Defining Leadership

The conversation about the gulf oil disaster has been centered on Obama, and whether or not he's shown leadership in dealing with the disaster.

If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.

Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.

Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.

So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.

A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.

A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.

Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.

Obama did none of that.

The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.

The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".

A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.

When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?

What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.

If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.

So Many Thoughts

Religion and Politics.

A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.

If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.

Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.

Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.

Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.

Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.

Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.

Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.

Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?

I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.

It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.

Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.

Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.

Well Done

Check this out.

It's very well done. Every candidate should use it.

Any Sane People Out There?

More and more I'm not so sure.

Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.

Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?

The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?

The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?

The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?

A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?

The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?

The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?

Oh yeah, see the first example.

Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?

My Take on the Oil Spill

What shouldn't be a political football at all of course is, given our polarized partisan country.

As is my custom, I try to sift through what information is available and figure out what seems most likely to be true.

In this case, it would seem that these contributing factors are more likely true than false:

The accident probably could have been prevented or at least mitigated had BP been more responsible with safety standards.

Since there has never been an accident on this scale with a deepwater rig, BP was caught flat-footed without a clear plan to deal with it.

The President didn't even pay attention to the problem until the oil started washing up on gulf coast shores.

The ususal left-wing zealots, who hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment, cheered the disaster, proclaiming that "God must be a Democrat!". Pretty heartless toward the rig workers who died and the thousands of gulf coast folks who will be harmed by the whole event.

Some of the things I wonder about, being a lay person who knows next to nothing about deep sea oil rigs:

The "Top Kill" approach, which may or may not be working to stop the oil spill today, is something even I would have at least suggested. It isn't a hard concept to understand. So why did it take over a month for one of the "geniuses" down in the gulf to suggest it?

A moratorium on further deep water drilling would seem to be a reasonable response. But when issued by Obama, the suspicion is that he'll simply make it permanent because he will claim that the oil companies never satisfactorily proved to him they've learned from the accident and know how to make sure it never happens again.

Of course, if Bush were still president and made the same decision, the Right would be OK with it, but the Left would assume he will wait a few weeks or month before lifting the moratorium, whether or not BP learned from their mistakes.

Is it possible both might have some truth to them?

Obama dithered, of course. If the "Top Kill" works, he's already positioned himself to take credit for it, despite the obvious fact he had nothing to do with it.

The MMS and Interior Departments proved themselves to be incompetent bureaucrats. What exactly is new there? The attempts by Dems to try to suggest that's Bush's fault, in the face of the facts that the agencies are led and staffed by Obama appointees is jaw-droppingly ludicrous.

What a decent President, who is a true leader would have done:

Within the first 24 hours, he would have immediately convened experts from the industry to analyze the accident and work on strategies to minimize its impact.

He would have created a team to immediately commence containment operations while preparing for the "Top Kill" procedure.

Much of the oil would now be contained, and the leak plugged weeks ago.

But Obama's clearly not that kind of leader.

He ignored it for a couple of weeks, then when he did start paying any attention at all, it was only to threaten BP.

How much longer until we see $4 or $5 gas?

Probably very soon.

The Hitler Insult

Editorials in the local newspaper have been angrily denouncing a tea-party type who allegedly appeared in a local rally carrying a sign depicting Obama with the little Hitler mustache. Letter writers who are presumably supporters of the president expressed outrage at such unfair and uncivil misrepresentations.

It got me thinking about how the most popular insult of politicians these days involves comparisons to Hitler. Such comparisons are no more valid for Obama than for his predecessor, but it's interesting to note that they were made far more viciously and frequently against Bush. It certainly is a valid question to pose with these outraged editorialists, whether they were also outraged when the left side of the political spectrum continually invoked Hitler, even going beyond that to openly advocating or hoping for Bush's assassination.

National Socialists probably had more in common politically with Democrats than Republicans. They were, in fact, socialist, which is anathema to American Conservatives. They believed in centralized government control over the means of production, which is a hallmark of current Democrat philosophy.

It's Hitler's idea of the Aryan supremacy and his desire to purge the Jewish people from the face of the earth that makes him the most hated figure in modern history. Of course, no one can reasonably charge the Right with anything close to these attitudes, but Leftists love to try. Their twisted logic suggests that because the Right opposes socialist policies and those policies "help" the poor, and a large proportion of the poor are racial minorities, then the Right must be somehow Aryan supremacists.

The current president is showing hostility to Israel, but even that doesn't necessarily meet the Hitler standard of working for the destruction of the entire Jewish population.

Such name-calling by either side is counterproductive. While some fellow travelers might cheer Hitler comparisons of those they oppose, such comparisons have nothing but negative impact on those who are on the fence. And considering both sides understand that it's the fence-sitters they need to court to attain political power, they would be wise to abandon the Hitler references.

I don't get overly exercised when either side puts up a picture of their opponent with the little mustache added by a Sharpie pen. It's juvenile and silly, and means little. I do think the Tea Party should try to exert some control over their members and stop them from giving their opponents the opportunity to change the subject by painting the entire group with a broad brush, based on one guy carrying around the Obama poster with the Hitler mustache.

Perhaps the most accurate insult someone could make of Obama is to depict him as Jimmy Carter, who is his closest political twin. But I suppose only Conservatives would get it.

Historical Perspective

History is a great teacher for those willing to learn its lessons. That's not a very popular idea these days, as evidenced by those running the government.

For most of history, tribes battled each other for land and game, then as technology advanced, for treasure. Kings and tribal chiefs attained power over their land and subjects by offering protection and prosperity to their subjects. All walked a fine knife edge, balancing between the need for enough resources to raise armies to protect and expand their kingdom and the need to keep their subjects content enough to minimize those who would rise up and throw them out of power.

The Greeks were the first to innovate a new idea of civilization, the idea of self-governance through representation. The Greeks were hugely successful, but eventually crumbled as their citizens became complacent and overindulgent.

The Romans tried to apply the Greek ideal, but in relatively short order lost it to strong emperors who grew increasingly vile and corrupt with each generation, until the Roman empire crumbled under its own weight of debauched corruption.

Until the United States of America threw off the British to establish the modern version of the Greek model, the world mostly reverted to the age-old system of tribal chieftans and monarchies.

Then came Karl Marx, who dreamed of a collective society that pretends to distribute all goods equally among the citizens. The ideas were embraced brutally by revolutionary regimes in Russia and China. The Russian version crumbled, but China has so far adapted to become a world power.

In the meantime, a steady drumbeat has sounded in America over the last 200 years in the form of a movement euphemistically called "Progressivism". Which is Marxism disguised by an attractive name. The Progressive movement took full power over the American goverment in 2008, but has been gaining power for generations.

The Progressives are represented by specific, identifiable groups: Labor Unions, Government Bureucrats, Academics, Trial Lawyers, and those who consider themselves disenfranchised by the Capitalist system.

Their ascendancy took place incrementally, as government expanded, people were encouraged to believe they were disenfranchised by faceless capitalists who they believe selfishly deny them opportunity, and big business was allowed to consolidate into "too big to fail" status.

Ironically, the toppling of the system that permitted a Progressive takeover had at its core a Progressive program, named from acronyms that sound like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". Where Progressivism demanded that everyone has a "right" to decent housing, and therefore the government should guarantee mortgages to help them obtain such housing.

Then when energy prices spiked, many of these marginal folks could no longer keep afloat financially, and defaulted in unprecedented numbers.

So the Progressives rose to power on citizen anger over an intractable war against terrorism and a belief that the unsustainable energy costs were deliberately driven up by evil and greedy capitalists. People voted in the Progressives, thinking "let's let somebody else try to save us, they can't be any worse than these guys".

But they are worse. Much worse. The Progressives are in power and taking advantage of every moment. They have already imposed a socialist healthcare program that promises to bankrupt the system without delivering its false promise of quality, affordable healthcare for everyone. They are using all available power to shut down domestic energy production, while shifting huge sums of borrowed money into the pockets of their progressive cronies to build boondoggle windmills and solar panels while they lie to the public.

They ram through "financial reform" regulation under the facade of "fixing" the problems that led to our economic destruction, while the reality of that regulation is further consolidation of raw power into the Progressive bureaucracy. As evidence, just consider the fact that the new regulations and agencies do nothing to address any of the causal factors in the economic meltdown.

They are committed to dismantling the military to shift those resources into their social programs. They change foreign policy into one that is obsequiously seeking to pacify enemies while insulting and abandoning allies. They break laws with impunity, knowing they have the power to stop any investigations or prosecutions of their over-the-top corruption.

They plot to impose massive new taxes from the Value-Added Tax to Carbon Taxes. Simply defined, these brand new taxes are on everything we make and everything we put into the air. All of course earmarked to enrich their Progressive cronies at the expense of all productive citizens not part of thier "in" crowd.

Some citizens are waking up to their agenda, but it may be too late. Ordinary people can't get loans even when they qualify. The government controls the largest domestic automobile manufacturer. The government owns or controls much of the financial industry. The government seeks to own or control the energy industry.

In the meantime, real unemployment is above 17 percent and continues to rise. The proportion of citizens dependent on government for their very existence has reached critical mass. Illegal immigration is encouraged to put the size of the government-dependent citizenry into a position to insure permanent Progressive power over the country.

Thus does the latest, greatest society in human history topple.

Unless those of us who understand can find a way to reverse the Progressive juggernaut.

Searching for Balance

Stepping back a bit and trying to be objective, I realize I'm guilty of inconsistent self-expectations.

When I'm busy, it should be great. After all, I'm making money, have almost more work than I can handle, and should be ecstatic.

So why don't I feel ecstatic?

When I'm not so busy, it should be fine. As long as I'm earning enough to stay afloat, why not kick back and enjoy a bit of free time?

So why can't I just relax and enjoy the downtime?

I need to learn to be happy, whatever my situation.

Why I Believe

For a generation that has lost faith, my small contribution can only be to explain why I have not.



History

It cannot be reasonably disputed that there was such a person on earth a couple thousand-plus years ago, who we know as Jesus Christ. His existence and fundamental story is corroborated by a variety of sources, both biblical and secular.



Even the secular sources confirm that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who traveled the middle-eastern countryside spreading his message and performing miraculous healings.



Also mostly undisputed is that he suffered the brutal Roman method of execution, crucifixion.



Had that been all there is to the story, his followers would have simply dispersed and gone on with their lives. The story may have lived on as a terrible tragedy and example of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who feared a challenge to their power. But it would not have given rise to the worldwide religion called Christianity.



As Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ did not rise from death, then there is no Christian faith.



After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty. Nobody disputed that fact; indeed, the Jewish leaders attempted to spread a story that his disciples simply stole the body to manufacture the myth of his resurrection.



But if that were true, it would seem that at least one of the disciples would have recanted in the face of their own torture and cruel death. But all 11 held fast to their faith, so that 10 of them suffered horrific executions while the 11th spent his last years in hiding and exile.

Then there were the more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ after his crucifixion, and that was only counting the men. There were at least as many women who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well.

The Church established by Jesus spread like wildfire, fanned by the apostles and those hundreds of eyewitnesses to the point that untold thousands of early Christians were subjected to torture and death they could have avoided by simply recanting their faith. Do any of us today believe in anything strongly enough to give ourselves up to tortures and execution rather than recant?



Personal

God has made himself known to me in many ways and on many occasions.



Not by appearing in some sort of miraculous heavenly glory and speaking to me in a thunderous voice, but by revealing truth to me in personal revelations and life experiences.



I know that sounds strange and vague. But that's sort of the function of individual enlightenment, which doesn't happen in a blaze of glory but in small experiences which add up over a lifetime to create a body of evidence that give me the satisfaction and assurance that there is a God, He loves us, and all He wants from us is our love for Him and each other.



OK, want some examples? I've been blessed with these personal revelations:

• A fleeting vision of heaven (in what some would call a Near-Death Experience)


• Visions of future events (my mother's passing)


• Clear messages (some would call them inner locutions)

You might say these are all tricks of the sub-conscious, and perhaps some may be. But only I had these experiences, you did not, so only I can judge whether they were tricks played in my own brain or supernatural.

But as dramatic as those experiences may seem, on their own they do not form the foundation of my faith. That foundation is actually based on a lifetime of study, seeking God where He may be found. And the wonder of experiencing the miracles of our world, such as the miraculous birth of three children, and seeing one of those children survive and thrive when it seemed almost impossible given his much-too-early arrival.

Those who scoff at people like me and sneeringly call us "weak-minded" or "superstitious" are missing something that goes to the core of our very existence. I feel sorry for these atheists, who like petulant children rebel against their heavenly Father just like my own children would rebel and throw tantrums against their earthly father when he disciplined them or denied them their desires.

I firmly believe every one of us has an innate knowledge of God, but we reject Him because of either personal pride, base desires, or anger with a God who doesn't give us what we want.

The non-believer tries to use two common themes in what they think are disproving the faith of believers.

The first theme is Science and Evolution. Atheists make the argument that evolution represents sufficient "proof" that there is no God. They sneer at evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis origins story, throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting no reasonable person could conclude the earth is only 6500 years old.

I simply find it ironic that those most fervently opposed to religion place a religious fervor into their faith in scientific theories, especially the unobserved and unreplicated theory that somehow bringing some of the right elements together will magically create the building blocks of life.

Secondly, the non-believer points to Christians acting Un-Christian as justification for their lack of faith.

That is the most troubling, and certainly there are people who call themselves Christian who treat others worst than many non-Christians. From the well-publicized problem Catholics have with pedophile priests to fallen preachers like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard, too often Christians fail to meet perhaps one of the most important responsibilities of a Christian.

On the other hand, I know that it's pretty much impossible for any Christian person to achieve perfection in matters of consistent morality. We all fall short, but the point is there is still salvation for us if we simply confront our failings, express true regret, and constantly try to be a better person.

That's what sets Christianity apart from any man-made religion. Jesus asked us for only those two things: Love God and each other. He didn't tell anyone to give him money, make human sacrifices, or force anyone else to "convert" to his religion. Rather, he challenged us to strive to be better people.

There is so much more I could never fit into a blog post, but the best closing argument I can think of is this:

Consider the alternative, which is already visible as our own society descends into anti-religious secularism.

What I know without a doubt is that a moral, righteous man of integrity will never:

Demand someone else give him housing, food, medical care, a living

Leave his wife and children alone to fend for themselves in poverty

Take the government handouts in form of Unemployment and not bother looking for gainful employment

Sell a home mortgage to someone he knows cannot afford the payments

Take out a home mortgage he knows he cannot afford

Sell financial derivative investments he knows will soon be worth zero

Expect a Physician to treat him and his family for free

Provide medical care only to those who have insurance or the cash

Brings lawsuits against people who were not negligent but have plenty of cash or insurance

Engage in extramarital and/or homosexual relations without restraint, then demand special privileges and transfer payments in honor of his "alternative lifestyle"

Lie and cheat for personal gain or to destroy a rival

If at least a majority of men were to choose to be men of honor, would our current societal meltdown have happened? I would say no.

Honorable men are becoming difficult to find.

You see, I'd rather believe and never discover that I was wrong, than not believe and find out much too late that I was horribly wrong.

Elections Have Consequences

As is evident in the latest Supreme Court nominee. Kagan is clearly a leftist, and the only real question is just exactly how far left.

Did anybody expect Obama to nominate a Conservative? Even a Moderate? I don't think so. Conservatives only hoped for a nominee who isn't a raging radical.

What would a Conservative in the Senate do with such a nominee? Line up in opposition? Or go along in hopes the other side might show the same consideration for the next Conservative President's nominee?

When people talk about the polarization between Left and Right (read: Republicans and Democrats), it's truly ideologically based. The argument already being made out front of any Republican opposition to the nominee is that they will oppose her on strictly partisan grounds.

Well, let's see if there are some objective factors that can be used to oppose this nominee.

She has never actually been a judge
She has never practiced law, at least before she was appointed to her current job by Obama
She thumbed her nose at the law when she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
She's apparently never even written anything of importance on consititutional law

Her only qualifications for the job seem to be that she's a woman, a liberal, and a career academic. How does that translate into Obama's criteria that she "understands the struggles of ordinary people", exactly? Would anyone characterize her as an "ordinary American"?

May I humbly suggest that she's less qualified for the job than, say, Harriet Myers.

Finding Truth About AZ Immigration Bill

I spent some time looking for the content of the actual bill online, and failed. It may be out there somewhere, but nowhere it can easily be accessed.

Instead, all I found were pages and pages of links to articles and blogs that decry the law as heavy-handed or fascist. Such overwrought propaganda is clearly designed to paint a frightening picture of a law that offends civil liberties, whether or not such charges are true.

Trying the second-best option, I found this article from NPR. Some might be surprised that a reasonable and analytical argument on the pro side of the issue would be given air by what many on the Right call National Proletariat Radio.

The information in this article refutes all of the paranoid rhetoric posed by the 3 out of 4 articles on the net and the President, who suggested a family going out for ice cream could be randomly pulled over and arrested for not taking their "papers" along.

The key phrase seems to be "lawful contact". In other words, nobody can be pulled over and harrassed based on a simple visual profile or an offier hearing them speaking Spanish. Lawful contact means the encounter was based on a routine encounter due to a traffic violation or other complaint requiring law enforcement contact.

There's also the important phrase "reasonable suspicion", which also has years of very clear definition. Reasonable suspicion is not defined by what's in the officer's mind at the time, but by clearly defined parameters that represent reasonable suspicion that the person detained for whatever violation may not be legally present. Things like no drivers licence, no proof of insurance, refusal to provide identification.

The outraged argument against the law seems to suggest that it gives license to law enforcement to harrass innocent people without cause. Where it is true that some rogue officers will do so for their own illegitimate reasons, that does not mean the law tolerates such behavior.

The bottom line of the law, as far as I can tell, is to simply allow police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE when they encounter them along the course of their normal enforcement activities.

And I don't have a problem with that.

Immigration Misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideological Isolation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or, my favorite:

"You've just been listening to Rush Limbaugh"

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earth and Venus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro Sports Extortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extend the shot clock from 24 to 45 seconds.

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

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

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

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

That I would watch.

Hopeful or Hopeless?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indiana 9th Debate

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

Here's the cast of characters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can one of these guys win my vote?

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

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

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

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

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

New Contract for America

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

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

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

Demographic Proof

This from the latest Zogby poll:

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

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

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

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

• Taxpayers
• Gun Owners
• Evangelical Christians
• Business Owners

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

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

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

Could the NCAA Champs be Hoosiers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Hype

To hear the media tell it, the Hutaree group is some sort of massive right-wing anti-government terrorist organization.

But if you actually take the time to check out the details, it seems to be nothing more than some Michigan survivalists that like to pretend to be a militia "training" in the north woods to resist a totalitarian government.

What concerns me most is that the small group, mostly from a single family, hasn't even really done anything. They're accused of plotting murder, but as far as I can tell never even started any specific plan.

So does this mean if a group of people are hanging out somewhere, maybe drinking a bit, and somebody starts ranting about Obama and the Democrats and boast that he will fight to the bitter end, that the thought police will report him to the authorities and he suddenly finds himself imprisoned?

I don't know whether these folks really planned specific attacks, as they are accused. And that's what bothers me most.

Certainly the story doesn't deserve the press it's getting. Nothing happened, and this so-called Hutaree militia may exist only in the imagination of the few unfortunate folks now sitting in jail.

Clearly the non-story is being played for political purposes. Heaven forbid that innocent people are being persecuted for no reason other than scoring a few extra points for Democrats.

Tipping Point

There are two tipping points we're seeing now, both based on the same trends.

The first tipping point is the shift in balance between those who rely on the government for their livelihoods versus those who do not.

Which leads to the second tipping point, which is the number of people who vote in favor of keeping and expanding their share of that government income redistribution.

My reading of polls is that we've become approximately equally divided on both counts. The rolls of retirees who rely on Medicare and Social Security has exploded, along with the rolls of unmarried mothers who rely on Federal and State government welfare to provide their housing, food, and medical care.

Recent local newspaper stories highlighted these tipping points. In one article, we found out that over half of births in local hospitals are covered by Medicaid. What the article failed to mention, I have to suspect purposely, is that those births are overwhelmingly to single women.

A second article announced that our county has now achieved a record level of unemployment. Which is quite remarkable, if we assume that record includes the Great Depression.

Unspoken is the most simple truth: Those who have a good job don't need government assistance, and of course do not need government-controlled healthcare. Married couples with children, unless both parents are unemployed, can and do take care of their own families without government assistance.

So the tipping point has been reached through the failed economy, which I argue was substantially caused by irresponsible government. Then an opportunistic Left took advantage of the opportunity to create massive new entitlement programs with the objective of creating the tipping point, ie a plurality of citizens who must rely on them for their livelihood.

There's no escaping the truth, which is that the President and the leadership of his party are Socialists. They have proven it with the Health Insurance law, and continue to prove it through their continuing agenda.

The priorities of this government going forward are reportedly:
1. Financial Reform - If you think it's only about imposing reasonable regulation on financial institutions to keep them from behaving badly and requiring future bailouts, think again. It actually empowers the Federal Government to nationalize banks whenever they deem it necessary for the general welfare of the country.
2. Immigration Reform - Think it's about sealing borders and dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants? No, it's about making those millions of illegals citizens who will complete the tip-over and provide enough votes to keep the socialist government in power indefinitely.
3. Cap & Trade - Think it's about improving the climate? No, it's the purest form of socialism. It takes money from companies that use energy to produce their products and gives it to somebody else. The somebody else is almost always a crony of the Leftist power base, pretending to make "environmentally friendly" products. This while Al Gore and his cronies pocket a commission on every transaction, becoming richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
4. VAT - Next on the agenda is a brand new tax on everything, assessed on every step of production.

People like me who lived through the Cold War and believed our country to be the antithesis of communist and socialist central control of its citizens never would have believed these tipping points would arrive. But they have.

So now we either bite our tongues and work harder for less money so the government can take our hard-earned wages to give to those who don't work, or we simply join the ranks of the non-working and hope for change.

Revisiting Tournament Comment

So Butler not only beat Syracuse, they did it without having their best possible game.

Although I can't offer much in the way of analysis, because I was traveling and didn't see the game. Driving, it was a frustrating process - finding the game on the radio, listening for about 10 or 15 minutes before the AM station faded out, then scanning and scanning until I picked up another station and repeating the process.

I thought is was strange that the closer I got to home, and thus presumably Butler country, the harder it was to find the game on any local stations. I actually missed most of the second half because no station in range of my vehicle, AM or FM, was carrying it.

They don't get Xavier again, but K State just barely squeaked through in overtime.

I like the Bulldogs' chances of making the Final Four, although certainly the win they need to get home for that is hardly in the bag.

Tonight we find out whether Purdue has enough for Duke. Again, it would seem a long shot in theory, but Butler's shown long shots do win sometimes.



Good stuff.

Changing the Subject

It would seem that threats to lawmakers has become a political strategy.

It began with members of the black caucus charging Tea Party demonstrators with shouting threats and racial epithets and spitting on them. In response, others have posted videos of the incident, which show no such things. And none of the caucus members have produced evidence in any form that any of those things happened.

That was followed by Democrats complaining about threats and vandalism from people angry about their votes in favor of the bill. Some released audio. Interestingly, the audio clips I've heard from congresspersons' recorded voicemails were certainly angry and vulgar and insulting. But I didn't hear specific violent threats.

And of course Republicans mentioned that, oh by the way, we've been getting the same stuff, and one congressman got his office window shot out for his opposition to the bill.

So more and more it seems that the whole flap may have been designed by the Democrats in an attempt to silence their critics by labeling them racists and terrorists. The inherent suggestion by the black caucus was that the Tea Party is a racist and unAmerican organization.

That extended to all those who oppose the government healthcare takeover, presumably to frighten "moderates" away from opposition, lest they be called racists or terrorists.

Yes, we are a polarized nation. But are we on the brink of civil war? I don't think so, as long as the opposition has the opportunity to mobilize their own candidates and boot the bums out of office in November.

March Madness

My bracket was destroyed with Kansas losing, but that's what makes it fun.

It's nice to see Butler make the Sweet 16, but any hope they have of reaching the Final 4 requires them to beat Syracuse, which would seem all but impossible.

But again, that's part of the fun of the tournament. If Butler plays a flawless game and stays close, just maybe they steal one from Syracuse and have a shot. Maybe against Xavier, who they've already beaten once.

But Heyward and Howard have to have great games for it to happen. Both weren't themselves in the previous close game against Murray State. But then again, Murray State really played oustanding defense against both, forcing other Butler players to step up for the win.

I'm traveling tomorrow, so I might not get to watch. But I can still catch Purdue - another team that doesn't seem to have much of a chance, going against Duke without Robbie Hummel.

But if they didn't have a chance, there'd be no reason to play the game.

The NBA can't hold a candle to the entertainment value of the college tournament.

This is Fun

Check out this Powerline Post.

I cracked up at the comments about Bob Dylan & Taylor Swift, plus Simon Cowell.

Fascinating perspectives.

Mental Healthcare

It would seem that the Healthcare bill is just about a done deal. Reporting keeps saying there aren't yet enough votes to pass it, but they're within a handful. It's sort of stunning to me that the plurality of Democrat congressmen are willing to sacrifice their jobs to deliver this monstrosity for their President.

Clearly they're not listening to their constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose the bill. They are in many cases rude to the callers who have been flooding their offices with telephone calls pleading for a "No" vote.

My own congressman, Baron Hill, has already demonstrated beyond all doubt that he's more beholden to his party leadership, and presumably the special interests who bankroll them, than his own district. He's almost certain to lose his seat to one of the several Republicans who've lined up for this spring's primary, salivating over the chance to take his job.

It's already been reported that he got promises from Obama to visit the district to help his campaign. He got to sponsor the recent "Pay-Go" bill, which of course was a sham designed to prop him up but really has almost no teeth to actually force goverment to live within its means. He's also been given some earmarks to bring home some bacon, and rumors are also flying that he might even have been promised a job in the Administration if he loses.

Is that integrity? The only congressman I can find who actually seems to be showing courage and integrity through this whole process is Bart Stupak. If there's anybody else standing by principle over party arm-twisting, I'd like to know who.

The bill as I understand it is such a travesty that the only possible theory on why so many Democrats are behind it is this: The bill was specifically designed to exacerbate the healthcare problem and actually turn it into a real crisis, giving them cover to impose their long-desired socialist "single-payer" system for all of us.

I actually am having difficulty conceiving any other outcome.

Affect on Mood

Personal information is taboo for my blog, but this may be as close as I get to sharing personal data, in mentioning the fact that my mood tonight is sour.

What's strange is that there isn't a logical reason for my current bad mood. Just back from vacation, having finished a decent buy unspectacular day, but still I feel angry, frustrated, disappointed, dispirited.

OK, there are a few factors that contributed to the foul mood, from business, personal, and general sources. But nothing I can't handle, and certainly nothing that should have driven me into so deep a funk.

I wonder, is it the post-vacation blues? Something I ate or didn't eat? The weather or phase of the moon? The idiots in Washington with the government healthcare mess? The accumulation of work-related challenges that hit me like a truck the second I got back to work? The personal stuff? Maybe all of the above?

Some might challenge me and advise me to shake it off, make my own luck, meet the challenges head-on. I'm glad none of those people are here telling me that right now, because I might just haul off and punch them in the nose.

Perhaps I need a vacation to recover from my vacation.

Do You Share this Thought Process?

What are the Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing." Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this now how we value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find money in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Above from Bart Stupak.

Seriously, how can it possibly be true that half the country agrees with the point of view shared by Congressman Stupak above? We have to pass government healthcare to keep extra babies from being born and costing them millions?

Does Anybody Really Get it?

The simple and obvious truth of our current pain and suffering is not evident anywhere I can find, whether from TV talking heads, politicians, or publications. Is this because everyone just takes it for granted and assumes there's no need to state the obvious, or is possible most don't actually understand?

What obvious truth am I talking about?

Simply this: When you lose 17 or 18 percent of the workforce to unemployment, and everybody else who's still working is earning generally less than they would in a healthier economy, revenue to government takes a big hit.

Just like businesses are closing or hanging on by their fingernails, governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels who have always spent every penny of tax revenue inevitably face fiscal disaster when the taxes they collect on their constituents' income falls off a cliff along with that income.

It just puzzles me to read and hear the angst and anger of people who are seeing their favorite government programs cut. Protesters scream about losing funding for everything from schools to road repairs to community social programs. Politicians bend themselves into pretzels trying to figure out ways to raise taxes on everybody without them realizing it and voting them out of office.

We have an encapsulation of the problem in the healthcare battle. Left-wing Democrats, led by the President, are using every tool at their disposal to exploit this best opportunity in several generations to implement the one socialist program they've lusted after for generations: Nationalized healthcare.

Imagine the economy were to rebound, returning to full employment. How many people would be worried about our health insurance system when virtually all of them are employed and most employers offer insurance? Not many. And nobody but the most committed Socialists would support the current healthcare bills.

But the rhetoric of the Left side of the political spectrum is predictable. We all know about their goals and aspirations, and there's no surprise that they might choose to ignore this simple truth to push their agenda.

It's the Right side that is puzzling me. How simple is it to build an appealing campaign message that easily shuts down the other side's healthcare and soak-the-rich demagogery?

"Vote for me if you would rather have a good job than a government handout."

Unless you're a permanent ward of the State, wouldn't that simple campaign message resonate?

So why isn't anyone using it?

They've been set up

I watched the "healthcare summit" for awhile this morning, and boy, did the Republicans fall into a trap.

It didn't take long to figure out the strategy. Get the Republicans to talk about specific things they think should be done, then answer by saying, "That's already in the bill".

Aside from mental midget Harry Reid's over-the-top partisan rants, Obama and his minions have been trying to present a picture of reasonableness and agreeability. The strategy seems to be working wonderfully well. Get a Republican to say something, then respond with agreement with the statement, then emphasize that it's either already in the bill or they'd be happy to find a way to inculde it.

From a purely political perspective, the Republicans were stupid to agree to this meeting. The old law, "never play another man's game" holds especially true here. Obama is in control of the meeting and as such controls the agenda and message, which is obviously designed to make the Repubs look like partisan obstructionists to what is otherwise both a necessary and reasonable healthcare bill.

Another Interesting Argument - Credit Cards

I was reading stories about the new laws that went into effect stiffening regulations on banks regarding how they treat their credit card customers.

Credit cards have of course long been hugely profitable for banks. If they weren't we wouldn't all be getting "offers" in the mail every day for the latest new card, offering airline miles or "points" or cash back "rewards". (Side note, I stupidly signed up for one of the "cash rewards" cards once. Just before it was time to collect on that cash reward, the bank rescinded the program. Learned my lesson.)

So basically the legislation was a Democrat-backed plan to "protect" consumers from predatory bank practices. Absurdly high interest rates, fees, etc.

But according to the stories, it seems to be hurting more people than it helps. Banks have responded with several actions that have been detrimental to their customers as a whole. Even I got a notice about 6 months ago that my interest rate was getting hiked on my card. The notice was actually pretty honest in letting me know the interest rate hike was being imposed to try to maintain profitability in the credit card business.

But let's get to the basic argument.

The reason Democrats wanted to pass these regulations on the banks was because the banks were unreasonably charging exhorbitant rates and unjustified fees to many of their customers. Who could argue with that, right? It does seem that banks are rather predatory and greedy when it comes to their credit card policies.

On the other side, a conservative would generally suggest that banks hike rates and fees in an attempt to insulate them from default by their higher-risk customers. Charging 23% interest is just protection against the highly possible event that the cardholder will stop making payments altogether, and the bank will lose all of the credit card balance. Otherwise, anyone who is credit-worthy and holding a balance on a 23% interest rate credit card only has himself to blame, because in 5 minutes he or she could find a great deal on another credit card out in the marketplace, cut up the old card, and problem solved.

All arguments basically valid, as far as they go.

I'm personally not opposed to usury laws, and tend to believe it's not in the country's best interest to be laissez-faire on all bank practices. I do happen to believe that a legitimate role of government is protection of citizens from theft. Just because it's legal to charge somebody loan-shark rates on loans doesn't mean it's not theft to do so.

Where my beef lies with the whole topic is more in line with the mega banks. I think the biggest fault of government was in allowing consolidation of banking institutions into a small number of mega banks that were "too big to fail", resulting in the economic disaster we're experiencing now.

It's OK to pass basic usury laws, capping the interest rate banks can charge their customers at some multiple of Prime. That will result in banks basically cutting off lots of marginal customers from access to credit; but don't those folks need the wake-up call anyway? Those who suffer the most from the highest abuse from bankers are, in fact, those who are least responsible in terms of their debts. No laws can change their behavior, so maybe having a change in behavior forced on them by losing their credit lines is a positive thing.

That reminds me, I should shop for a new card to replace this one. If there's another bank out there that wants my business, they'll offer me a more attractive rate. (I just won't mention they'll never collect any interest from me anyway, because I pay off the balance every month.)

Recovery or Disaster?

I haven't posted in awhile, for a couple of reasons: Mainly I've been too busy, but also I haven't had a lot to write about.

Currently we've got two lines of rhetoric coming at us, once again divided by party affiliation.

The Dems are trying to tell us things really are getting better. They're "Stimulus" is really working, really!! And the only reason things aren't getting better faster is because the Republicans are obstructing and stalling their reform agenda.

The GOP tells us things are really bad, and are set to get much worse. The Democrat "Stimulus" was nothing but a boondoggle of historic proportions, and did much more to hurt the recovery than to help. Now we face unsustainable debt levels that are guaranteed to lead to runaway inflation, made even worse by the massive tax increases planned by the Democrat power base.

As for the obstruction charge, the GOP says we'd be much worse off today than we already are if they hadn't done everything in their power to stop the destructive Democrat/Obama agenda. Besides, they point out, Dems have huge majorities in congress that meant nothing they wanted to do could be obstructed by Republicans; it's the American people that spoke loudly to their centrist representative to keep the agenda from passing.

Rather than get into the politics of the argument, I'll try to approach it with a bit of common sense and economics.

The Democrat government is indeed spending almost twice what they're taking in in taxes. They have no desire to cut back any part of their spending, and would rather increase tax rates. The problem is, even if they raised taxes to 100 percent, it won't be enough to satisfy their voracious appetite.

So they sell bonds to China, and print money to pay for what they can't raise any other way. China's already pulling back and expressing frustration with the devaluation of the dollar caused by running the printing presses around the clock. That's going to raise the cost of debt, because the weaker the dollar the higher the interest rate that will be demanded by those who invest in it.

What also happens, as I can directly attest through just listening to the executives in the companies I consult with, is business is running scared right now. Even businesses that are doing well aren't expanding, because they have a well-founded fear that the Democrats will succeed with their agenda.

Whether Healthcare Reform, Cap & Trade, or simply tax increases, executives believe the regulatory and tax burdens either already imposed or on the way next year will hammer their profitability. So they choose not to invest in expansion. They choose not to hire employees, and make do with their existing staff or use temporary and part-time workers to guard against likely future layoffs.

Sounds like a dilemma. We can't spend our way out of the recession with money we don't have. Besides, I'm convinced the very Keynesian ideas the presidents' policies use are a fiction.

The only way out is to reintroduce sanity to government. Unfortunately, I hold little hope of that happening, and am not even sure this fall's elections will truly change the game.

Pick off the "low-hanging fruit" first. These are easy:
No earmarks, period. Cancel the ones passed earlier this year that haven't already been completed.
Close the Department of Education
Close the Endowment for the Arts, or make it solely privately funded
Scale back the Department of Agriculture significantly
Cancel the rest of the "Stimulus" and pull back the funds
Drop Cap & Trade
Drop Healthcare Reform but start incrementally on only those things that will save taxpayers money
Pass a Constitutional Amendment that basically says, Any taxes or tax breaks passed by the government must be open to all. If there's a tax, everybody pays. If there's a credit or reduction, everybody gets it. In other words, no more "targeted" taxes and no more political favors in the tax code.
Make taxes simpler and flatter. Everybody pays something - no more allowing 50% of the population to pay nothing.
Eliminate all non-essential projects, departments, etc. (Boy are there lots of them)

Yes, healthcare has become the government's biggest expense, primarily because of Medicare and Medicaid. Something needs to be done about that problem. But the Democrat solution of just putting everybody in them isn't the answer. There will never be bipartisan agreement on that point, thus the incremental approach of only common-sense tax saving reforms.

I know, pipe dream.

Who's Playing Politics?

Obama or Congressional Republicans?

Interesting how Obama decided on a strategy to triangulate the healthcare issue in what Republicans consider a trap, offering a half-day meeting with Republicans to "listen" to their ideas on healthcare reform. He's apparently trying to build on what he likely considered a big win in his talk with the GOP lawmakers at their retreat, where he had his supporters salivating over his "masterful" rhetoric designed to make them look like partisan obstructionists.

The GOP leaders have set preconditions on his proposed follow-up meeting, namely that the president throw away the bills already created by his fellow democrats and start over. He of course refused.

Which party is playing politics? Mostly Obama, mostly the GOP, or both equally?

Seems rather apparent to me.

It's interesting that the problem is structural. Having created an entitlement mentality among the citizenry, we clearly now have a situation where the largest demographic consumers of expensive healthcare are those already on the government plans - Medicare and Medicaid. That demographic consisting, of course, of the poor and the elderly. Those folks now account for more than half of all heath insurance payments in the country as a whole, and it's only going to get worse.

The argument isn't about whether or not that is a problem. It's about what should be done about it.

Obama and his left wing of the Democrat party believe the answer is to simply put everybody into a universal version of Medicare. The socialist ideal is at play, which says "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Simply take much more from the productive segment of the population and give it to the unproductive.

The GOP believe the answer is to drive the best possible economic conditions, which might at least help address the poor part of the demographic by getting them back to work for business where presumably they will get into their employer's health plans. They realize that doesn't address the exploding senior population consuming the rest of those resources, but why should they stick their necks out talking about solutions to that problem and anger one of their most potent constituencies that seems likely to return them to power; perhaps as soon as next year.

It would of course be very nice if somebody, say even the president, would catch wind of the ideas I've developed and began talking about them.

But I don't believe it's ever really been about the actual healthcare problem for many of the political class. It's about getting and holding onto power.

So unless that changes, beginning this coming November with new leaders elected to represent us, nothing good will happen. Something still might happen, but it's pretty much guaranteed to make the problem worse than doing nothing.

More Evidence Suggesting Climate Change is Politics, not Science

One of my favorite blogs is Powerline, which has this great post about what scientists who don't have a political dog in the fight are saying about the whole Climate Change myth.

I about fell out of my chair when I heard the president call for more drilling and development of American oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources during the State of the Union speech. Until he got around to the end of that part of the speech, where he strongly suggested an offer of "compromise" with conservatives on those issues if they would only get on board with his Cap & Trade bill. Of course, he gave a not-so-subtle suggestion that conservative resistance to the idea of "climate change" was borne of ignorance or conscious choices to ignore the scientific "consensus".

I found it interesting that the president followed up his SOTU with a visit with Republican legislators, where he harangued them for 90 minutes with a message that they need to stop opposing him and using "divisive" rhetoric to stop progress.

It certainly was a well-crafted message, where he steadfastly refused to engage them on policy details, focusing instead on his pleas that they stop spreading unfair characterizations about his policies. For example, he affably suggested that Republicans were telling their constituents that his healthcare bill was "some kind of Bolshevik plot".

Besides the fact I never heard any GOP lawmaker ever call it "Bolshevik", their characterizations of the healthcare plan was consistently "Socialist". Which of course is accurate.

It seems that he was successful from a PR perspective in presenting himself as a reasonable person who is willing to compromise and meet Republicans halfway for the benefit of the country. Avoiding details was an absolute requirement for this message, because whenever the details of his policies leak out, Americans resoundingly reject them. This is a president who is determined to push through his agenda at all costs, apparently believing that fooling enough of the populace to allow the bills to pass is OK, because in the end it's going to be somehow good for us who oppose them.

This might be an interesting year, in which I think conservatives may be able to recover enough seats in congress to slow down Obama's hard left turn.