I had considered stopping by Donner park yesterday to check out the Tea Party event there, but ended up working late (Never thought I'd be thrilled to be working late, but boy was I ever!)
So when I did wrap up in the evening, I drove by just to see what was happening. It looked like the crowd was breaking up, with lots of folks walking to their cars. I couldn't tell much about turnout, but noticed cars parked in unusual places, so it seemed there were enough to strain available parking.
I watched some of the Fox News coverage, and noticed several things.
The crowds seemed substantially white, middle-class, and clean-cut. These folks aren't your typical protesters. They aren't into chanting slogans that much. They listen to the speakers and cheer a lot, but if a speaker gets partisan they might boo him.
The events apparently weren't covered by anybody other than Fox News, except maybe for local press and media. There's a clip from CNN with one of their reporters starting to interview a Tea Party attendee then rudely cutting him off and insulting him when he tried to answer her condescending question (Why are you here protesting taxes, when Obama's plan actually gives you a tax cut?)
The local newspaper did a front-page photo but a fairly small and dismissive article. Obviously the reporter wasn't a fan. The photo seemed designed to project a negative image - it showed an angry-looking unattractive woman holding a sign and yelling something.
Either the press doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the driving force behind this movement. They echo the Obama talking points, that everybody except the "rich" are getting a break, so what's the problem?
Then there's the vulgar stuff, that I was very surprised showed up on CNN as well. Imagine if Fox News used a vulgar sexual reference to describe a leftist protest.
The important questions are whether this is a one-time thing, or the start of a movement that will bring government back to reality; and will this gain enough momentum to actually reconfigure the membership of congress?
It would be nice, but the country's still pretty much polarized around 50-50. We shall see next year.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Paying Attention
An unfortunate fact lately is I have time to pay attention to things going on in the world. I think I'd rather be busy working and oblivious, but at least it gives my mind something to do during quiet times.
Some things I noticed:
Obama wanted to name Caroline Kennedy Ambassador to the Vatican. Naturally, the Vatican politely declined. I wonder what the true explanation might be for why The Great and Powerful OB made such a stupid choice?
The first explanation is that he's simply ignorant. With his faux Roman Catholic friends, like the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, et al, perhaps he thought she was a typical Catholic?.
Maybe he did it on purpose to tweak Pope Benedict. He thought everybody would be outraged that he would reject Princess Caroline. Perhaps it might be true for the atheists and faux Catholics in Obama's inner circle, but actual Catholics are pretty happy the Vatican held firmly to their faith and principles.
Thinking a bit further on the subject, it seems that Obama will have a very difficult time with this appointment. Because I'm not sure he even knows anybody that would be acceptable to the Vatican. He certainly doesn't seem to understand or respect anybody who actually practices their faith.
Another thing I noticed was related to the successful rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates. Not the rescue itself, which is actually a rare example of Obama doing the right thing.
What I noticed are three stories. The first was the unseemly media blitz from the White House that commenced immediately after the captain was rescued by Navy Seals. Apparently, White House staffers called all their media buddies to crow that it was all Obama. He ordered it, coordinated it, perhaps even micro-managed the operation from the White House, according to his in-house spin machine.
They have no class.
The second story I noticed was that Obama only gave approval for force to be used in the rescue shortly before it took place. The story seemed to suggest that he was hesitant and indecisive, and only gave the Navy a green light to act if the captain's life was in imminent danger. That is a concern for future and probably much more serious terrorist crises that will certainly present themselves.
The third story is about the recent photo op for Obama when he visited the troops in Iraq. I saw that picture, which showed a crowd of adoring soldiers fawning over The Great and Powerful OB, shooting pictures and getting autographs. I was a bit surprised when I saw that photo, because I had always held the general impression that the military wasn't particularly enamored of the Great & Powerful Wizard.
So today I heard the explanation. An advance team carefully screened the soldiers to make sure only strong Obama supporters got in when he made his visit. Then they gave them cameras to shoot their pictures, and photos to get autographed.
The visit was staged for purely propaganda purposes. I seem to recall that the Soviets used to do that sort of thing. Other totalitarian regimes do the same around the globe. Now the Great and Powerful OB is getting in on the game.
By the way, the elimination of the conscience rule for healthcare professionals is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the first doctor or pharmacist refuses to participate in an abortion.
Is anybody else paying attention?
Some things I noticed:
Obama wanted to name Caroline Kennedy Ambassador to the Vatican. Naturally, the Vatican politely declined. I wonder what the true explanation might be for why The Great and Powerful OB made such a stupid choice?
The first explanation is that he's simply ignorant. With his faux Roman Catholic friends, like the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, et al, perhaps he thought she was a typical Catholic?.
Maybe he did it on purpose to tweak Pope Benedict. He thought everybody would be outraged that he would reject Princess Caroline. Perhaps it might be true for the atheists and faux Catholics in Obama's inner circle, but actual Catholics are pretty happy the Vatican held firmly to their faith and principles.
Thinking a bit further on the subject, it seems that Obama will have a very difficult time with this appointment. Because I'm not sure he even knows anybody that would be acceptable to the Vatican. He certainly doesn't seem to understand or respect anybody who actually practices their faith.
Another thing I noticed was related to the successful rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates. Not the rescue itself, which is actually a rare example of Obama doing the right thing.
What I noticed are three stories. The first was the unseemly media blitz from the White House that commenced immediately after the captain was rescued by Navy Seals. Apparently, White House staffers called all their media buddies to crow that it was all Obama. He ordered it, coordinated it, perhaps even micro-managed the operation from the White House, according to his in-house spin machine.
They have no class.
The second story I noticed was that Obama only gave approval for force to be used in the rescue shortly before it took place. The story seemed to suggest that he was hesitant and indecisive, and only gave the Navy a green light to act if the captain's life was in imminent danger. That is a concern for future and probably much more serious terrorist crises that will certainly present themselves.
The third story is about the recent photo op for Obama when he visited the troops in Iraq. I saw that picture, which showed a crowd of adoring soldiers fawning over The Great and Powerful OB, shooting pictures and getting autographs. I was a bit surprised when I saw that photo, because I had always held the general impression that the military wasn't particularly enamored of the Great & Powerful Wizard.
So today I heard the explanation. An advance team carefully screened the soldiers to make sure only strong Obama supporters got in when he made his visit. Then they gave them cameras to shoot their pictures, and photos to get autographed.
The visit was staged for purely propaganda purposes. I seem to recall that the Soviets used to do that sort of thing. Other totalitarian regimes do the same around the globe. Now the Great and Powerful OB is getting in on the game.
By the way, the elimination of the conscience rule for healthcare professionals is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the first doctor or pharmacist refuses to participate in an abortion.
Is anybody else paying attention?
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
How Fair are Elections?
The rulings in the Minnesota case of the Senate election contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken would appear to grant the seat to Franken. I've read as much as I can find on the interesting race, recount, and subsequent legal challenge. My conclusion is that Franken will get the seat, not because he polled more Minnesota votes, but because he had a more aggressive legal team and stronger Democratic machine behind him.
The best analysis of the whole controversial election can be found at powerlineblog.com. I'll try to summarize the essential story on my own.
The election ended with Coleman ahead by only a few hundred votes. The recount required by statute was completed by each county election board, with an aggressive and well-funded team of Franken lawyers looking over their shoulders. Apparently, Coleman's camp was much less aggressive, and somehow the recount tipped the scales to a razor-thin margin for Franken.
Coleman's court contest of the election focused on the fact that Democrat dominated counties deviated from Minnesota state law in counting ballots, while Republican dominated counties held to the letter of the law. In other words, if an absentee ballot was not filled out, signed, and filed per Minnesota election law, the Democrat electors often counted it anyway, while Republicans did not.
Stories have surfaces throughout the process of precincts turning in more votes than they had registered voters; a couple hundred ballots suddenly turned up in a Democrat elector's trunk a couple of days after the election and were counted, even though 100% of those ballots happened to be marked for Franken; and another hundred-some votes were run through the machine twice at a Democrat precinct.
The election court ruled that about 400 previously rejected ballots were to be counted, but I haven't found the specific reasons why they were rejected or why they now must be counted. Those ballots apparently added another 100 votes net for Franken.
So Coleman is appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. Coleman's argument is that the process violated Equal Protection under the Law, because Democrat precincts were allowed to count ballots technically in violation of election law while Republican precincts followed the letter of the law. Coleman's case says that the local election boards were allowed to use their own judgement, and the lack of uniform standards applied to which ballots were counted and which were not amounts to an unfair application of the law which clearly favored the Democrat candidate.
There is no provision in Minnesota law for remedies to this situation. There also is no way to review all of those votes that have already been counted to throw out those that were illegally cast. So the court's ruling decided that since the only legal remedy is not available, there is no remedy but to seat Franken on the basis of the 350 or so vote differential he currently holds. The problem with Coleman's suggested remedy, which is to include 4,000 rejected ballots to make up for the fact that the Democrat precincts counted some significant but unknown number of ballots with the same flaws, is that the remedy would actually cause Minnesota's laws to be broken in order to count them.
Of course, there's the whole other issue in Minnesota of voting fraud. Everyone has by now heard of Obama's ACORN machine's vote fraud activities, which were just as prevalent in Minnesota as anywhere. Minnesota hasn't implemented Indiana's solution to voting fraud, simply requiring voters to show a valid identification when they appear at the polls.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of college students from Wisconsin fraudulently registering and voting, along with illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people, fictional characters, and other well-publicized tricks so favored by that party.
But again, there is no law on the books in Minnesota that permits or even makes possible a review of fraudulently cast votes. If somebody showed up at the polls and voted, or submitted an absentee ballot filled out properly, whether or not the voter was eligible matters not.
So can it be said that Franken won fairly? I don't think so.
Then there's the prosecutorial misconduct discovery against Ted Stevens in Alaska. His charges were dropped and his conviction overturned, and the prosecutors in that case may be prosecuted themselves. The FBI agent who uncovered this misconduct may have uncovered a broad Democrat conspiracy that caused the overzealous prosecution with the goal of gaining the magical filibuster-proof majority for the party.
And the New York race that is apparently still to close to call is another to be monitored to see whether we actually have free and fair elections in this country. Could it be that we've already become like China, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, where elections are predestined by the ruling party?
Possibly.
The best analysis of the whole controversial election can be found at powerlineblog.com. I'll try to summarize the essential story on my own.
The election ended with Coleman ahead by only a few hundred votes. The recount required by statute was completed by each county election board, with an aggressive and well-funded team of Franken lawyers looking over their shoulders. Apparently, Coleman's camp was much less aggressive, and somehow the recount tipped the scales to a razor-thin margin for Franken.
Coleman's court contest of the election focused on the fact that Democrat dominated counties deviated from Minnesota state law in counting ballots, while Republican dominated counties held to the letter of the law. In other words, if an absentee ballot was not filled out, signed, and filed per Minnesota election law, the Democrat electors often counted it anyway, while Republicans did not.
Stories have surfaces throughout the process of precincts turning in more votes than they had registered voters; a couple hundred ballots suddenly turned up in a Democrat elector's trunk a couple of days after the election and were counted, even though 100% of those ballots happened to be marked for Franken; and another hundred-some votes were run through the machine twice at a Democrat precinct.
The election court ruled that about 400 previously rejected ballots were to be counted, but I haven't found the specific reasons why they were rejected or why they now must be counted. Those ballots apparently added another 100 votes net for Franken.
So Coleman is appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. Coleman's argument is that the process violated Equal Protection under the Law, because Democrat precincts were allowed to count ballots technically in violation of election law while Republican precincts followed the letter of the law. Coleman's case says that the local election boards were allowed to use their own judgement, and the lack of uniform standards applied to which ballots were counted and which were not amounts to an unfair application of the law which clearly favored the Democrat candidate.
There is no provision in Minnesota law for remedies to this situation. There also is no way to review all of those votes that have already been counted to throw out those that were illegally cast. So the court's ruling decided that since the only legal remedy is not available, there is no remedy but to seat Franken on the basis of the 350 or so vote differential he currently holds. The problem with Coleman's suggested remedy, which is to include 4,000 rejected ballots to make up for the fact that the Democrat precincts counted some significant but unknown number of ballots with the same flaws, is that the remedy would actually cause Minnesota's laws to be broken in order to count them.
Of course, there's the whole other issue in Minnesota of voting fraud. Everyone has by now heard of Obama's ACORN machine's vote fraud activities, which were just as prevalent in Minnesota as anywhere. Minnesota hasn't implemented Indiana's solution to voting fraud, simply requiring voters to show a valid identification when they appear at the polls.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of college students from Wisconsin fraudulently registering and voting, along with illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people, fictional characters, and other well-publicized tricks so favored by that party.
But again, there is no law on the books in Minnesota that permits or even makes possible a review of fraudulently cast votes. If somebody showed up at the polls and voted, or submitted an absentee ballot filled out properly, whether or not the voter was eligible matters not.
So can it be said that Franken won fairly? I don't think so.
Then there's the prosecutorial misconduct discovery against Ted Stevens in Alaska. His charges were dropped and his conviction overturned, and the prosecutors in that case may be prosecuted themselves. The FBI agent who uncovered this misconduct may have uncovered a broad Democrat conspiracy that caused the overzealous prosecution with the goal of gaining the magical filibuster-proof majority for the party.
And the New York race that is apparently still to close to call is another to be monitored to see whether we actually have free and fair elections in this country. Could it be that we've already become like China, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, where elections are predestined by the ruling party?
Possibly.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
I seem to have started something
So the editorial has taken a life of its own. This Sunday there was a response, and today there were two more.
The guy who wrote the original letter that elicited my response sent in a rebuttal. Well, sort of. Interestingly, he seemed to capitulate from his original assertion that the old free market system is dead (hallelujah!). I got a chuckle because his attempt at rebuttal was pretty feeble.
He backpedaled and tried to say he wasn't suggesting socialism, just "reasonable" regulation. Then he reverted back to his straw man, trying to suggest that those free marketeers he was railing against wanted to do away with all government oversight. His examples, such as social security, unemployment insurance and antitrust laws, were laughable. Nobody I've heard on the capitalist right has ever seriously suggested anything more than reform of those programs. Not to mention that he completely missed my comment about lack of enforcement of antitrust law at the root of these institutions deemed "too big to fail".
I guess I won the argument without even trying very hard. But since when is it my job to put forward such arguments? Don't we have so-called "leaders" who are supposed to do that? I'm just a lowly software consultant who lives in the boonies.
Unfortunately, the other two guys writing on the topic were not easy to decipher. I'm pretty sure both of them were generally supportive of my thesis, but they probably should stick to their day jobs.
I don't think it necessary to write in again, at least not on that topic.
The guy who wrote the original letter that elicited my response sent in a rebuttal. Well, sort of. Interestingly, he seemed to capitulate from his original assertion that the old free market system is dead (hallelujah!). I got a chuckle because his attempt at rebuttal was pretty feeble.
He backpedaled and tried to say he wasn't suggesting socialism, just "reasonable" regulation. Then he reverted back to his straw man, trying to suggest that those free marketeers he was railing against wanted to do away with all government oversight. His examples, such as social security, unemployment insurance and antitrust laws, were laughable. Nobody I've heard on the capitalist right has ever seriously suggested anything more than reform of those programs. Not to mention that he completely missed my comment about lack of enforcement of antitrust law at the root of these institutions deemed "too big to fail".
I guess I won the argument without even trying very hard. But since when is it my job to put forward such arguments? Don't we have so-called "leaders" who are supposed to do that? I'm just a lowly software consultant who lives in the boonies.
Unfortunately, the other two guys writing on the topic were not easy to decipher. I'm pretty sure both of them were generally supportive of my thesis, but they probably should stick to their day jobs.
I don't think it necessary to write in again, at least not on that topic.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Solving Terrorism
When it comes to solving problems, I've learned that the first rule is to understand and deal with the root cause. Unfortunately, most people can't solve big problems because they try to fix the symptoms, missing or ignoring the underlying disease.
When considering the problem of Muslim terrorism, we see the Great and Powerful OB in full "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" mode. Not only is he trying to deny the very existence of Muslim terrorism, he pretends to ignore the elephant in the room. That elephant being the fact that the root of Muslim terrorism is the very existence of the State of Israel.
Hamas used the naive institution of "Democracy" in the Palestinian territories to gain political power. Hamas has made no attempt to hide its strong commitment to eradicate Israel and kill every non-Muslim in the region.
The simple conclusion is that the terrorists dedicated to that cause, supported by oil-rich Iran, Syria, and a quiet Saudi Arabia, will never accept any negotiated peace. They've promised their followers to never participate in the two state solution pushed by Clinton and Bush, and presumably supported by the Great and Powerful OB.
So what's the answer?
There's only one practical solution (Unless you consider running away and hiding from the problem a solution). An enforced peace. Pax Americana, if you will.
Get a coalition of allies to partner with the United States to force peace in the region. Here's how it works:
Freeze the borders where they are today. Palestinians can have a semi-autonomous state within the borders of the current Palestinian Territories. They can elect their own civil government, assess taxes, and handle the day-to-day administration of their state. Israel's borders are permanently set; no more negotiations or pressure on Israel to give more land for peace (like it's ever worked anyway).
Jerusalem belongs to neither state. The holy city belongs to the world. Citizens of Jerusalem may hold dual citizenship in Jerusalem and their country of origin. It will be extremely difficult for someone not already living and working in Jerusalem today to become a citizen. The US-built coalition commits to proving security in Jerusalem for 20 years, renewable if necessary at that time. Any Jerusalem citizen convicted of a violent crime faces eviction and loss of citizenship, as well as a lifetime ban from ever entering the city again.
The coalition will also provide a substantial number of troops to secure and protect each state. The troops will bring a martial law to the Israel-Palestinian border areas, cracking down on all cross-border violence. The martial law will last until the violence stops, then a gradual draw-down and handover of security to the respective governments will take place.
Any trouble-making by Iran will be dealt with harshly by the coalition. The message to Iran is this: "Stop supporting terrorism, do not deploy nuclear weapons, and we'll leave you alone. Continue those destructive actions and we'll crush you."
It might sound harsh, but it's true. The beauty of this idea is that it can be delivered to the parties as a sort of ultimatum: Either get together and negotiate your own peace deal, or peace will be imposed on you as of a date certain.
The belief in a diplomatic solution to this problem is pure fantasy.
When considering the problem of Muslim terrorism, we see the Great and Powerful OB in full "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" mode. Not only is he trying to deny the very existence of Muslim terrorism, he pretends to ignore the elephant in the room. That elephant being the fact that the root of Muslim terrorism is the very existence of the State of Israel.
Hamas used the naive institution of "Democracy" in the Palestinian territories to gain political power. Hamas has made no attempt to hide its strong commitment to eradicate Israel and kill every non-Muslim in the region.
The simple conclusion is that the terrorists dedicated to that cause, supported by oil-rich Iran, Syria, and a quiet Saudi Arabia, will never accept any negotiated peace. They've promised their followers to never participate in the two state solution pushed by Clinton and Bush, and presumably supported by the Great and Powerful OB.
So what's the answer?
There's only one practical solution (Unless you consider running away and hiding from the problem a solution). An enforced peace. Pax Americana, if you will.
Get a coalition of allies to partner with the United States to force peace in the region. Here's how it works:
Freeze the borders where they are today. Palestinians can have a semi-autonomous state within the borders of the current Palestinian Territories. They can elect their own civil government, assess taxes, and handle the day-to-day administration of their state. Israel's borders are permanently set; no more negotiations or pressure on Israel to give more land for peace (like it's ever worked anyway).
Jerusalem belongs to neither state. The holy city belongs to the world. Citizens of Jerusalem may hold dual citizenship in Jerusalem and their country of origin. It will be extremely difficult for someone not already living and working in Jerusalem today to become a citizen. The US-built coalition commits to proving security in Jerusalem for 20 years, renewable if necessary at that time. Any Jerusalem citizen convicted of a violent crime faces eviction and loss of citizenship, as well as a lifetime ban from ever entering the city again.
The coalition will also provide a substantial number of troops to secure and protect each state. The troops will bring a martial law to the Israel-Palestinian border areas, cracking down on all cross-border violence. The martial law will last until the violence stops, then a gradual draw-down and handover of security to the respective governments will take place.
Any trouble-making by Iran will be dealt with harshly by the coalition. The message to Iran is this: "Stop supporting terrorism, do not deploy nuclear weapons, and we'll leave you alone. Continue those destructive actions and we'll crush you."
It might sound harsh, but it's true. The beauty of this idea is that it can be delivered to the parties as a sort of ultimatum: Either get together and negotiate your own peace deal, or peace will be imposed on you as of a date certain.
The belief in a diplomatic solution to this problem is pure fantasy.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Worse than I Thought
I stumbled across this article today. Even though I knew there was a problem, I didn't actually understand the scope until seeing these statistics.
The unhappy truth is that Catholics are ignorant about their own faith. My experience through just casual conversations with fellow parishioners seems to confirm this fact. The survey is particularly shocking in the number of Catholics who have no problem with abortion, divorce, and adultery.
As a convert from the Brethren Church, the most striking difference I've noted, with some disappointment, is the fact that Roman Catholics focus all of their faith formation on the children. Adults, for the most part, either never actually learned anything in their childhood catechism, or have forgotten.
Although my childhood Protestant church certainly has plenty of flaws, one thing I think they understand well is that study of the faith is a lifelong endeavour. Sunday School, Bible Study, various men's and women's service groups, and unending pitch-in dinners build better understanding of the faith as well as strong connections between the congregants.
It's disappointing to see that young adults leave the church behind. There are many underlying reasons, I think:
Too few overworked priests, among whom too many choose to ignore Catholic values and teaching.
A public education system that is committed to driving faith and religion out of every child.
Popular Culture that hammers a secular "anything goes" message every hour of every day.
Political Correctness, which demands no one "judge" another's chosen behavior and "lifestyle choices".
The culture's successful effort to confuse people on the difference between tolerance and permissiveness.
The popular idea that the Church is a staid, stuffy, rules-obsessed institution full of phonies.
I think that a positive sign is in the young priests who are gradually working their way into the parishes. Many of these energetic young men have embraced the Church's foundational tenets and appreciate its history. Perhaps they are the best hope of revitalizing the Church in these difficult times.
The unhappy truth is that Catholics are ignorant about their own faith. My experience through just casual conversations with fellow parishioners seems to confirm this fact. The survey is particularly shocking in the number of Catholics who have no problem with abortion, divorce, and adultery.
As a convert from the Brethren Church, the most striking difference I've noted, with some disappointment, is the fact that Roman Catholics focus all of their faith formation on the children. Adults, for the most part, either never actually learned anything in their childhood catechism, or have forgotten.
Although my childhood Protestant church certainly has plenty of flaws, one thing I think they understand well is that study of the faith is a lifelong endeavour. Sunday School, Bible Study, various men's and women's service groups, and unending pitch-in dinners build better understanding of the faith as well as strong connections between the congregants.
It's disappointing to see that young adults leave the church behind. There are many underlying reasons, I think:
Too few overworked priests, among whom too many choose to ignore Catholic values and teaching.
A public education system that is committed to driving faith and religion out of every child.
Popular Culture that hammers a secular "anything goes" message every hour of every day.
Political Correctness, which demands no one "judge" another's chosen behavior and "lifestyle choices".
The culture's successful effort to confuse people on the difference between tolerance and permissiveness.
The popular idea that the Church is a staid, stuffy, rules-obsessed institution full of phonies.
I think that a positive sign is in the young priests who are gradually working their way into the parishes. Many of these energetic young men have embraced the Church's foundational tenets and appreciate its history. Perhaps they are the best hope of revitalizing the Church in these difficult times.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Still Unsure
The letter got published yesterday (Sunday, 3/29), somewhat surprisingly in its entirety and as the only letter to the editor appearing in that edition.
I was somewhat surprised to get phone calls and messages from people who read it and wanted to express their appreciation. Fortunately there were no calls expressing the opposite sentiment.
Whether or not it was a good idea I still am not sure. But I don't expect to attract much attention. Sticking my neck out still might invite the axe. Whether or not I submit more letters in the future remains to be seen.
I was somewhat surprised to get phone calls and messages from people who read it and wanted to express their appreciation. Fortunately there were no calls expressing the opposite sentiment.
Whether or not it was a good idea I still am not sure. But I don't expect to attract much attention. Sticking my neck out still might invite the axe. Whether or not I submit more letters in the future remains to be seen.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sticking My Neck Out
I had to respond to a letter to the editor in today's newspaper (Columbus Republic), although now that I have, I'm wondering whether it was a good idea.
Oh well, too late now. Here's what might be showing up in the paper in the next few days.
To: editor@therepublic.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:45:54 AM
Subject: Freedom
Dear Editor:
Tom Lane's straw man case about the uncaring and unfeeling free market invites a thoughtful response.
Yes, the idea of free markets has no regard for persons. Free markets choose winners based on qualities like ingenuity, productivity, and creativity. Efficient free markets led to an unprecedented run of prosperity for America over the last 25 years or so.
Was it the free market capitalist system that led to the suffering we are all experiencing with today's economic meltdown?
No.
Irresponsible behavior by companies in a free market rightly leads to their failure, after which they are replaced by more responsible and better-run companies. In the case of the current economic crisis, the systemic failures can be laid at the feet of government.
The blame rests with both political parties, who actively encouraged financial firms to over-leverage themselves with extremely risky investments, while conveniently forgetting about existing antitrust law that should have guaranteed there were no American companies "too big to fail". Ironically, the very same congressional players most responsible for creating these conditions remain in charge of the "recovery".
Tom does not propose an alternative solution to the free market capitalist system, so I must assume he supports the socialist alternative, which the ruling party is quick-marching us to as I write this letter.
America was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom. The inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness remain the heart and soul of what has been the most successful and prosperous nation in world history.
Tom's leaders have demonstrated their disdain for these principles. Radical changes either already passed into law or working their way through our one-party ruling class guarantee a laundry list of abrogations to these founding principles.
Our freedoms are being rapidly replaced with a paternalistic government that will dictate how much money we can earn, whom we must hire and may fire, which medical treatments and procedures we are permitted and which are dictated to be performed and funded without regard to moral objection, what we may eat or drink, what sort of car we may drive, what property we may own and how we may use that property, how much of our accumulated wealth may be passed to our heirs, and perhaps even what we are permitted to think, believe, and say in public.
Mr. Lane's straw man of an unfettered capitalism forming the root cause of today's economic ills seems to be covering up the fact that the cure is much worse than the disease. His ideological alternative will confiscate from the productive and give to the non-productive, skimming a healthy amount off the top for the new ruling class of government apparatchiks.
My humble suggestion for a better way out of our economic mess is, rather than "bail out" the irresponsible players and sell our country to the Chinese to finance opportunistic national transformation into a leftist utopia, perhaps we should rely on ourselves and each other. How can a government that is proven corrupt and more adept at creating problems than solving them suddenly be trusted to manage some of our largest and most important industries, let alone each of our individual lives?
Let the bad players in the market fail, and sell them off piece by piece to more responsible companies instead of nationalizing them under government-appointed political operatives. Encourage invention and innovation by entrepreneurs to provide plentiful, cheap, clean energy, instead of nationalizing the energy industry and imposing painfully high consumer costs under the dishonest "cap and trade" policy. Fix the underlying problems that led to the high cost of healthcare to make it accessible and affordable for everyone, rather than simply adding cost and harming access by nationalizing that entire industry.
Tom and his half of the country live in an alternate universe, where it seems emotion rules and common sense is unwelcome.
Thank you,
Oh well, too late now. Here's what might be showing up in the paper in the next few days.
To: editor@therepublic.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:45:54 AM
Subject: Freedom
Dear Editor:
Tom Lane's straw man case about the uncaring and unfeeling free market invites a thoughtful response.
Yes, the idea of free markets has no regard for persons. Free markets choose winners based on qualities like ingenuity, productivity, and creativity. Efficient free markets led to an unprecedented run of prosperity for America over the last 25 years or so.
Was it the free market capitalist system that led to the suffering we are all experiencing with today's economic meltdown?
No.
Irresponsible behavior by companies in a free market rightly leads to their failure, after which they are replaced by more responsible and better-run companies. In the case of the current economic crisis, the systemic failures can be laid at the feet of government.
The blame rests with both political parties, who actively encouraged financial firms to over-leverage themselves with extremely risky investments, while conveniently forgetting about existing antitrust law that should have guaranteed there were no American companies "too big to fail". Ironically, the very same congressional players most responsible for creating these conditions remain in charge of the "recovery".
Tom does not propose an alternative solution to the free market capitalist system, so I must assume he supports the socialist alternative, which the ruling party is quick-marching us to as I write this letter.
America was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom. The inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness remain the heart and soul of what has been the most successful and prosperous nation in world history.
Tom's leaders have demonstrated their disdain for these principles. Radical changes either already passed into law or working their way through our one-party ruling class guarantee a laundry list of abrogations to these founding principles.
Our freedoms are being rapidly replaced with a paternalistic government that will dictate how much money we can earn, whom we must hire and may fire, which medical treatments and procedures we are permitted and which are dictated to be performed and funded without regard to moral objection, what we may eat or drink, what sort of car we may drive, what property we may own and how we may use that property, how much of our accumulated wealth may be passed to our heirs, and perhaps even what we are permitted to think, believe, and say in public.
Mr. Lane's straw man of an unfettered capitalism forming the root cause of today's economic ills seems to be covering up the fact that the cure is much worse than the disease. His ideological alternative will confiscate from the productive and give to the non-productive, skimming a healthy amount off the top for the new ruling class of government apparatchiks.
My humble suggestion for a better way out of our economic mess is, rather than "bail out" the irresponsible players and sell our country to the Chinese to finance opportunistic national transformation into a leftist utopia, perhaps we should rely on ourselves and each other. How can a government that is proven corrupt and more adept at creating problems than solving them suddenly be trusted to manage some of our largest and most important industries, let alone each of our individual lives?
Let the bad players in the market fail, and sell them off piece by piece to more responsible companies instead of nationalizing them under government-appointed political operatives. Encourage invention and innovation by entrepreneurs to provide plentiful, cheap, clean energy, instead of nationalizing the energy industry and imposing painfully high consumer costs under the dishonest "cap and trade" policy. Fix the underlying problems that led to the high cost of healthcare to make it accessible and affordable for everyone, rather than simply adding cost and harming access by nationalizing that entire industry.
Tom and his half of the country live in an alternate universe, where it seems emotion rules and common sense is unwelcome.
Thank you,
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Our 5 Year Old Leader
Little Barry got caught by his mother hiding in his room and stuffing cookies in his mouth from the cookie jar he managed to pilfer from the kitchen.
"But Mom!", Barry wailed, "Last week I saw Georgie take a cookie!".
"But Mom!", Barry wailed, "Last week I saw Georgie take a cookie!".
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Is 2010 Too Late?
Our only hope to halt the Obama transformation of America into Communism is to purge congress of his minions in 2010. But even that may be too late.
I don't make the Communist charge lightly. I've hesitated to do so until the preponderance of the evidence has proven the case. Obama's agenda clearly intends to nationalize commerce, build a welfare state, drive Christianity underground, and persecute political opponents.
After the election, I decided to wait awhile and see whether Obama was the extreme leftist ideologue I feared or a more moderate leader. I'm somewhat surprised that he's even worse than I ever expected. It's actually very difficult for me to find a single initiative he is pushing I can agree with, or even have no serious objection to.
He's the antithesis of everything I believe.
He's not only pro choice, but on the extreme fringe. He supports partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand without parental notification for minors, without waiting periods, without counseling, basically without restriction of any sort. As if that's not bad enough, he has proposed to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions on demand, even if they have a personal moral objection.
He's incompetent and dangerous on foreign policy. Closing Gitmo without any plan for the prisoners held there, all appearances are that he will turn those terrorists loose in the United States. In only a couple of months, he's managed to insult our allies and embolden our enemies. We're becoming frighteningly vulnerable to new terror attacks in our own country, while he gives millions to Hamas and seems unconcerned about nuclear missiles in Iran and North Korea.
He is even more determined than Bush was to throw open the borders. There's a war happening in Mexico and spilling across our southern border, but he has no interest in protecting us from it. He can't wait to legalize millions of illegal immigrants so he can fold them into his new welfare state and add their votes to keep him in office.
He gutted the welfare-to-work policies that have been so successful to return us to the bad old days of generations eking out a living on the government dole.
He is looking forward to stacking the Supreme Court with leftist judges that will ignore the constitution to codify any parts of his agenda that he can't accomplish legislatively. Likely first on the docket will be the discovery of a new "right" to gay marriage. Then vast expansion of eminent domain powers as the government takes private property from citizens. The rulings will continue until the country is fully communist and individual freedoms are gone.
He found out that the "fairness doctrine" was highly unpopular, so he changed tactics to something called "localization" of radio station management. What that means is local boards will be appointed (by his party) to decide what subject matter is appropriate for the radio airwaves. All designed, of course, to get those people who oppose him, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., off the air.
He is building local gestapo organizations under Homeland Security to "gather local intelligence on possible domestic terrorists". The definition of "domestic terrorists"? "Militia members", pro-life activists, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, constitutionalists, evangelicals, etc. (Frightened yet?)
He is bankrupting the country. It can't be that he is ignorant of that fact, so the only logical conclusion is that his goal is to destroy the economy so he can build his new socialist utopia from the ashes.
May God have mercy on us all.
I don't make the Communist charge lightly. I've hesitated to do so until the preponderance of the evidence has proven the case. Obama's agenda clearly intends to nationalize commerce, build a welfare state, drive Christianity underground, and persecute political opponents.
After the election, I decided to wait awhile and see whether Obama was the extreme leftist ideologue I feared or a more moderate leader. I'm somewhat surprised that he's even worse than I ever expected. It's actually very difficult for me to find a single initiative he is pushing I can agree with, or even have no serious objection to.
He's the antithesis of everything I believe.
He's not only pro choice, but on the extreme fringe. He supports partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand without parental notification for minors, without waiting periods, without counseling, basically without restriction of any sort. As if that's not bad enough, he has proposed to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions on demand, even if they have a personal moral objection.
He's incompetent and dangerous on foreign policy. Closing Gitmo without any plan for the prisoners held there, all appearances are that he will turn those terrorists loose in the United States. In only a couple of months, he's managed to insult our allies and embolden our enemies. We're becoming frighteningly vulnerable to new terror attacks in our own country, while he gives millions to Hamas and seems unconcerned about nuclear missiles in Iran and North Korea.
He is even more determined than Bush was to throw open the borders. There's a war happening in Mexico and spilling across our southern border, but he has no interest in protecting us from it. He can't wait to legalize millions of illegal immigrants so he can fold them into his new welfare state and add their votes to keep him in office.
He gutted the welfare-to-work policies that have been so successful to return us to the bad old days of generations eking out a living on the government dole.
He is looking forward to stacking the Supreme Court with leftist judges that will ignore the constitution to codify any parts of his agenda that he can't accomplish legislatively. Likely first on the docket will be the discovery of a new "right" to gay marriage. Then vast expansion of eminent domain powers as the government takes private property from citizens. The rulings will continue until the country is fully communist and individual freedoms are gone.
He found out that the "fairness doctrine" was highly unpopular, so he changed tactics to something called "localization" of radio station management. What that means is local boards will be appointed (by his party) to decide what subject matter is appropriate for the radio airwaves. All designed, of course, to get those people who oppose him, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., off the air.
He is building local gestapo organizations under Homeland Security to "gather local intelligence on possible domestic terrorists". The definition of "domestic terrorists"? "Militia members", pro-life activists, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, constitutionalists, evangelicals, etc. (Frightened yet?)
He is bankrupting the country. It can't be that he is ignorant of that fact, so the only logical conclusion is that his goal is to destroy the economy so he can build his new socialist utopia from the ashes.
May God have mercy on us all.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Twisted Logic, Twisted Morality
The article this morning was written by PBS' Bonnie Erbe, amplifying the outrage of the elitists against Pope Benedict's suggestion that free condoms aren't the solution to the African AIDS epidemic.
Bonnie piled on the Pope with charges that he was hopelessly ignorant for suggesting that responsible monogamy is the most effective and moral strategy for guaranteeing protection from the terrible virus.
She railed that African women are sold against their will into marriages with older men who have been sexually promiscuous and already infected. Those men refuse to use any protection against the disease, thus their young brides are sentenced to death when sold into these arranged slavish marriages.
Um, Bonnie, did you happen to notice that in your argument you actually confirmed the papal point that condoms aren't the answer? In your twisted logic defending the UN policy of distributing free condoms to Africans, you actually confirmed that it doesn't work; ahem, men refuse to use them.
It seems that your anger toward the pontiff may be based more on your distaste for Catholicism than any reasoned argument about the topic of AIDS prevention.
Studies have come up with about an 80% effectiveness rate in preventing STD's for those using condoms. Monogamy is 100% effective.
What's wrong with telling the truth, Bonnie? Given the facts and making a purely logical decision, would you feel safer practicing the 80% or the 100% prevention strategy? Would you knowingly have sex with someone who has AIDS if there's a 20% chance of infection, or would you take a pass?
Let's assume for argument's sake that your depiction of women enslavement to infected men is true. It's certainly tragic, if true. How exactly does it invalidate Pope Benedict's statement?
On another topic, what's the best way to stop an epidemic? Removing the infected from the general population can be pretty effective. Nobody really wants to do that, so the next best approach is to tell everyone to stop exchanging body fluids with people that may be infected.
I don't care whether you're approaching this topic from a religious perspective or not. The 100% effective strategy isn't that hard to comprehend. Why not educate everyone about it?
Bonnie piled on the Pope with charges that he was hopelessly ignorant for suggesting that responsible monogamy is the most effective and moral strategy for guaranteeing protection from the terrible virus.
She railed that African women are sold against their will into marriages with older men who have been sexually promiscuous and already infected. Those men refuse to use any protection against the disease, thus their young brides are sentenced to death when sold into these arranged slavish marriages.
Um, Bonnie, did you happen to notice that in your argument you actually confirmed the papal point that condoms aren't the answer? In your twisted logic defending the UN policy of distributing free condoms to Africans, you actually confirmed that it doesn't work; ahem, men refuse to use them.
It seems that your anger toward the pontiff may be based more on your distaste for Catholicism than any reasoned argument about the topic of AIDS prevention.
Studies have come up with about an 80% effectiveness rate in preventing STD's for those using condoms. Monogamy is 100% effective.
What's wrong with telling the truth, Bonnie? Given the facts and making a purely logical decision, would you feel safer practicing the 80% or the 100% prevention strategy? Would you knowingly have sex with someone who has AIDS if there's a 20% chance of infection, or would you take a pass?
Let's assume for argument's sake that your depiction of women enslavement to infected men is true. It's certainly tragic, if true. How exactly does it invalidate Pope Benedict's statement?
On another topic, what's the best way to stop an epidemic? Removing the infected from the general population can be pretty effective. Nobody really wants to do that, so the next best approach is to tell everyone to stop exchanging body fluids with people that may be infected.
I don't care whether you're approaching this topic from a religious perspective or not. The 100% effective strategy isn't that hard to comprehend. Why not educate everyone about it?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Pinochio
How fitting is the Pinochio story as an analogy for our own current dilemmas.
Pinochio and lots of other children were enticed to this place called Pleasure Island, where they could do whatever they wanted. Pleasure Island promised to fulfill all of their desires, while requiring no personal responsibility or adult supervision.
Of course, it all turned into a mirage, as Pinochio and his other misguided friends' excesses at Pleasure Island placed them into a stupor. The evil people who created Pleasure Island then were able to easily turn them into asses and enslave them.
Sound familiar? I suppose you might have a good guess at who runs America's Pleasure Island right now.
On another topic, I've been following the case of the election contest in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken. The vote counts are so close and the issues so complex that I'm convinced the only fair resolution is a runoff election.
Which of course is why there will not be a runoff election.
Ultimately the courts are going to decide the winner in this one. That's a shame.
It seems to me that all States should provide for a runoff in any election that has more than 2 candidates and the vote differential between the top 2 is less than, say, half a percent.
Apparently the Franken side is dead-set against a runoff, because they'd likely lose. I guess part of the reason it was so close, according to my friends in Minnesota, is that a third-party candidate siphoned off a significant number of what would otherwise have been Coleman votes. There seems to be a pretty major beef among Minnesotans toward Coleman, but I haven't got a clear understanding of the reasons. It must be pretty serious if it resulted in such a close contest with somebody as ridiculously unfit, amoral and corrupt as Stuart Smalley.
Pinochio and lots of other children were enticed to this place called Pleasure Island, where they could do whatever they wanted. Pleasure Island promised to fulfill all of their desires, while requiring no personal responsibility or adult supervision.
Of course, it all turned into a mirage, as Pinochio and his other misguided friends' excesses at Pleasure Island placed them into a stupor. The evil people who created Pleasure Island then were able to easily turn them into asses and enslave them.
Sound familiar? I suppose you might have a good guess at who runs America's Pleasure Island right now.
On another topic, I've been following the case of the election contest in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken. The vote counts are so close and the issues so complex that I'm convinced the only fair resolution is a runoff election.
Which of course is why there will not be a runoff election.
Ultimately the courts are going to decide the winner in this one. That's a shame.
It seems to me that all States should provide for a runoff in any election that has more than 2 candidates and the vote differential between the top 2 is less than, say, half a percent.
Apparently the Franken side is dead-set against a runoff, because they'd likely lose. I guess part of the reason it was so close, according to my friends in Minnesota, is that a third-party candidate siphoned off a significant number of what would otherwise have been Coleman votes. There seems to be a pretty major beef among Minnesotans toward Coleman, but I haven't got a clear understanding of the reasons. It must be pretty serious if it resulted in such a close contest with somebody as ridiculously unfit, amoral and corrupt as Stuart Smalley.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Perfect Storm Swamped Economy
60 Minutes isn't a program I've tuned into for quite some time, but I couldn't miss their story with Ben Bernanke. It was a fascinating story, where Bernanke was quite circumspect about the root causes of the worldwide crisis but pretty open about his belief in what solutions are best.
The chairman kept studiously away from political statements, but did point out that massive amounts of investment cash over the last dozen years or so drove the investment companies to find homes for that cash. Places like China and the oil-rich middle east were looking for safe places to invest their money with good return on investment.
My own expansion on that, based on extrapolation of other sources of information, is that these investment companies were highly motivated to find a home for all this investment cash. That motivation is what led to the bubble that burst last year.
When mortgage brokers have almost unlimited sources of cheap money to lend, they go looking for people to lend it to. The creation of the mortgage-backed securities market allowed them to package the risky mortgages with less risky mortgages and sell them to investment firms that really didn't know what they were buying.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily invested in the bloated mortgage market, moving beyond their congressional mandate to insure every mortgage they could find. With the approval and encouragement of their congressional supporters, and to the extremely lucrative benefit of the Democrat operative CEO's who became very rich in bonuses.
So when the variable-rate subprime mortages converted from the teaser rates to the much higher market rates, the borrowers began to default in droves. Oil prices spiked due to a combination of prices bid up with concern over expansion of the Iraq war, OPEC production reductions, and American politicians shutting down domestic oil exploration and production.
The energy prices drove many marginal borrowers over the edge. Suddenly many areas of the country saw real estate values plunge, as underwater homeowners defaulted. Investors became very conservative, holding onto what cash they had left and abandoning the real estate and stock markets en masse. The stock market crashed, and an estimated one-third of American wealth has vanished.
The government has spent 2 trillion dollars it doesn't have, partially to keep the financial system afloat, which Bernanke believes has averted a second Great Depression. The new President is jumping on the opportunity ("we can't let a good crisis go to waste") to implement his vision of "change", which is taking the final steps away from a free and open society into a cradle-to-grave European-style socialist society.
The giant ship of the economy now seems to be slowly turning around, but will do so ever so slowly. Unfortunately, it is unlikely return to the prosperity of the 90's and 2000's anytime in the next decade. Perhaps never, as wealth redistribution in the last steps into socialism will ensure all will have to adjust to a new lower standard of living.
The chairman kept studiously away from political statements, but did point out that massive amounts of investment cash over the last dozen years or so drove the investment companies to find homes for that cash. Places like China and the oil-rich middle east were looking for safe places to invest their money with good return on investment.
My own expansion on that, based on extrapolation of other sources of information, is that these investment companies were highly motivated to find a home for all this investment cash. That motivation is what led to the bubble that burst last year.
When mortgage brokers have almost unlimited sources of cheap money to lend, they go looking for people to lend it to. The creation of the mortgage-backed securities market allowed them to package the risky mortgages with less risky mortgages and sell them to investment firms that really didn't know what they were buying.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily invested in the bloated mortgage market, moving beyond their congressional mandate to insure every mortgage they could find. With the approval and encouragement of their congressional supporters, and to the extremely lucrative benefit of the Democrat operative CEO's who became very rich in bonuses.
So when the variable-rate subprime mortages converted from the teaser rates to the much higher market rates, the borrowers began to default in droves. Oil prices spiked due to a combination of prices bid up with concern over expansion of the Iraq war, OPEC production reductions, and American politicians shutting down domestic oil exploration and production.
The energy prices drove many marginal borrowers over the edge. Suddenly many areas of the country saw real estate values plunge, as underwater homeowners defaulted. Investors became very conservative, holding onto what cash they had left and abandoning the real estate and stock markets en masse. The stock market crashed, and an estimated one-third of American wealth has vanished.
The government has spent 2 trillion dollars it doesn't have, partially to keep the financial system afloat, which Bernanke believes has averted a second Great Depression. The new President is jumping on the opportunity ("we can't let a good crisis go to waste") to implement his vision of "change", which is taking the final steps away from a free and open society into a cradle-to-grave European-style socialist society.
The giant ship of the economy now seems to be slowly turning around, but will do so ever so slowly. Unfortunately, it is unlikely return to the prosperity of the 90's and 2000's anytime in the next decade. Perhaps never, as wealth redistribution in the last steps into socialism will ensure all will have to adjust to a new lower standard of living.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Alternatives
As the leftist government continues their quest to make the most of this good crisis, to paraphrase the White House Chief of Staff, the most common charge made against the weak opposition posed by the right is that they aren't offering substantive alternatives.
Although I'd have to agree that there is no visible leadership or coherent message coming from the Republican Party, I tend to think the charge is somewhat unfair; Republicans have been offering alternatives, but have been ignored by the media perhaps because the talking heads prefer to help the left make their point.
So if I were crafting public policy in this disastrous time, what would be my priorities?
In the short term, my priorities would be to turn around the economy. Here are the basics of my own economic recovery plan:
Temporary tax breaks for companies that hire Citizen employees. Tax increases for companies that hire foreign workers during the same time period.
A reduction in the Corporate Tax Rate, from today's 35% to maybe 15%.
A reduction in the Capital Gains Tax Rate.
Make sure the funds of depositors are insured, but stop bailing out financial institutions that made bad business decisions.
Allowing everyone to temporarily deduct their investment losses, at least equal to the amount of interest and dividend income for 2009.
Begin enforcement of Anti-Trust laws.
Step up the sale of leases for oil and natural gas development, making sure profits from the oil and gas production are shared.
Freezing all salaries for Federal employees for 2 years. Eliminating non-essential government programs. Forcing all Federal programs to prove they are meeting their express goals within 2 years or be closed. Freezing growth in all other government agencies budgets, unless growth is required for national security.
Long-term priorities:
Trade policies must be focused on free and fair trade. The US market will be open to the extent that the trading partner's market is open. A trade court will be established where US businesses can file complaints about unfair practices by foreign competitors; tariffs for imports from those competitors will be implemented for those cases proven by civil standards.
Welfare will be transformed away from today's transfer payments program to a non-cash assistance program. People who need food will be given food; if they need a place to stay, they can get a temporary place to stay; if they need a job, they will get a job with the government if a private job can't be found; if they need healthcare, they will get temporary insurance. A system designed to keep people dependent will be transformed into a system designed to help people become self-sufficient.
Healthcare will be transformed into a pay-for-service model and away from today's third-party payer system. Insurance for "major medical" must be accessible for everyone, so hospitalization and rehabilitation are covered when needed. Pay-for-Service for all routine medical care and prescription drugs will lower costs for all.
The military will remain the best and strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, but the mission will gradually change to a focus on defense of our own country. Foreign military interventions will be, by policy, limited to those cases where America's own security is directly threatened.
Illegal immigrants will be given 2 years to correct their status or face deportation. Anyone in the country illegally must return to their home country and apply for a "Green Card". The application for the permit requires the applicant present a notarized statement from the employer that will employ them, pass an English proficiency exam, and have committed no felonies. After the 2 year grace period, all employers will be forced to verify their employees' qualifications or face serious fines and/or prosecution for knowingly employing illegals. Illegal immigrants found in the country after that time, whether in routine traffic stops, arrests, or other means, will be deported to their home country within 48 hours.
Education will be transformed, with emphasis on strategies that work and a compensation system that rewards the best teachers. The best proven programs able to turn around at-risk students will be implemented wherever possible. However, the federal government will serve an advisory role only; each state has total control over their own educational systems and programs.
The First Amendment will once again reign supreme. No more persecution of people for their expression of religion or political opinion.
Notice my policies can't really be portrayed as either Democrat or Republican. I'm not a left-wing socialist like most Democrats, nor am I a free-trader at all costs like many Republicans. I believe in freedom and fairness. Fairness isn't taking wealth away from some citizens to give to others, nor is it giving unfettered government support and preference to big business.
The only way any of this stuff can happen is by a combination of a great awakening of the public to the truth of how business is done in Washington by both parties, and the election of people to national offices that put the country over their own desire for personal power.
Although I'd have to agree that there is no visible leadership or coherent message coming from the Republican Party, I tend to think the charge is somewhat unfair; Republicans have been offering alternatives, but have been ignored by the media perhaps because the talking heads prefer to help the left make their point.
So if I were crafting public policy in this disastrous time, what would be my priorities?
In the short term, my priorities would be to turn around the economy. Here are the basics of my own economic recovery plan:
Temporary tax breaks for companies that hire Citizen employees. Tax increases for companies that hire foreign workers during the same time period.
A reduction in the Corporate Tax Rate, from today's 35% to maybe 15%.
A reduction in the Capital Gains Tax Rate.
Make sure the funds of depositors are insured, but stop bailing out financial institutions that made bad business decisions.
Allowing everyone to temporarily deduct their investment losses, at least equal to the amount of interest and dividend income for 2009.
Begin enforcement of Anti-Trust laws.
Step up the sale of leases for oil and natural gas development, making sure profits from the oil and gas production are shared.
Freezing all salaries for Federal employees for 2 years. Eliminating non-essential government programs. Forcing all Federal programs to prove they are meeting their express goals within 2 years or be closed. Freezing growth in all other government agencies budgets, unless growth is required for national security.
Long-term priorities:
Trade policies must be focused on free and fair trade. The US market will be open to the extent that the trading partner's market is open. A trade court will be established where US businesses can file complaints about unfair practices by foreign competitors; tariffs for imports from those competitors will be implemented for those cases proven by civil standards.
Welfare will be transformed away from today's transfer payments program to a non-cash assistance program. People who need food will be given food; if they need a place to stay, they can get a temporary place to stay; if they need a job, they will get a job with the government if a private job can't be found; if they need healthcare, they will get temporary insurance. A system designed to keep people dependent will be transformed into a system designed to help people become self-sufficient.
Healthcare will be transformed into a pay-for-service model and away from today's third-party payer system. Insurance for "major medical" must be accessible for everyone, so hospitalization and rehabilitation are covered when needed. Pay-for-Service for all routine medical care and prescription drugs will lower costs for all.
The military will remain the best and strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, but the mission will gradually change to a focus on defense of our own country. Foreign military interventions will be, by policy, limited to those cases where America's own security is directly threatened.
Illegal immigrants will be given 2 years to correct their status or face deportation. Anyone in the country illegally must return to their home country and apply for a "Green Card". The application for the permit requires the applicant present a notarized statement from the employer that will employ them, pass an English proficiency exam, and have committed no felonies. After the 2 year grace period, all employers will be forced to verify their employees' qualifications or face serious fines and/or prosecution for knowingly employing illegals. Illegal immigrants found in the country after that time, whether in routine traffic stops, arrests, or other means, will be deported to their home country within 48 hours.
Education will be transformed, with emphasis on strategies that work and a compensation system that rewards the best teachers. The best proven programs able to turn around at-risk students will be implemented wherever possible. However, the federal government will serve an advisory role only; each state has total control over their own educational systems and programs.
The First Amendment will once again reign supreme. No more persecution of people for their expression of religion or political opinion.
Notice my policies can't really be portrayed as either Democrat or Republican. I'm not a left-wing socialist like most Democrats, nor am I a free-trader at all costs like many Republicans. I believe in freedom and fairness. Fairness isn't taking wealth away from some citizens to give to others, nor is it giving unfettered government support and preference to big business.
The only way any of this stuff can happen is by a combination of a great awakening of the public to the truth of how business is done in Washington by both parties, and the election of people to national offices that put the country over their own desire for personal power.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
You Sure We're Talking About the USA?
The concluding paragraph from John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com is chilling. He's talking about the ongoing election contest in Minnesota between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. And we thought such things couldn't happen in the United States, but only in third-world totalitarian regimes? I suppose not.
One more thing: Coleman didn't make this point, but Franken's lead is but a fraction of the number of votes that were illegally cast by illegal aliens, students from Wisconsin, and so on. If only qualified voters had been allowed to cast ballots, Coleman would have won by a margin far greater than Franken's razor-thin 225-vote lead. If Franken ultimately becomes a United States Senator, he will owe his seat to the Democratic Party's deliberate strategy, here in Minnesota as around the country, of facilitating voter fraud by frustrating all efforts to require voter identification.
One more thing: Coleman didn't make this point, but Franken's lead is but a fraction of the number of votes that were illegally cast by illegal aliens, students from Wisconsin, and so on. If only qualified voters had been allowed to cast ballots, Coleman would have won by a margin far greater than Franken's razor-thin 225-vote lead. If Franken ultimately becomes a United States Senator, he will owe his seat to the Democratic Party's deliberate strategy, here in Minnesota as around the country, of facilitating voter fraud by frustrating all efforts to require voter identification.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Being Consistent
Ever notice the mind-boggling inconsistencies by our elites?
The old one that continues to be true, "Save the Whales. Kill the babies."
Some that I'm noticing:
Ban tobacco, legalize pot.
Rehabilitate and release rapists and murderers. Unless it was a "Hate Crime", then go ahead and throw the book at them.
Abortion pills are a right. Guns must be banned.
Religion is banned from all schools. Marxism is an important part of the curriculum.
Tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated. Except in the case of white Christians.
Everyone must be forced to reduce their "carbon footprint". Except for Al Gore, who has the companies that get the exclusive government franchise to enforce energy restrictions on everyone else.
Science rules. Except when it differs from our most firmly held beliefs.
Free healthcare is a right. But we get to decide what healthcare you can or can't have.
We are the World. Of course, we're just talking about China or France.
Raise taxes on the evil rich. Um, unless they're one of Us, Hollywood or other celebrities, or big donors to Us.
Equal Rights is our top priority. Except for white or asian hetero males.
The old one that continues to be true, "Save the Whales. Kill the babies."
Some that I'm noticing:
Ban tobacco, legalize pot.
Rehabilitate and release rapists and murderers. Unless it was a "Hate Crime", then go ahead and throw the book at them.
Abortion pills are a right. Guns must be banned.
Religion is banned from all schools. Marxism is an important part of the curriculum.
Tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated. Except in the case of white Christians.
Everyone must be forced to reduce their "carbon footprint". Except for Al Gore, who has the companies that get the exclusive government franchise to enforce energy restrictions on everyone else.
Science rules. Except when it differs from our most firmly held beliefs.
Free healthcare is a right. But we get to decide what healthcare you can or can't have.
We are the World. Of course, we're just talking about China or France.
Raise taxes on the evil rich. Um, unless they're one of Us, Hollywood or other celebrities, or big donors to Us.
Equal Rights is our top priority. Except for white or asian hetero males.
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Age of Celebrity Worship
Apparently we're such a celebrity obsessed society that we can't tell the difference between celebrities and statesmen.
Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.
Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!
Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?
So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.
The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?
I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.
Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!
Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?
So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.
The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?
I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Socialism
Part of the argument being put forward against Obama's agenda centers around the undeniable fact that his policies are overwhelmingly Socialist in nature.
But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.
Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.
How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.
Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.
I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.
Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.
But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.
Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.
How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.
Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.
I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.
Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Interesting Stuff
While traveling this week, I hit the 'Scan' button on the radio in my rental car, looking for something interesting. I found a few things.
Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.
He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.
Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.
A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.
What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.
Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.
I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:
If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?
Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?
By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?
The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?
When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?
Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.
Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.
He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.
Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.
A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.
What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.
Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.
I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:
If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?
Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?
By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?
The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?
When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?
Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Critical Thinking
In my continuing quest to influence somebody to use their brain just a bit, here are some basic questions to consider.
Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?
Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?
Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?
Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?
Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?
Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?
Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?
Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?
Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?
If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?
Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?
Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?
If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.
Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?
Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?
Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?
Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?
Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?
Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?
Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?
Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?
Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?
If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?
Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?
Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?
If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)