanation is that it was an accidental explosion caused by a gas leak.

Over the weeks that follow, an increasing number of people become skeptical about the government story.  Local law enforcement and first responders were blocked from the scene by Feds, according to several reports.  An eyewitness who happened to be on the beach nearby at the time of the explosion swears he saw a missile penetrate the Limbaugh home at 3AM, which ignited a fireball. 

Would this President be so bold as to assassinate his political opponents, especially if he sees his power seriously challenged?  Would Obama use drones against his political enemies if he believed he could get away with it?

I hope and pray he would not.  Certainly if the same Drone program had been implemented by George W. Bush, there would be crowds of outraged liberals on the streets in protest.  I remember when the far left folks, like actors and college professors, were telling everybody who would listen how absolutely certain they were that the Bush administration had them under surveillance.  Those same people have no issue with Obama's surveillance programs supplemented now by the Drone program. 

I think it's because they trust Obama.  They trust Obama not to spy on them, because of course they are his ardent supporters.  They don't care whether Obama is spying on Conservatives, because they seem to consider conservatives evil people who deserve to be watched closely.  I wonder if they're blind support for Obama would be shaken if they were actually faced with strong evidence he was taking out his opposition with Drone strikes on Conservative activists?  My guess is no.

There's plenty of precedent in the history of the world.  Authoritarian dictators have often repeated the pattern of arresting and "disappearing" their political opponents with mass murders they try to cover up by lying to the general public.

I'm also expecting Obama to instruct his FCC to close down Fox News and various talk radio shows, using a cover story that claims these outlets promote violence or domestic terrorism.  What I can't predict with any certainty is whether those actions will precede the assassinations, follow them, or run concurrently with them.

A Liberal would tell me to lighten up, none of this stuff will actually ever happen.  To the Liberal I would say, "I hope and pray these things do not happen".  But the actions and rhetoric I've seen from this President for 4 years suggests strongly that there is major cause for concern.

America's Leading Disorder

It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).  The symptoms of this disorder have been defined by the Mayo Clinic as follows.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

• Believing that you're better than others
• Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents
• Expecting constant praise and admiration
• Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
• Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
• Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
• Taking advantage of others
• Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
• Being jealous of others
• Believing that others are jealous of you
• Trouble keeping healthy relationships
• Setting unrealistic goals
• Being easily hurt and rejected
• Having a fragile self-esteem
• Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

One man in particular comes to mind, exhibiting every one of these traits. He's unfortunately the current President of the United States.  If you haven't noticed how closely he tracks to these traits, you're either in denial or not paying attention.

Another recent example I've noticed is in the racing world.  Danica Patrick just divorced her husband to give herself permission to practice adultery with a young Nascar driver.  It's very true that I know almost nothing about Danica, but I have seen her on television.  Her persona oozes NPD.

Other famous folks I suspect of NPD:
Alec Baldwin
Donald Trump
Soledad O'Brien
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Hillary Clinton
Madonna
Bill Clinton
Charlie Crist
John Edwards

Given a bit more time to think about it, I could probably expand the list to a pretty long one.  But if you're not sure I'm on the right track with those on my list, just look at the list of symptoms and ask yourself if these folks seem to fit most of them?  Certainly they do, the current President as much or more than most of the others.

I know some people who have the disorder.  What they have in common is denial.  Some brave soul at some point has accused them of NPD, and they have lashed out at them and branded them stupid or ignorant for daring to think so.  The NPD may know the definition of the disorder, but refuse to consider that any part of that definition applies to themself.  Their explanation for narcissistic attitudes and behavior is that it's not narcissism, but self-confidence, intelligence, or reason.  The narcissist not only refuses to recognize it in themselves, but don't seem to recognize it in others either.

The narcissist has a self-image they don't believe is delusions of granduer, but that they really are superior to most everyone else.  The narcissist doesn't just think she's better, she knows she's better than everybody else.  She's the most intelligent, beautiful, and interesting person in any room in which she finds herself. She believes that her unique ideas are superior to anything anyone else is capable of creating, and therefore deserves to be put in charge.

The narcissist never fails.  His failures are always caused by someone else who undermined his efforts with malicious intent to harm him personally.  He is incapable of empathy.  He loves the spotlight.  He craves attention and praise.  Perhaps that's why so many of our politicians and entertainers exhibit the disorder.

The Cause that Never Ends

The Minimum Wage is back.  Democrats have been pushing to increase it as long as I've been alive.  Now Obama's telling us we can solve poverty simply by pushing it up to 9 bucks an hour.  Isn't that amazing!?  All this time the only reason people were poor is because the minimum wage was too low?  So why don't we raise it immediately?  Instead of 9 bucks an hour, why not 20?  Or 40 even?  Why, if everybody made over 40 bucks an hour, there would be no poor.

What further evidence do we need that the Democrat constituency is ignorant, gullible, and just plain stupid?  Is it even necessary to point out the disastrous consequences of jacking up the minimum wage in these ecomonically horrible conditions?  It shouldn't be necessary, but sadly it is.

OK, let's say the law passes. Minimum wage is 9 bucks.

You own a small business.  You've been hiring college kids in the summer to do various menial tasks.  Not because they're critical to your operations, but because you have kids yourself, and feel like they need the opportunity to earn some money over the summer to help them cover some expenses in the next school year.  At $7.25 it's a pinch over the old minimums in the $5 range, but you figure it's worth it to help the kids and their families out.

But $9 is another matter.  At 9 bucks, you have to seriously rethink your policy on summer help, because it takes your expenses too high and threatens profits.  So you'll have to cut back on the student program or maybe cut it out entirely.

Think about all the municipalities and counties who hire dozens of students every summer at minimum wage.  The kids are summer camp counselors, lifeguards, umpires, city parks gardeners, library aides, and fill many other roles for the town.  The city budget for summer student workers has just gone up 24 percent overnight.  If you're the mayor, county commissioner, or someone holding an office with responsibility for these programs, you're stuck with few solutions.  You've either got to cut back on your summer student workforce by about 24 percent, cut hours for students to 32 or 35 hours per week from 40, or get tax increases passed to fund the mandated increases.

Just about everybody can understand what it will do to the fast food business.  Pretty much everybody in your local McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King makes minimum wage or not much more.  Suddenly your store's payroll costs jump 24 percent.  Because it isn't just the people making minimum wage that have to get a raise, but virtually everyone else has to get a proportionate raise as well.  So the Assistant Manager who was making about 9 bucks an hour is now going to be satisfied making the same as the minimum wage people she supervises?  No way.  So she's got to get bumped to 11 or 12 bucks.  And so on up the ladder. 

How does the restaurant absorb the additional cost?  They can't absorb it, because their margins are already paper-thin.  So everything on the menu gets more expensive.  The $6 combo meal now has to cost $8.  In this bad economy, folks who could manage to take the kids to McDonalds for lunch on the weekend could find $6 for each one to have a Happy Meal.  But now that it's $8, it could become just enough of a price hike to cause Mom and Dad to decide to stay home and make a pot of Mac & Cheese for the kids.

So it sounds like good news - everybody gets a raise!  But it's not such good news, because the price of pretty much everything is going up to eat every penny of your newfound raise.  But then if you got the raise in the first place, you're one of the lucky ones.  Because depending on the size of your community, hundreds to thousands of your neighbors just lost their jobs.  And not just the minimum wage teens, but people in jobs across the spectrum. 

Because the unavoidable fact of economic life is that when costs go up for business, business is forced to economize.  And the first place businesses economize is their workforce.  The owners and managers of your employer and all of your neighbors' employers will scrutinize their workforce in every department and every position, looking for which employees they think they could live without.

So if you're excited about Obama's utopian plan to get everybody a living wage, just hope you're a productive and irreplaceable employee.  Because what good is a government-mandated pay raise if you end up losing your job because of it?

They say there's no way that proposal will see the light of day in congress.  But what if Obama simply imposes it by dictatorial edict through his Labor Department?  He's discovered that he can pass all kinds of laws without any help from congress, and all that happens is a lawsuit that takes years to make its way through the courts.  By then he will have a Supreme Court majority in place that will uphold everything he tells them to uphold, so in effect the transition from a Republic to a Dictatorship will be complete.

A Story I Almost Missed

Sure, I noticed the news coverage of that former Los Angeles cop, Chris Dorner, seemed to snap and began shooting people.  I sort of dismissed it due to lack of interest, thinking it just another deranged shooter that will eventually be cornered and killed or arrested.  Which of course he was.

But then I started wondering, where is all the outcry from the usual media types about how this is just one more example of why America needs to confiscate guns from its citizens.  This morning I seem to have found out why, in a story I completely missed while the hunt for Dorner was going on.

Apparently, Dorner's not just another deranged shooter.  He's a cult hero.  The message seems to be that he was so maltreated by the racist LAPD that he became angry enough to fight back.  Sort of like "Django Unchained".  Sorry, I haven't seen that movie and don't plan to, so the reference is mostly lost on me.  All I've gathered is Django is some black man that shoots a bunch of white men that were mistreating him.  The movie looks like an 19th century era western.

These CNN/MSNBC types say, "we don't condone what he did, but think he can teach us a lesson about the state of race relations in the country".

Um, really?  Exactly what state are you talking about?  You mean the mostly imaginary idea that people with black skin are still treated no better than their slave ancestors were 200 years ago?  That the "Black Community"s failure to prosper is evidence of that institutionalized racism, and has nothing to do with the black population's family breakdown, hip-hop "gangsta" culture, and peer influence on the children to be sure not to excel in school because that's "acting white"?

So if I understand the message, it goes something like this:  If Dorner had been white, well, he would have been portrayed as another crazy white man who went off his meds and started shooting people.  Why haven't we already taken the guns away from everybody so this won't happen again?  But since Dorner was black, he is a crusading misunderstood hero who managed to hold out against all the resources the LAPD could muster against him.  Then those evil cops and politicians (read: white) were too cowardly to take him alive, but purposely burned him to death in that cabin.

Just the basic notion that so many people think this way saddens me.

A Great Topic for Study

If I didn't have to work for a living, I'd be tempted to take on the project myself.  These days I constantly hear stories about how there are mass migrations of companies and people out of blue states and into red ones.  Most notably out of California and into Texas, as has been highlighted by this week's high-profile recruiting trip taken by Rick Perry to pitch Texas to a bunch of California companies.

Indiana has been claiming a nice influx of companies relocating out of places like Illinois and Michigan.  I'd like to find some actual numbers that would tell me how many companies, how many people came with them, and how much the move is contributing to their bottom lines.

Certainly if I were a rich guy like Phil Mickelson, I'd be putting my SoCal mansion up for sale and shopping for a new place somewhere in Florida.  The savings for somebody like Phil are huge, and my only question for him would be why he didn't move a long time ago.  He got hammered so hard for making his offhand comment about having to make some changes that he actually apologized.  There was absolutely nothing he needed to apologize for.  At least he just said he shouldn't have said it publicly, so I take that to mean he isn't backing off the basic message - he just regrets all the public attention he drew to himself.

Back home in Indiana, our new governor, Mike Pence, is planning to cut state taxes by about 10 percent.  Democrats call that everything from grandstanding to irresponsible.  I merely think Mike needs to be careful.  Don't cut taxes unless at the same time you change the structure of spending to protect the budget from the potential of reduced revenue from the cuts. 

Economics and historical evidence from Reagan suggest that lower taxes stimulate private investment, which ends up returning more revenue to the government in total, not less.  It's true, despite decades of Democrat denial and ridicule.  Certainly Indiana could use a rethinking of its tax structure, given what I think is an unnecessary level of taxation when you add together the State income tax, local income tax, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, inventory taxes, and so on ad-infinitem.

Education was made a priority by Mitch Daniels.  The first education voucher system in the country is showing some positive early signs, but those may be offsite by the fact that the State elected a new Education Superintendent who is a teacher's union shill who is determined to overturn the voucher system. 

Imagine Indiana were to become the place with one of the lowest tax burdens, with the best-educated population in America.  The smartest thing Pence can do as governor is to make those two goals the centerpiece of his agenda over the next 8 years.

I'm sort of looking forward to finding out what happens in my state over the next few years.

Slow Sports Week

It's not really that slow of a week in sports.  But for Mike & Mike on ESPN, it sure seems like it's terribly slow.

But Greenberg and Golic are NFL guys.  They will talk other sports on occasion, but clearly their passion and expertise is for the NFL.  I tune in to them on ESPN2 while getting ready for work in the morning, and enjoy them during the NFL season.

But now that the NFL is done, and there's nothing happening until the Scouting Combine and the Draft, the guys just can't find anything interesting to talk about.

The last 2 days represents a case to prove my point.

First, they jumped into a silly discussion about South Carolina's Javeon Clowney.  They guy's an awesome specimen of a defensive football player.  He's big, he's fast, he's powerful.  If he were in this year's draft, he'd likely be chosen in the top 5.  But NFL rules say he's got to wait one more year before they'll allow him to enter the draft.

So Greenburg decides to posit the question, would Clowney be better off to take this year off and hire a top-notch trainer to whip him into NFL shape to maximize his value in next year's draft?  He cites Clowney's teammate, running back Marcus Lattimore.  Lattimore is one of the most talented running backs in college football, but he blew out his knee this season.  He's entering the NFL draft, but won't get picked nearly as high as he would have without the injury.

The question is ridiculous.  Regardless of the sport, players are going to play.  Clowney is more interested in helping the Gamecocks to an SEC and possible National Championship next year than in improving his draft position. 

I think Golic was a bit irritiated with the premise, as he didn't have much to add to the conversation beyond a simple statement, "players play".  Whether the topic was pushed by Greenberg or by their producers, it wasn't even worthy of passing mention - let alone monopolizing their sports talk show for at least an hour.

Day 2 topic: Is LeBron better than Michael Jordan?  Another ridiculous topic.  They're two different people and two different players.  They have two different styles. 

I'm not a fan of people who try to compare professional athletes from different eras.  There's no point.  The only comparison that makes any sense at all is statistics.  The player who scored the most points, won the most championships, etc. wins.  Because there isn't any other way to measure athletes against each other.  Beyond statistics, there's no point in comparing them across eras.

My advice for the Mikes?  Stay with the NFL, or learn something about basketball, hockey, soccer, baseball, and other sports so you have something relevant to talk about in the offseason.

Above all, please stop hammering silly topics that mean nothing.

Something I Just Realized

I skipped that SOTU speech, and don't regret it.  I saw the big USA Today article this morning that recapped Obama's agenda from the speech.  As I read through point-by-point, my internal response was No, No, No Way!, Hell No!, No, No ...

That's when I realized something.  When Bill Clinton was in office and I caught his SOTU, my internal responses were more like, No, No, Yes, Maybe, Hmm, No, No, Yes.  Bill actually used to say some things I agreed with.  Barry, not a single one.

I saw something comparing his long, boring speech to those for which Fidel Castro was well known.  I'm thinking the substance probably tracked closely with Fidel too.