Great Weekend for Football

It was fun to be a football fan this weekend.  From my assigned high school games at Brown County and Trinity Lutheran, to the College games, to the NFL, there was plenty to enjoy.

Brown County played in a downpour and unfortunately let a key fumble get away deep in their own territory to allow their opponent to score the lone touchdown of the game.  Their coach was wishing they'd had good weather, because he felt his team's passing-oriented game would have won.  They still had their share of chances to score, but just stalled in the red zone.

Trinity Lutheran played a Catholic school team from Chicago that looked bigger, stronger, and most defnitely faster.  But Trinity had a strong defense and threw the ball all over the field for 6 touchdowns on their way to a blowout victory.  It was surprising because their quarterback, a tall skinny kid who looked awkward just walking on the field, somehow demonstrated pretty good accuracy with his throws.  Not a particularly strong arm, but more often then not, he could hit his receivers in the hands.  And he had some pretty decent receivers.

My South Carolina Gamecocks blew out Georgia at home for a big victory in the SEC.  Now they're undefeated and ranked #3 in the country.  Likewise, Notre Dame blew out Miami (Florida) and are ranked #7.  Indiana had a chance to beat Michigan State, but blew it in the fourth quarter (again), so that was a little disappointing.  Also a bit of a disappointment was Ball State, who dropped their second in a row in the MAC by also blowing a lead in the fourth quarter.

Then there's the NFL.  Columbus' own Stevie Brown had a great game in his first start with the New York Giants, getting his second interception of the year against the Cleveland Browns.  More importantly, his interception came at an important point in the game, with the Browns up 2 touchdowns and driving toward a third score.  Stevie intercepted Brandon Weeden's overthrow and returned the ball 46 yards to set up Eli Manning for the Giants' first touchdown, then he recovered a Browns fumble on the ensuing kickoff.  From that point on, the Giants rolled for a 41-27 victory.

Finally, the Colts.  I was on the road (as usual), but had Sirius in the rental car so I could listen to the Colts and Packers.  I actually had switched to the Browns-Giants game because it sounded like the Packers were steamrolling the Colts, as they were up 21-3 in the first half.  But I tuned back in in time to catch the Colt comeback and an eventful fourth quarter.  The Colts finally got a lead on an impressive drive featuring the Luck-to-Wayne passing show.  But the brief feeling that the Colts had hope for a win was dashed almost immediately as Aaron Rogers drove his team down the field so fast it seemed as if the Colts defense had stayed on the sideline, and regained a Packer lead late.

But the Luck-to-Wayne show resumed immediately after that Packer score.  Several times it sounded like the Colts' final drive had stalled.  But they kept picking up first downs, even on fourth down plays, and had a little bit of help from Packer defensive penalties.  Finally Reggie Wayne caught Luck's pass on the 1 or 2 and reached the ball over the goal line as he was being tackled. 

The Pack still had a chance to tie the game and send it to overtime.  Rogers threw too easily down the field to get his team into field goal range, albeit a difficult 52 yard attempt.  Crosby missed and the Colts celebrated.

The accolades for the rookie quarterback are certainly deserved.  He was harrassed, knocked down and beaten up by the Packer defense the entire game, yet somehow hung in there to get his throws downfield.  But without Reggie Wayne snaring those passes on the other end, neither the victory nor the adulation for Andrew Luck would have happened.  Reggie had what I think was a career performance, and deserves at least equal billing with Luck as the star of the game.

A Brief Sojourn to the Left Side of the Tracks

I was driving to cover a football game last night, and hit the Scan button to find a radio station.  NPR appeared, so I stopped the scan to listen to what the NPR Left is talking about.  They were discussing the surprising announcement by the feds that the unemployment rate suddenly and dramatically dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 percent.

The host repeatedly said that there's no way the Department of Labor Statistics could or would ever risk their reputation by "cooking the books" to get a favorable number for President Obama coincidentally a month before the election. She brought in two "journalists", Dana Milbank and David Brooks, to amplify her message.

Even listening to them ramble on about the integrity of the "nonpartisan" bureaucrats in Washington who are "immune" from pressure from the White House to favor their president by posting bogus statistics, I found myself even more suspicious.

Thou protesteth too much, methinks. The group came off to my ear as desperate.  They're worried that Obama's poor debate performance has caused many voters to abandon their beloved president to begin seriously considering giving Mitt Romney a try.  David Brooks is the default choice by the left-wing media complex as the token Conservative, but I don't know whether he's ever been a conservative - he just plays one at the Times for the job, exposure, and praise he gets from the Left for being some sort of rare "reasonable" conservative voice.

The economy added only about 114,000 jobs last month, and somehow the unemployment rate magically dropped 3 percent?  Nobody with a brain would call that logical.  As far as I can tell, they switched to something called a "Household Survey" to come up with the new rate.  It sounds like they changed the definition of unemployed and stretched the rules to begin counting folks who make a few bucks here and there picking up odd jobs as employed.

Obama needed this number desperately because he needed to change the subject.  It doesn't require some kind of cynical partisanship to suspect that the president asked Hilda Solis for help, and she delivered.  Now he finally has shut Romney up about the 30-some straight months of unemployment over 8 percent.  Now instead of continuing to talk about his thrashing in the debate, he's got the media working hard to cover for him with this new manufactured unemployment statistic.

Just a postscript about NPR.  Suppose you were part of a truly non-partisan media organization that only cared about uncovering and reporting the truth.  When this sudden and inexplicable drop in the unemployment rate was announced, what would be your first priority?  Would it be to get busy talking to the folks that compile those statistics, study the raw numbers and methodologies that went into them, and reporting the truth of whatever you find to the public?  Or would it be to immediately go on air to defend the agency and the president, and reassure the public that there's absolutely no possibility that they've been playing hanky-panky with the numbers to try to help re-elect their president?

We know which path NPR chose.

Still Shocking Me with Outrageous Behavior

The petulant behavior of the president after being embarrassed in Wednesday's debate went beyond my expectations.  I knew the narcissist-in-chief would probably be less than gracious in defeat, but he went far beyond a sore loser.

He immediately sought out a friendly venue (a Colorado university campus) and showed everyone just how unpresidential he can be.  He threw a tantrum of the type we'd punish our 8 year old who screams "cheaters!" at members of the baseball team that just beat his team by the 10 run rule.  As we know, Barry never had a father to pull him aside and give him the lesson about being a good sport.  He never had a Dad to explain to him that you congratulate the victor, then go work harder so you have a chance to win next time.

Obama's debate strategy was fully and completely focused on destroying Romney.  Because Obama's team knew he had no accomplishments he could brag about, the only remaining option was to try to make Romney look like an unacceptable alternative to the voters.

What really ticked Barry off was that Romney didn't cooperate.  Every time Obama threw a punch at the challenger, it was parried aside easily.
Obama: "Your plan gives a 5 Trillion dollar tax break to the wealthy and increase taxes $2,500 on everyone in the middle class!"
Romney: "That's not true.  Now listen as I explain the truth about my tax plan."

As the night went on, Obama would level an outrageous charge and Romney would refute it.  Until Obama just gave up.

The Obama sycophants in the media who were appalled and demoralized by the thrashing their president received have been trying to figure out why their messianic president didn't bring out the "big guns" against Romney.  Like the 47 percent comment.

Excuse me, all you wild-eyed Liberals at MSNBC and the rest of the leftist television networks:  Obama's at least smart enough to know when to quit.  After having every punch turned aside, then being knocked down by the counter-punch, the only way to survive is to raise  your guard and try to minimize any further damage.

For example, if Obama had tried to throw the 47 percent attack at Romney, he had to know it would have been effectively refuted, then used as an opening to hammer Obama on one of his own, much more outrageous gaffes.  I think Obama's at least smart enough to know that manufactured characterizations of Romney policy proposals that work so well out on the campaign trail in front of adoring audiences get destroyed in any venue where the truth actually matters.

So he saved his favorite Romney attack lines for the stump.  Because if he pulled out "47 percent" in the debate and allowed Mitt to point out how terribly out of context it's been used, he won't be able to use it credibly anymore out in front of his brainwashed masses.

Now Obama's campaign strategy is "Mitt Romney's a liar".  It makes me wonder, after spending the last 6 months making campaign speeches full of lies and mischaracterizations against your opponent, have you actually started to believe what you're saying every day?  Is that why you're so surprised when they get shot down in the first debate, and therefore have you really convinced yourself he's a liar for pointing out those things you've come to believe are actually false?

Those network sycophants have been broadcasting the same lies for so long that they forgot what is the truth long ago. 

Is there any advice I could offer Barry that might save his campaign?  Not really.  Continue the dishonest campaign and you'll still be guaranteed all the votes of the leftists who have no other choice, plus the ignorant who will never know what's true.  That might still turn out to be your winning formula, but I hope not. 

But if you have any desire to find some personal integrity, just abandon the strategy your campaign team has been calling "kill Romney", and try the truth for a change.  Give people the whole truth about what you intend to do with your second term - tell us you intend to move past the charade of Obamacare and impose your version of Medicare for everyone.  Tell us you intend to nationalize the energy industry.  Tell us you'll support United Nations initiatives for Global Governance, Global Taxation, and Gun Control.  Tell us you intend to outlaw Christianity.  That you will act to destroy the state of Israel and turn that tiny strip of land over to the Muslim Palestinians.  That you will redistribute all American wealth, not just to American poor, but to the poor nations around the world.  Tell us that you will stop all development of fossil fuels and force America to get our energy only from "clean and renewable" sources.  Tell us if your plans include overturning the term limits for Presidents so you can become Dictator for Life.

At least then we finally will know what sort of country we are voting to have in the future.

Debate Analysis

Unlike so many of the crowing conservatives this morning, I was overall a bit disappointed in Romney last night.  Not that he didn't outshine the president in the debate, but I believe he fumbled a chance to destroy Obama.

Particularly in the first half hour, it seemed to me that Romney was pulled into the deep weeds by Obama arguing wonky policy stuff that must have had half the audience picking up their remotes to change the channel.  Instead of arguing the fine points of tax policy, Romney should have focused on the big picture principled discussion of why Obama's socialist ideas have failed and why Romney's market-friendly approach will succeed.

I give Romney credit for blunting Obama's misleading attacks on his proposals.  He was effective when he called Obama out for lying by saying, "Everything you just said about my tax plan is inaccurate".  It's nicer than calling him a liar, but still conveys the message.

USA Today published a fundamentally dishonest review of the debate, with an article from their so-called "fact checkers", who of course went to greatly dishonest lengths trying to suggest Romney twisted the truth.  At least they confirmed other Romney statements in the article, maybe because they knew they had to show at least some credibility.

A big disappointment for me was that Romney allowed Obama to pull him into a wonky discussion of ObamaCare, trying to argue the merits of the law's supposedly popular provisions, like forcing insurers to cover folks with pre-existing conditions or cover grown children.  Romney should have redirected the discussion to the principles of freedom and the error of one-size-fits-all dictatorial management of healthcare from the ivory towers in Washington.  I especially wanted him to make a strong principled argument against the HHS Mandate for free contraception.

Romney at least gave a good principled argument against the IPAB.  I thought Obama's defense of IPAB was weak. 

Late in the debate it seemed obvious that Romney had Obama on the ropes, as we saw the president scowling and shaking his head while Romney landed his body blows, especially about the Obama "green energy" disaster.

Only the political junkies get much out of the debate.  I think regular people were probably unaffected.  I'd be surprised if the persuadable people came away from watching the debate as Romney supporters; actually, I'd be surprised if the persuadable people even watched.

Defining Journalism

When I was young, most people defined journalism as the act of delivering a factual description of events to inform the general public. Now journalism is pure advocacy.

I can still remember when news programs had a segment near the end that was labeled and clearly stated as the "Opinion" segment.  The anchor would turn to another camera and introduce his topic with a clear statement that he was going to share his opinion, often supported by a banner on the screen that read "Opinion".

These days nearly the entire program, regardless of network, is opinion.  NBC is the worst, but CBS, ABC, PBS, and CNN aren't far behind.  The presentation of each story is easy to deconstruct for its obvious design, which is to inculcate a specific attitude about the event in the audience. 

Those who would disagree with my premise will point to Fox News, which they say is far more partisan and manipulative with stories toward the Right than any of the other networks.  Sure, the trio of personalities on Fox & Friends are transparently conservative.  O'Reilly and Hannity make no attempt to hide their conservative advocacy, although O'Reilly is more fairly described as a Moderate.

Can anyone name a single hard news anchor on TV today, on any network, who sticks with the facts and does not editorialize or design the broadcast in an attempt to manage viewers' attitudes?  I think I can name only two: Bret Baier and Chris Wallace.  Both from Fox News.  Baier does stories straight, and I've never heard him go beyond the facts of the story to go on partisan rants.  Wallace interviews Republican and Democrat leaders every Sunday morning, and ask everybody very tough questions and is decidedly not chummy with leaders on either side, as are his counterparts on the other networks.

Let's use just one current story as an example.  The attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed the Libyan Ambassador and the 4 former Seals who don't seem to have been there for any security-related purpose.  What questions would an ordinary American want answered about this disastrous event?

What was the mission of the Ambassador and the Seals?  Why was there no security there to protect them from possible attack, especially given that it was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attack in New York?  Why wasn't the consulate hardened or protected against attack?  Are stories from State Department whistleblowers that the danger was foreseen and additional security requested and denied by Hillary or her top assistants true? Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different Sunday news shows to lie about the conditions and events of the attack, when it's now clear that the Obama administration knew at that time that the cover story she was peddling about the event was false?

Has anybody from the networks made any visible attempt to answer even one of those questions?  No.  All I've observed is an almost desperate attempt to cover for the White House and attack Romney for criticizing the president for his weak response and attempt to deflect the narrative toward a silly YouTube video.

Is there not one single reporter at CBS or ABC that has the slightest bit of curiosity about finding out the truth behind this disaster for America?  This is just the sort of expose that might one day have meant a Pulitzer for the intrepid reporter that managed to uncover the facts.  But today the networks do not dare pursue such a story, because heaven forbid it make their president look bad and possibly cause him to lose his re-election campaign!  Not to mention the president might punish the network by denying access to him for interviews if they dare publicize a story that casts him in a poor light.

I wonder why Fox News doesn't do the investigative journalism either.  Why can't one of the Fox reporters go out and dig up the facts of this debacle and present them on a Fox News Special or a special investigative series?

I have a guess.  Reporters from Fox News are pariahs in the halls of Democratic governance.  Doors are closed to them in the White House and the State Department.  They can only talk to people outside those opulent Washington buildings who may be able to give them background information, but they'll never get access to the folks on the inside who know what happened.

The country needs a news organization that is dedicated only to finding and reporting the truth.  That separates facts from opinion and presents news stories and does investigations that are unvarnished and unconcerned with the political affiliation of bad actors.  That trusts the American people to absorb their straightfoward stories and exposes and draw their own conclusions.

It's the only way a democratic republic can survive.

Ruler or Representative?

Funny how things just pop into my head.  This year's election is between the man who wants to be our ruler and one who wants to be our representative. 

Simple idea that could easily be boiled down to a slogan for the campaign.  Not that anybody would do that.

This Should Be Easy

Wednesday's debate should be the easiest ever for Romney, given the extensive and negative record of the president.  Supposedly this debate's about domestic policy stuff, which should be a walk in the park if you're Romney.

The debt and deficit, the waste, not a single budget in the president's tenure in direct violation of law, acting like a dictator by illegally imposing things like amnesty for illegals, oil drilling moratoria, the HHS contraception mandate, and wasting billions on "clean energy" boondoggles from Solyndra to Fisker. 

Then there's Fast & Furious, the unstimulating and corrupt trillion-dollar "Stimulus" legislation, blocking the oil pipeline from Canada and shutting down the coal companies, promising defense contractors he'll cover their fines if they put off their layoff notices until after election day.

Corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, indolence.  This is easy.

I know, Romney has to be careful not to hit too hard, because that will risk offending the legions that worship Obama and don't care what he's done.

So he doesn't have to hit too hard.  But he must also present a clear and simple message to Americans that it's not just about the incompetence and corruption of the current president, but more about how a Romney presidency is going to fix things and make peoples' lives better.

I actually think I could win this debate, even though I'm far from a decent public speaker.

OK, I Admit it, Democrats Mystify Me

So I've been hearing stuff from people I know who still support Obama, despite his disastrous first term.  I listen closely, and my only possible reaction is

"You have to be kidding me!"

Here's a sampling:

1. "Free contraceptives!  Isn't it wonderful?"

Me: "How do you feel about the mandate that tells Catholics who believe contraception is a sin that they must pay for it?"

Democrat: Blank look.

2.  "We can keep our kids on our health insurance until they're 26!"

Me: "Are you also happy about having your adult kids still living with you, eating your food, driving your car, leaving their messes for your to clean up?  Wouldn't you rather they get a job and take care of themselves?"

Democrat: Blank look.

3. "Now nobody can be turned down for health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions!"

Me: "That does sound like a good thing.  But I wonder, who's going to pay for all that care for sick people?"

Democrat: "Well, we already pay for it with higher premiums and taxes"

My reaction is yes, you've got a point, but have any of your premiums or taxes gone down?  Do you think they will go down anytime soon?

4. "Gay people who love each other should be able to get married just like the rest of us".

Me: "You mean they can't already?  Will somebody arrest a gay couple of they gather their friends together somewhere and make public promises of marriage-type commitments to each other?  Explain to me, who's stopping them?"

Democrat: Blank look.

5.  "I'm sick and tired of rich people always getting away with not paying their fair share!"

Me: You mean those top 10 percent rich people who pay 70 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the Federal Government?  What rate should they pay?  What rate do you pay?  What rate should you pay?  What rate should I pay?

Democrat: Blank look.

6. "I don't want to have any more of our kids sent overseas to fight and die in an unnecessary war in some desert"

Me: "Yeah, Obama's made it pretty clear he won't take on Iran under any circumstances. Are you comfortable with our country standing by and doing nothing when Iran launches their first nuclear missile into Israel?"

Democrat: "Well, hopefully that won't happen"

Yes, they mystify me.  But it appears that I mystify them as well.

This is what happens when the ignorant are manipulated by the "elites" to vote them permanent power.  The "elites" will live like kings (or like Barack and Michelle), while the sheep that voted to keep them in charge suffer.  That's always been the story of socialism, everywhere it's been imposed.

It appears I belong to the shrinking class of productive people who make the country run.  The elites want to milk me dry of the fruits of my labor, keep most of it for themselves, then use the rest to toss a few crumbs out to the unproductive so they can pretend they're "taking care" of them.

Sorry kids about my generation handing you this mess.  Too bad you haven't grown up enough to realize how bad its getting, and it looks like by the time you do it will be too late.

Distrusting the Media Manipulators

What to believe?

The so-called Mainstream Media are telling us it's over - Obama's already won.  They've got polls showing him winning virtually all the "battleground" states, many by double digits.

Then the conservative talkers and sites speak up and say, "Not so Fast".  Those polls showing Obama so far ahead are grossly oversampling Democrats and practically ignoring Independents.  Besides, they haven't noticed anything that's happened except the Convention that could possibly account for such a dramatic change in the polls for Obama.

Didn't he just fail to protect his own Libyan Ambassador from being murdered by terrorists while he had virtually no security detail protecting him?  Hasn't he been caught lying about what happened in Libya and Egypt and a dozen other middle east and north african embassies, trying to pawn off a silly message that they're just angry over some stupid YouTube video?  Wouldn't that story make people sick about the weak and prevaricating President and drive them to Romney, much like many folks got fed up with Jimmy Carter's weakness in the Iran Hostage crisis and turned to Reagan over 30 years ago?

Then there's Rasmussen, who keeps showing the same polling results that have been virtually stuck on the same numbers all summer.  How could the networks and liberal pollsters show a 10 percent advantage for Obama while Rasmussen keeps showing the race tied?  Somebody's wrong.  Just maybe everybody's wrong.

I only have my small circle of family, friends, and acquaintences.  The only people I know who have been Obama supporters admit to me that they're rethinking it.  They're demoralized by his obvious incompetence, but they think Romney's some sort of Viking raider who will starve poor people and elevate his own wealthy class to new heights of excess.  So they don't know what to do.

If only I could influence some sense into those Democrats.  But their misguided beliefs are so deeply entrenched they don't seem like they would ever be willing to become turncoats to their party by pulling the lever for a *gasp* Republican, even a wishy-washy Republican like Romney.

I suppose if you're told your entire life by people you trust that conservatives are evil people, the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing actual conservatives who aren't must be hard to accept.

So I wish I knew what was going to happen in November.  But I don't.  Earlier this summer I was beginning to feel somewhat hopeful that there was a chance Romney could win in a landslide.  Now I'm not so sure of that, but expect that despite the seemingly biased Democrat polls, the race may be as close as Bush/Gore 2000.  (Please Florida and Ohio, save us from ourselves!)

Growing Up

As a high school teen, I believed I was probably a Democrat, but couldn't really tell you why besides that my father was a Democrat.  My teachers seemed to all be Democrats, so out of respect and because we never heard any other points of view they had a significant influence on most of their students.

I was in high school when Nixon and Ford were presidents.  Naturally I saw the movie about Woodward & Bernstein and was convinced Nixon was corrupt.  Funny how Clinton and Obama have done much worse illegal, immoral, and unethical things since then while the media and Hollywood yawned.

Vietnam left me feeling conflicted.  I heard the arguments for and against the war, and understood that we were fulfilling a promise to protect friendly countries from violent Communist overthrow.  But the politicians seemed to be on tip-toe, trying harder to manage public perceptions than win a war.  I definitely was appalled at the way liberal Democrats were treating returning veterans.

But not all Democrats were that radical back then.  Many were people of faith and mostly conservative on issues, but were Democrats because they believed that Democrats cared more about the ordinary citizen than Republicans.

Being a Democrat back then mostly just meant you didn't believe that Corporate America deserved all the support and goodies they could possibly get in the name of a strong economy.  I of course couldn't relate to the Corporate Executive and Country Club crowd that I believed ran the GOP.

The issues of the day I barely understood.  Of course, back then nobody was even talking about today's hot social issues - we'd never heard of Political Correctness, nobody ever believed Gay Marriage would become a serious argument, nor would mandates for free contraception.  Religious expression in public was taken for granted.  People used to argue about tax rates and how much spending the government should be permitted.

In the college years I found myself surrounded by fairly radical leftists, especially amongst the professors.  My reaction was more skepticism than agreement, and I was more likely to poke fun at some of the more outrageous characters.  Such as my Sociology professor, who was a lesbian woman that embodied a cartoonish caricature of the angry, manly and man-hating liberal lesbian.  She was so ridiculously over the top that I sometimes covered my mouth during class to stifle the urge to laugh out loud at one of her tirades against the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male" who was responsible for every injustice on the planet.

It was after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter that I became a Republican.  That was when I first became aware of policy and observed first-hand how Reagan's free market, limited government, strength and courage in the face of enemies, and personal responsibility policies completely reversed the pain and suffering imposed by Carter's socialism at home and appeasement abroad.  Under Carter I struggled to survive as a young adult, but saw my fortunes improve dramatically when Reagan took over.

Just as important, Ronald Reagan made sense to me.  I connected with his gentle affability and agreed with most every argument he made in support of his vision for the country.  I began to understand the code language used by Democrats that they still use in an attempt to divide people and sow envy and distrust without clearly stating what specific policies they would impose themselves.

Since I came of age, I've come to understand that conservatives believe in Freedom, while Democrats believe in Fairness.  Freedom's easy to define.  Fairness tends to be in the eye of the beholder. 

I'm a Freedom guy.

It Must Be ... Peer Pressure?

This week I have been thinking about the irrational behavior of the Hollywood celebrities who continue to support Barack Obama in spite of the fact his policies are in direct conflict with most of their personal interests.

I keep puzzling over why singers and actors and other artists would continue idolizing the President who has promised to confiscate half their income, work against their ability to obtain healthcare for their various diseases (social and other), and tamp down their most treasured of rights - Freedom of Speech? 

Then there's his demonstrated promise to impoverish most Americans and take the profits of companies that presumably would include film and music companies, which further depress the market for these people's artistic expression.

OK, so he promises to pay for their abortions, and provide government freebies for their same-sex bedfellows, but is it really rational for them to support a president who's going to harm their standard of living?

So then it hit me.  The answer is Peer Pressure!  Hollywood types behave just like teenagers, and what's the most important thing in the world to a teenager?

Acceptance.  Being adored by their peers.  Being Cool.

Have you seen those creepy ads put out by Hollywood actors with writing on their hands pledging allegiance to Obama as if he's some sort of god?  It's beyond reason or rationality.

The bane of every parent of a teen is the comman phrase, "Everybody else is doing it!" to justify the latest stupid, crazy thing the kid wants to do.  Certainly in Hollywood, everybody else is panting over the celebrity-in-chief and making absolute fools of themselves as they worship him and make a game of finding the most outrageous libel they can dream against Romney.

It feels sort of like a revelation.  I think I can reasonably extend the theory beyond Hollywood to explain the leftists leanings of people from places like Manhattan and South Beach and Seattle.  It doesn't have to be rational; it just has to feel good and achieve that positive feedback from one's peers.

Perhaps that's why Adolph Hitler managed to be elected Chancellor of Germany so many years ago. (OK, I'm not saying Obama's Hitler.  Maybe a bit more like Vlad Lenin, or perhaps Hugo Chavez, but not exactly Hitler)

NFL Officials Contract Dispute

I haven't paid enough attention to the contract dispute to know what the sticking points are between the NFL owners and their referees.  All I know is that the referees want more and the owners know they have the upper hand in negotiations, because people don't buy tickets or tune into NFL games to watch the officials.

Driving to work this morning I heard a brief mention on the radio that the two sides were about 3.5 million dollars apart.  That surprised me, because in the economics of the NFL, that number's pocket change.

So now I'm thinking its about power, not about the money.  The surprisingly small number, along with the lockout, suggests to me that the owners want to make a statement and cow their officials into taking what they're given and never fighting for more again.

I don't know what the refs made in the old contract, but suspect it's a pretty handsome paycheck for a part-time, seasonal job.  Generally, if the refs were being asked to take a cut in the new contract, I'd be pretty sympathetic with their cause.  But if they're asking for full-time status and lots of new benefits like a Cadillac health plan and generous pension, I'd probably lean more toward the owners' side.

But I don't know, and despite last night's debacle in the closing play of the Seahawks/Packers game, don't care too much.  I don't know any NFL referees personally, which is the only way I'd have any interest.  But as a fan, I hope they make a deal soon and get the pros back on the field so we can have a bit more confidence in the quality of officiating.

In Search of a New Frontier

The  media is not outright declaring that the race is over, but they seem to believe it.  They're reporting on polling that shows Obama surging in the "swing" states since the Dem Convention.  Some of those polls stretch believability, as they come back with double-digit leads in some cases in states where Obama won in 2008 by much less a margin.

What I think I know is that most folks are entrenched behind either Obama or Romney.  And it appears that a very small group of folks, somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, will make the final decision for the rest of us.  They can decide by pulling the lever on election day for one or the other, or by staying home.

I think most of Romney supporters aren't terribly excited about Mitt the man, but are highly motivated to replace the current occupant of the White House.  I'm one of those that sees Romney as an almost apolitical moderate, who is unlikely to implement anything bold if he wins the office.  He'll will implement policies that will begin to trim the deficit, but he won't solve the debt problem.  I believe he'll work to repeal or defund or refuse to enforce ObamaCare, but I don't think he'll take the lead on some other, better healthcare plan to replace it.

I know of lots of folks who are thinking of sitting out this election because they're not inspired by either candidate.  Many people share a sort of hopeless feeling, that Washington has become so corrupt and partisan that they're incapable of actually solving any problems. 

I tell them I'm definitely going to vote for Romney for some critically important reasons.  I'm appalled at Obama's disrespect for Christians - especially Catholics and Evangelicals, and his willingness to abridge the First Amendment in favor of secularist policies to prevent babies from surviving to birth.  I'm appalled at his appeasement attitude toward Muslim terrorism alongside a disdain for America's traditional allies, especially Israel. 

I fail to understand how it's possible for a president to win re-election given the disastrous circumstances we're experiencing when his campaign's only messages are, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy", and "The rich need to pay more taxes".  It's as if the entire country has gone insane, with a significant percentage seeming to worship the president as if he's some sort of demi-god.

We deserve the suffering we got when we elected him, and deserve the suffering to come should we do it again.  If that happens, how can those like me who yearn for freedom go to start over as free people?

Congratulations

To Columbus East's own Stevie Brown for his interception last night.

After the New York Giants had scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend their lead over the Carolina Panthers to 33-7, Cam Newton passed his Panthers down the field into the red zone.  Safety Anrel Rolle successfully defended against a Newton pass attempt in the end zone and was injured after colliding with a sideline cameraman (or woman).

So Stevie Brown took his place for Carolina's 3rd and goal play.  As Newton dropped back to pass, Brown watched him from the goal line.  Seeing that the Carolina quarterback's eyes were locked in on his receiver running a slant or post on the right side toward Brown, the reserve safety cut in front of the receiver and grabbed Newton's pass.  Stevie returned the interception down the sideline for a 44-yard return, then jumped up and celebrated, grinning ear-to-ear.

Congratulations, Stevie, on your first career interception!  It's been a challenging career, being cut by the Raiders and Colts before landing on the Giants' roster this season.

Tale of Two Videos

What's interesting about this week's campaign distraction is that the Romney video released by Mother Jones was intended to embarrass the candidate, so it was answered by a release of an Obama video where the incumbent made an unequivocal statement about his belief in wealth redistribution.

The videos are both revelations about each candidate's feelings and beliefs.  And both are truthful, which I find most refreshing about the stories.  Finally, the most committed supporters of each will exhort their candidate to stand up and own his statement.

Conservatives widely believe that the country is circling the drain because half the citizens are riding in the wagon while the other half are being forced to pull the wagon.  It's getting harder for the pullers, and it hurts.  Soon the wagon will cease to roll, because there won't be enough folks left to pull.  That's when the country fails.

Romney's point was simply that that famous 47 percent aren't likely to vote for him, out of a belief that he represents a possible obstacle to their monthly check from the federal government.  The media and Obama narrative that he "doesn't care" about 47 percent of the population is a lie.  So all he was saying is that he has to focus on the 6 or 7 percent of the population that might be persuadable. 

Romney supporters strongly approve of his comment, declaring it no gaffe at all but just a statement of fact.  I think there are probably several net beneficiaries that are going to vote for Romney, such as disabled veterans and seniors who live on social security and medicare.  So obviously it's a bit simplistic to group all government dependents into the Obama camp.

Obama supporters strongly approve of his declaration in favor of redistribution, because they also believe in socialism.  These MSNBC types will exhort their president to stand behind his comments, because they think the only way America will ever be "fair" is when the government meets the needs of all of its citizens.

So the only point to the overexposure of these two videos is an attempt to influence anybody that might still be on the fence. 

"Mr. Fence Sitter, which do you prefer?", ask the campaigners.  "The Republican who dismisses all those who are dependent on the government for their lives, or the Democrat who promises more government handouts?".

Mr. Fence Sitter's decision is pretty easy to make, depending on his attitude toward wagon pullers and therefore whether he aspires to be a puller or rider.

Marriage and Poverty

Mike Pence gave a speech promoting marriage.  Not gay marriage, but traditional, mother and father and two kids nuclear family marriage.  He promised to focus Indiana's policies on promotion and rewarding of those who finish their education, get a job, then get married and have children, then stay together.  Statistically, those who follow that basic life formula are almost guaranteed to avoid poverty.

The snipers on the Left naturally sniffed their disapproval, saying it's not that simple.  And he's some sort of bigot because he doesn't include homosexuals in that marriage promotion message.

The actual truth goes one step further.  The foundation of this model of the committed marital relationship and nuclear family is faith.  Those most likely to fit Mike's model of success are Christians who hold it as their moral obligation to honor their marital vows and take responsibility for their children.  Without faith there isn't much of a hope of restoring the family.

I think Mike most likely agrees with this truth, but he has to be careful about expressing it clearly.  These days that's the surest way to get himself marginalized as a "religious extremist", which despite its unfairness will cost him the Governor's office.

Still, if as governor he encourages churches to join him in promoting family values with consistent positive messages that show everybody why faith and family equals happiness, he could become the most successful governor in history.

Is Obama Pulling Away?

The polling would seem to suggest that Obama's pulling away from Romney in the campaign.  Putting aside for now the argument that many of those polls grossly oversample Democrats, there is a simple explanation: Romney's a weak candidate.

Per my previous post, Democrats believe most of the narrative being promoted by the Obama campaign and amplified by the compliant media.  Romney will make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class.  Romney will deny healthcare to the uninsured, and especially women.  Romney will kill all regulation and let his corporate brothers run roughshod over people and the environment.  Romney will start a war with Iran.  Everybody knows this narrative, because it's unavoidable for anyone who watches television - we don't even have to watch news programs to be bombarded by these messages.

What's the Romney campaign narrative?  Anybody heard one?  OK, Obama's a failure.  But what's Romney's plan?  Nobody knows unless they take initiative to go to his website to read his 59-point plan.

My sense is the Romney campaign is a poor one, poorly executed.  How is it that these "expert" advisors to the campaign don't know that there has to be a simple, easy-to-understand theme.  Last time around Obama's theme was "Hope and Change".  Nobody really knew what that meant, but Democrat-leaning folks were included to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and desired changes.

But I'm realizing that nobody who barely pays attention actually knows what Romney's plan is.  Debt and deficit is a huge problem, but how's he going to fix it?  Iran is almost ready to launch nukes at Israel, how's Romney going to stop them?  Economists are predicting another recession, and unemployment's going to spike back above 9 percent in 2013.  What's his plan to reverse that trend?

Nobody outside of party activists and Romney's campaign staff knows the answers to those critical questions.

His campaign says, "Don't worry, he'll get his momentum back in the debates".  Not if he debates like McCain.  In that last campaign, Obama won the debates by making it seem like he agreed with McCain on most everything.  So voters came away with the perception that both candidates were essentially the same on the issues, so they voted for the "cool" candidate.  I think he'll do something very similar to Romney, since it worked so well for him last time.

I see Obama ads all the time, but seldom see a Romney ad.  The last Romney ad I saw was just about what a great guy he is, it didn't even mention policy.  It was ineffective.  Why doesn't the Romney campaign run ads that tell the truth about Obama's policies and goals that are already harming Americans?  It may be "going negative", but the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's positive or negative, and people need to know.

It's strange to see Romney so passive at this critical stage of the campaign, after he was so aggressive and even mean when campaigning against Newt and Santorum in the primaries.

Why Isn't Romney Ahead by 50 Points?

The common question these days asked by incredulous conservatives is, with the dismal Obama record, why isn't Romney way ahead in the polls?

I've been wondering that myself, and have been trying to find out.  Hardly a pollster, I can only draw conclusions by listening to Democrats.  So here are some of the reasons I'm picking up:

War Weariness: Some folks are still hung over from the Iraq war, and can't wait for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan.  They see no point in sending our children overseas to be killed in some God-forsaken desert.  Many of them think the Iraq war was initiated only for the benefit of Bush's friends in the Oil industry. And Romney will immediately go to war with Iran if elected.

Monthly Checks: Many seniors have succumbed to the endless drumbeat of the Obama campaign and now (falsely) believe they will lose their Medicare and Social Security if Republicans regain power.  Welfare and Unemployment recipients believe their checks will stop after Republicans regain power.

Union Busting: Union members see Republicans as union busters.  They have their evidence from what happened in Wisconsin and Indiana.  Wisconsin cut back on bargaining priviledges for public unions, while Indiana became a Right to Work state.

Healthcare: Something I find rather shocking is that many Democrats still support Obamacare.  They've convinced themselves that the law was critical to providing healthcare to those who can't afford it.  They believe that without Obamacare, all those millions of uninsured people will die because doctors and hospitals will turn them away when they're sick or injured.

I suppose if I believed all those things I'd be a Democrat too.  I don't know everything, but think at least partially the reason I don't share those beliefs is because I try every day to understand each issue completely and draw my own conclusions.

Rather than voting for the guy who seems to guarantee no war under any circumstances, I think the primary role of the Federal government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic.  So if Iran builds nukes and points them at Israel, I think we have to protect Israel from annihilation, even if it costs us another middle east war.

Retirees shouldn't and won't lose their benefits under Romney, and the Obama campaign is pushing a false message.  Rather than taking away the monthly checks from the other poor and unemployed, Republicans want to stimulate the private economy so it hires those folks and returns them to self-sufficiency.  To the degree that some of those folks have become dependent on those monthly checks and don't want to rejoin the productive class, we can only restore the Welfare-to-Work policies that nudge them back into the workforce.

Union Busting is definitely a Republican priority, so I don't have much that would refute the union members' belief that Republicans would happily bust unions.  Except in Wisconsin, they only busted public employee unions, which I believe deserve to be busted because of the corruption that's resulted in their rise to power.  I believe workers have the right to band together to form a union for the purpose of negotiating better pay and benefits for themselves, but the mob influences and abuse of union members so rampant in today's big unions is a travesty.  I'm fine with Right-to-Work, because I think forcing people to belong to a union as a prerequisite to making a living for their families is un-American.

Healthcare needs reform, but not the Obamacare Federal kind of reform that will certainly make it harder for all of us to get healthcare and dictate what care we're permitted.  The law is a horrible loss of freedom, and is interfering with our constitutional freedoms of religion and association.  By picking the insurance companies that can participate, then dictating to them what they must cover and at what premiums, there is no longer a free market in healthcare.  I believe the opposite of Democrats, that if Obamacare is allowed to stand, millions will find the treatments they need delayed or denied by the Federal government.

I'm also hearing folks who say they won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon.  What puzzles me is how they'd answer the question, "But you'll vote for Obama, whose religion can't be determined?"  I've become convinced that Obama's an atheist - he may be sympathetic to Muslims, but his policies are those of an unbeliever.

I only wish those Democrats would do a bit of homework and at least learn the facts behind what Obama has done and is doing in office.  The truth is the best healer for toxic beliefs.

Nauseating Incompetence

As the facts begin to trickle out about the debacles of Islamic invasions into our embassies in the middle east, I'm nauseated over the incompetence.  If we can't explain the stunning incompetence of the State Department in failing to protect their embassies, we'd have to consider that our own leaders were complicit in the disasters.

We can't confirm the latest reports, that the Egyptian ambassador refused to allow those Marine guards to carry live ammunition, and that the State Department received 48 hours advance warning of the attacks in US embassies in the region and failed to do anything at all to protect their own people.  Since the Obama Administration has proven remarkably adept at covering up and suppressing any information that they think could reflect negatively on the President, it will certainly be difficult to confirm these stories.

Even if those stories aren't precisely true, who in the world wouln't have been able to predict that Islamists would mount some sort of attack on the US on 9/11?  It's simply unforgivable that Hillary seems to have treated the security of her department in the region so cavalierly.  It's unforgivable that both Hillary and Barack came out initially with messages that sympathized with the terrorists and bemoaned that inconvenient principle of their own country commonly known as "Freedom of Speech".  It's unforgivable that Obama spoke for a couple of minutes about the incidents as if it irritated him to have to deal with this distraction from his re-election campaign, then ran away from the press to fly out west to Vegas and Colorado for more campaigning.

No word on any actual response to these attacks.  Embassies are considered US soil, and attacks on Embassies are acts of war.  So Obama isn't sure whether Egypt is an enemy or an ally. Maybe somebody could give the so-called leader of the free world a clue?

Wait, Obama did do something.  He had Eric Holder hunt down the filmmaker and expose him to the jihadists with the help of their Pravda-like sycophantic media.  Maybe he hopes the jihadists will find and execute the filmmaker, whose film had previously reached maybe a couple hundred audience members before somebody at al Quaeda found it and brandished it to the faithful to inspire them to riot.  Then he insulted Mitt Romney with some comment about firing then aiming.

Meanwhile the al Quaeda gang celebrates a great victory against the craven idiot Obama and plots their next attack.

Again, what more evidence does anybody need that this guy needs to become a private citizen before he can finish his reign of destruction?

Sociological Experiment

The purpose of this post has no particular point or statement to make, but instead is just to share some observations about race and diversity in the workplace.

In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies.  While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.

If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends.  In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women.  But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.

But there's certainly an observable racial trend.  Here's what I've observed:

Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate.  But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.

I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin.  I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.

Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently.  It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate.  My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level.  It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.

I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers.  Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.

White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race.  In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin.  Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.

Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups.  People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable.  It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.

Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces.  It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded.  That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.

What More Evidence Do People Need?

Every single year on the 9/11 anniversary the Islamists have tried to hit us with terrorist strikes.  This year they succeeded. President Obama and his State Department were asleep, and Americans were killed or nearly killed by Islamists in Egypt and Libya.

There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works.  But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings.  We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East. 

Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond.  So others responded.  Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration.  Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.

Or maybe a little of both.  Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence.  Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.

This is what they call the Arab Spring?

What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?

Chuck Norris Told Me to

Go see the movie, 'Last Ounce of Courage'.  Who am I to ignore Chuck Norris?

So I saw it last night.  Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie.  It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects.  It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.

Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region.  In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith.  The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.

The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.

The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing.  The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.

Do I endorse this film?  Sure.  Everybody should see it.  Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it.  But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.

Conspiracy Theories

I've been hearing lots of conspiracy theories from people I know who are completely turned off by the political scene.  It's hard to blame them, and occasionally their theories even seem plausible.  Here are a few recent theories I've been hearing.

The presidential election is meaningless.  The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show.  The fix is in.  Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory.  With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.

Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney.  All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years.  If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything.  Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding.  I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.

Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs.  They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted.  The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats.  He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.

I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve.  Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers.  The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians.  But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.

A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela.  All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate.  Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?

Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America!  Why not?  If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?

Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory).  But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.

So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:

1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised

I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.

Our Choice is For or Against God

The disgusting DNC spectacle that took place when they decided to push through the re-insertion of God and Jerusalem into their platform hit me with the realization that this year our country decides whether we're for or against God.

Republicans represent the "pro" side.

Democrats represent the "anti" side.

There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.

Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.

Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.

The choice has never been more stark.  Certainly in my lifetime.  Most likely in the history of this republic.

And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win.  If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?

Brilliant

This brilliant comment about Sandra Fluke at the Democrat Convention comes from Mark Steyn:

"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."

The emperor has no clothes.

Here's to Ignoring the DNC

I haven't heard a single speech.  I haven't watched any network or cable convention coverage.  So how did I still manage to pick up on these little tidbits?

The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform.  They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform.  This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.

Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents.  But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram.  Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will.  If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.

The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers.  I wonder who's teaching their classes back home?  Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention.  I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate?  Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare?  How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"

Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech.  Apparently it was so moving they cried.  This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion.  All heart and no brains.

Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?

Hiding from the News this Week

For the sake of my blood pressure, I'm going to avoid the news this week. The DNC agenda appears to be packed with speakers who will extol modern Democrat party values, which nearly all inspire only nausea for this Christian Conservative.

It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.

I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents.  I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie.  I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means. 

Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush".  Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".

For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails.  Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride.  I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me.  Soon there will be no safe place left to go.

RNC Observations

It was encouraging and uplifting to hear people like Mia Love, Ann Romney, Rick Santorum, Artur Davis, Condoleeza Rice, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, and some others speak this week.  It was disappointing and discouraging to observe the media as they experienced a desperate meltdown and scrambled to demand that their viewers ignore all those lying people.

Paul Ryan is my superstar among the leading characters in the GOP.  The proof that his speech was pitch-perfect was found in the media attempts to attack him as a liar.  Only the Left-Wing media's manufactured "fact-checkers" turned out to be lying themselves about Ryan's reported whopper about the GM plan closing in Janesville.

MSNBC's "dog whistle" theme was proved to be merely a desperate ploy to paint the entire party as racist, based on ... nothing.  I spent a short time looking in on MSNBC after the speeches just out of curiosity to observe their "analysis".  Rather than analysis, I saw the Obama Campaign volunteer staff members who masquerade as journalists try to stop themselves from screaming in frustration and desperation, because they knew Obama's presidency was being systematically destroyed and they were powerless to stop it.

The MSNBC themes that accused republicans of racism and sexism were soundly refuted simply by the outstanding messages delivered by Love, Martinez, Rice, and Martinez, and Davis.  The party members proved the snarky commentators from Obama's House Network to be fools.  It was so silly and juvenile that the network chose not to televise any of the speeches given by those folks so they could pretend they didn't exist.  As if people wouldn't catch on.

Clint Eastwood's appearance as the convention's mystery guest was interesting.  He was funny and modestly entertaining, but I thought his presentation seemed off-the-cuff and unrehearsed.

Mitt Romney himself delivered an acceptance speech that wasn't terrible, but it certainly was a bit anticlimactic.  That's OK with me;  I'd rather have a solid but non-charismatic president who can get the job done than a soaring speaker who promises to cure disease and lower the sea levels then does nothing but funnel money and goodies to his cronies while our country circles the drain.

What if the Fact Checkers Lie?

For several weeks now, I've been hearing Democrats and their media sycophants incessant whines that the evil Romney campaign keeps lying about Obama's efforts to single-handedly invalidate the welfare reform law that is a source of pride for republicans from 1996.

It continued at the convention with Rick Santorum's speech.  After the evening's speeches ended with Ann Romney and Chris Christie's impressive performances, I stumbled across Andrea Mitchell getting a microphone into Santorum's face to accuse him of lying in his speech about the welfare work requirements being removed by Obama.  After the ambush of Santorum, she and anchor Rachel Maddow commisserated about the gall of right-wing extremists like Santorum and the rest of the republicans to continue pounding such an outright lie.  For them, "everybody knows" it's not true that Obama removed the work requirements from welfare.

The interesting thing that's happened in this campaign is that the Left has created their own "fact-checkers" who turn out to be partisan crusaders for Obama and publish Obama campaign talking points while calling them "facts", then get quoted as the authorities on who's telling the truth in the campaign.  Of course, somehow actual lies from the Obama campaign team are buried, ignored, or explained away, while mere disagreements with Romney campaign rhetoric are inflated into outrageous and dishonest lies.

Where to go to find the truth about the welfare issue?  I've knocked around the internet now and then in search of facts, but until this morning failed to find any honest account.  Surely, if Obama wants to claim it's a lie, there must be some underlying story that he could point to that explains the misunderstanding or distortion.  But no such defense of fact could be found.

Until today.  The first time I've seen anything that tells the underlying story comes from Ann Coulter.
Sure, Ann's a major partisan figure on the right, and is known for her satirical approach in trying to expose what she sees as Democrat foolishness.  If you follow the link to her article, she explains what happened and why the Left built a very thin cover story through faux fact-checkers in an attempt to mislead the public.

If somebody out there believes they have factual evidence to the contrary of Ann's piece that proves Obama and Sebelius are not destroying the 1996 welfare reform law, I'd love to see it.  Of course, don't bother if your approach is to try to invalidate her by trying to refute her satirical suggestions such as the one about exempting welfare recipients so they can spend their time "playing XBox and eating Doritos".  Nobody thinks that's an actual qualification for receiving a work exemption, so don't even try.

2016: Obama's America Reviewed

Last night I decided to go catch the timely bio-documentary on Obama called "2016: Obama's America".  Before settling into my seat in the theater, I resolved to view it with a critical eye, since I could be reasonably considered a member of the choir prepared to receive Dinesh D'Sousa's anti-Obama sermon.

Expecting a partisan hatchet job against the president, I was a bit surprised to find the film had nothing close to a partisan tone.  It treated the president respectfully and approached the narrative more as an attempt to understand who he is and where his policy priorities come from, rather than Michael Moore-style disdain a la Farenheit 911.

The film was compellingly shot and paced, and very well done.  It wasn't too long, and avoided preaching about why Obama's policies have been so destructive to our country.  D'Souza instead introduced the film by explaining that he found himself puzzled by Obama's policy priorities after he achieved office on such a positive platform of unity, "Hope and Change".

D'Souza travels to Hawaii, Kenya, and Indonesia in a quest to understand the roots of Obama's personal philosophy, following the president's own autobiography as a guidebook.  The host concludes through his studies of Obama's history and interviews with his family members that the president is driven by a desire to prove himself worthy of the father that abandoned him by achieving the United States presidency and rolling back the American legacy of colonial exploitation of the third world.

Angry critics from the Left have of course used vicious attacks on D'Souza's motives, some of which were excerpted near the end of the film.  I read an AP review that trashed the film today by picking apart minor theories from D'Souza that tied Obama's attitudes on some specific issues to his father's.  The AP reporter's approach was to try to invalidate the entire documentary by suggesting he made some of those up ("There is no evidence that Obama believes ....").  The story also tries to argue against some of the assertions among the litany of problems that have been created by Obama's administration, such as arguing that his suggestion that Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars over the next decade (a right-wing lie).  It fails to even address the basic message of the film, which is that Obama was raised in a radical family, attracted to radical leftists who became his mentors and supporters, and truly believes he can and must transform America into a less wealthy, unthreatening member of the family of nations.

Personally, I found the brief scene of D'Souza interviewing a psychologist about the effect of parental abandonment on the psyche of children pretty much useless and unnecessary.  Although some of his conclusions about Obama policies based on "Dreams from my Father" are not evident, I tend to believe they are consistent with what we've seen in his first term and the attitudes he has projected throughout the past 3 years.

Ultimately, I don't believe it's accurate to describe this film as "Anti-Obama".  D'Souza never engages in gratuitous partisanship and is never disrespectful to the president.  He actually shows what I took to be sincere empathy for Obama's life experience and understanding about how he reached his adult attitudes and political beliefs.  In the end, he simply suggests that he doesn't believe Obama's attitudes qualify him to serve as the President of the United States.

Of course, I agree.

Is it a Normal Part of Maturing?

I think about the old caricature of the crotchety old man shaking his cane at the world and declaring, "This country's going to hell in a handbasket!"  Am I becoming that old man because I increasingly hold that sentiment?

My grandparents were scandalized when the Beatles showed up on Ed Sullivan with their floppy hair and wild rock and roll music.  They were also aghast at the increasing depictions and frank discussions of extramarital sex on television during primetime, not to mention the constant pushing of the envelope in the amount of skin displayed.

I'm shocked to find out that the Democrat party considers my views on abortion "extreme".  That nobody under 40 seems to understand that a major factor in the social crisis our country is experiencing is the destruction of the family.  Now they tell me I'm a bigot if I don't celebrate the idea of the government forcing us all to recognize (and celebrate) gays "marrying" each other?

My generation dismissed our grandparents' alarm at loosening sexual mores, but now those of us who managed to grow up are suddenly beginning to understand why they were alarmed.

Truth doesn't change.  God doesn't change.  I suspect every generation experienced a certain level of hubris in believing theimselves to be more enlightened than all the generations of human beings that came before.  It's sort of like a disease that has become pandemic with this current generation.

Mitch Daniels was right in telling our generation at the 2009 Butler commencement that it's our fault.  Absolutely, the current generation is merely a product of ours.  We're the ones that taught them narcissism, the myth of self-image, and the attitude toward everything of "what's in it for me?".

We've doomed the greatest country in the world to a path that ends at anarchy and dictatorship.  We've doomed our grandchildren to lives of hopelessness and want.  Because in our selfishness we failed to honor our parents' values.

My generation created a mess, and somehow we should strive to make it right for our offspring before we die.

Missouri Abortion/Rape Flap

As one who would like to see the Senate flop to the GOP this year, I cringed when I heard the story about Todd Akin in Missouri suggesting that women who are raped are less likely to get pregnant.

Even if he can cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that backs up his suggestion, he was stupid to make such a statement.  He quickly tried to walk it back by claiming he "mis-spoke", but that doesn't really work.  I wonder if he really did hear that from a Doctor.  We'd all like to believe that's true, but even if there are great studies out there backing up the statment, it's probably not a great thing to say when running for a national office.

He was on a radio show and the interviewer was asking him about his views on abortion.  I was able to later hear what he said in context, and it was sort of an aside in a much longer explanation of his conviction about protecting life.  He would have done much better to simply leave out his thoughts about the ability of women to fend off pregnancy in the case of rape.  Obama himself expressed outrage in response to the statement.

His better response was that we should worry more about punishing the rapist than punishing the innocent baby that resulted from the crime.

Of course, in all discussions about abortion we hear the pro-choice folks talking about, "What will you do, outlaw abortions from rape or incest?  Huh?  Huh?"

Reasonable people can have their opinions on that question, but it's a distraction from the core issue, which is abortion as birth control.  I'm a self-control guy who actually holds old-fashioned notions of honor and responsibility.  Plus I'm a Christian who believes such things belong to God, not men.  I think abortion amounts to murder of a developing child, and it's silly to try to suggest a child is somehow less human if it happens to still be in the womb.

For now I have to deal with my disappointment that a single unfortunate sentence uttered by Mr. Akin will send Claire McCaskill back to the senate for 6 more years to continue inflicting terrible damage to the republic.

Fascinating Peek at Voter Demographics

USA Today had a fascinating lead article today by Susan Page.  It's easy to tell she's a Democrat, and it's also easy to tell she's worried about this upcoming election.

The article's fascinating because of the suggestions it makes about voter demographics and the overwhelming proportion of voters who know next to nothing about the candidates they're choosing.

It was striking to read that USA Today's numbers suggested that only 39 percent of voters are able to name the Vice President.  A woman featured in the article as an example of a disaffected voter unlikely to bother showing up at the polls was quoted as follows:

"I really don't know that much about him, but from what I hear, he's all about putting taxes on the middle class people, and I've heard that he's put his money in overseas accounts".

She's disappointed in Obama but has swallowed the false media-amplified narrative so aggressively hammered home about Mitt Romney by the Obama campaign over the summer.  She admits that she doesn't pay much attention to the campaign, or politics for that matter, which supports the idea that the coordinated messaging on behalf of the Democrat candidate is highly effective.

Polls consistently show that Americans are divided approximately in thirds: One third are committed Liberals, one third Comservatives, and the remaining third are in between.  But this article suggests that the true division is inside the approximately 40 percent of voters who are actually paying attention.  I suspect that among those 40 percent, about half are conservative and the other half big-L Liberal.  So the electoral fight is really to find that catchy jingle that will appeal the unwashed and ignorant masses from the other 60 percent.

If Romney wants to overcome the sycophantic media's Obama messaging echo chamber, he needs to find a way to connect to people at the grass roots level.  He needs a different narrative about himself that tells the disconnected and disaffected voters who he really is; rather than the elite rich guy who's going to stick it to the middle class so he can make his rich friends richer, he needs to promote an equally simple message that he stands for prosperity for everybody.  Alongside the message telling the same folks that Obama's objective is to make everybody poor except the government class, who live like kings while everyone else suffers.

Susan, the author, is clearly worried.  She found out that most of these disaffected voters who say they're unlikely to show up to vote this year voted for Obama in 2008.  She tries to make her liberal self feel better by offering the hopeful news that Romney's got only tepid support from the other side, but I think she's missing a very important distinction about that observation.

Although most conservatives, me included, are less than enamored with Mitt Romney, we are all planning to show up at our polling places with bells on to enthusiastically pull the lever for him.  Because we are unified behind the absolute certainty that Obama will destroy America if he's allowed to stay in office beyond January.

What's disappointing about the article is that it seems close to 2/3 of American adults are almost completely ignorant about candidates and their policies, not to mention any notion of how the Left's policies affect their lives.

What's encouraging is the knowledge that millions of people that were so enthusiastically turning out for Obama last time are disappointed and discouraged, and most likely won't bother this time.  I'm pretty sure that adds up to a Romney victory.  Although I also believe if more of those ignorant folks took some time to educate themselves, they would be more likely to be converted to the conservative philosophy.

Subtle and not-so-subtle referees

Factcheck.org was made famous in the previous presidential elections, cited often by both sides as some sort of independent arbiter of campaign claims and counter-claims.

I beg to differ.  Factcheck obviously bends over backwards in sometimes ridiculous attempts to show that both sides lie and distort the facts.  But there are big differences between the lies of the Obama campaign and the sometimes arguable rhetoric of Romney's.

Since they think they must show balance by documenting lies and distortions on both sides, the impression they're going for with their readers is that both sides are liars to some degree or another.  I think that's the strategy used by their fact-checkers who carefully construct their stories to ultimately benefit Obama.

Let's look at one example - Obamacare.

Factcheck says Obama fibbed when he promised Americans can keep their existing plans (ya think?)

But to achieve balance, they accuse Romney of misleading people by claiming that Obamacare will come between the patient and his/her doctor.  They spin like a top in trying to convince the reader that ObamaCare's "Advisory Board" isn't at all going to resemble Sarah Palin's "Death Panel".  Plus they're saying the only thing coming between us and our doctors is going to be the Insurance Company, as if that's going to be the only obstacle between us and the care we may actually need.

I think it's comical how Factcheck can't seem to make the linkage between the insurance companies and the advisory board and the obvious logical extension that the ultimate reason we might be denied the care we need is because our insurance company refuses to cover it because the advisory board told them not to cover it.

So where exactly is Romney's lie in saying, "And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor".

Nearly every example on the website has a similar analysis that can be applied.  The reality is that most of the Obama lies and distortions are truly lies and distortions, while most of the Romney accused lies and distortions are easily argued as truth or at least much less egregious cases of campaign rhetoric or overstatement.

In politics, both sides are definitively not equal when it comes to lies.

Finally the Football Withdrawal Ends

Even though I had to settle for listening on the radio, it was nice to finally catch the NFL on a Sunday afternoon again.

The Colts destroyed St. Louis while I coincidentally was driving from Indianapolis to St. Louis.  It was certainly encouraging to listen while the Colts' rookie quarterback, Andrew Luck, matched Peyton Manning's debut by throwing a short pass to Donald Brown on his first play as an NFL QB that was turned into the first touchdown of the season.

The entire Colts team played well, racking up a 38-3 victory.  It's not enough to gloat or declare the Colts are back.  Because after all, it was the first preseason game and it was against the lowly Rams.

However, Luck seemed poised and effective.  The offensive line seemed solid.  The running backs corps seemed capable.  The defense managed to mostly dominate.

But were these promising signs really showing us that the Colts' new front office and new coaching staff were successful at going out and finding a a bunch of great young players and preparing them to play well at the NFL level?  Or did we just get a preview of how bad the Rams might be this year?

My hope is that the Colts have indeed found the right bunch of draft picks and free agents to give the fans an exciting and competitive season.  My prediction is that the Colts will go about 6-10 and miss the playoffs.  If they end 8-8 on the year, I think that would be an overachievement.

As long as they get better as the season goes along and give us hope for the future.  That might at least ease the pain a little bit in February when we're watching Peyton and the Broncos going against the Packers in the Super Bowl.

Then again, the AFC South doesn't look particularly strong going into the season.  The Texans are ahead of everyone else, while Jacksonville and Tennessee both look beatable.  Who knows, maybe the Colts can steal a playoff berth by sweeping the weaker teams and splitting with Houston?  It's not completely impossible, is it?

Whatever happens, it's all just fun.

Paul Ryan's a Star

Personally I think Romney made the perfect choice in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate.  Ryan's young, charismatic, brilliant, energetic - he's a GOP superstar and the model of the ideal conservative candidate.  He's certain to rev up the conservative base, since he's got it all; unapologetic conservative ideology on both sides of the fiscal and social issues.

The old women in the GOP establishment are already wringing their hands and crying;

"The Obama campaign will demonize him for his budget cutting and entitlement reform bills", or
"He'll drive away the independents".

I find it refreshing and a bit of a contrast with the party's Presidential candidate to bring on a Veep candidate who's not afraid to talk out loud about the philosophies of our founders and other conservative icons like Ronald Reagan without apologizing or equivocating.

When the election returns are counted in November, regardless of the outcome, don't try to tell me Romney lost because he picked Ryan.  I must believe it more likely he will win at least partly because he picked Ryan. 

He won't win anything by trying to entice independent voters by pretending to be a more moderate version of Obama.  That strategy's already been tried and it failed.  Remember McCain?  I continue to believe McCain would have been beaten even more severely had he picked a running mate other than Sarah Palin.  He lost because he ran as Obama-lite and failed to fight back when the media set out to destroy Palin in the most misogynist campaign we never could have imagined when he chose her. 

Romney can't win by trying to moderate his message or try to fool moderate-to-liberal voters into thinking he's not as conservative as the Obama campaign would like them to believe.  Misleading voters is what Obama and the Democrats do; it must not be what Conservatives do. 

We must stand or fall fighting for what is best for the country.

Campaign Mythology

The stunning show of support for Chick-Fil-A this week was a very hopeful sign that we still have a chance to stop the Obama project of American Transformation into a Socialist State.

I remain convinced that most of those who steadfastly cling to their support for Obama and the Democrats do so out of willful ignorance driven by fear.  For example, I just read about mass mailings going to public employees in battleground states spreading the false message that a Romney presidency will lead to the destruction of all public employee pensions. 

While it is true that public employee defined benefit pension plans are at or near the top of the list of costs that are bankrupting states and municipalities across the country, it is an outright lie to suggest that a President Romney would or could have the power to simply dictate the cancellation of such plans.   Each state and municipality must make those decisions independently of the Federal government.

The Obama goal is to use Federal dollars (that don't exist) to prop up the budgets of States and Cities across the nation, so they won't have to make those tough decisions they're now facing on how to balance their shrinking budgets.  As far as I know, none have yet cancelled their public employee pension plans, although Wisconsin famously tried to recall their governor for having the gall to require a modest contribution to the pension fund by that state's public workers.  The dominoes now falling in California with cities declaring bankruptcy will force somebody to make very difficult decisions, but even in those cases I doubt pensions will be cancelled in their entirety.

Today's Obama supporters simply reject the facts about his misdeeds, from Solyndra and Green Energy corrupt boondoggles to illegally changing immigration laws to implement amnesty without a single vote by a citizen or citizen representative to using regulation to close down domestic coal and oil production to violating the First Amendment by forcing the Church to provide free abortifacients to their female employees.

They are unwittingly trading away their freedoms of religion and association.  They're giving up their ability to choose what to drive, where to live, what to eat, what to believe, and what to do with their own property.  In return, they hope to get free healthcare and a comfortable retirement from their government without having the freedoms they personally care about taken away.

Somehow all of us need to find a way to get the message to the citizens Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that it's up to them to decide whether we have a chance to save our uniquely free way of life or give up to tyranny.

Confession Required

While attending a Catholic Mass out of town last weekend, I was disappointed to hear a political prayer mixed in with the Prayers of the Faithful.  It was not only political, but contrary to the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

Here's the prayer, paraphrased:
May our leaders take action to affect a more equal distribution of wealth among the people

The prayer may as well have been for all Catholics to cast their vote for Obama.

It's time someone took the time to refute this misguided attempt by liberal christians to mislead others about what charity really means.

The idea that Christians should support socialism is horribly wrong.  If Jesus believed that Caesar should confiscate money from his wealthy Roman citizens and give it to the poor throughout the empire, perhaps he would have preached that lesson.  Instead, he was very clear that it is each individual's responsibility to help the poor.  If we encounter someone in need, he challenges us to meet that need - not by demanding someone else take care of them, but by meeting the need personally and immediately.

The major flaws in the philosophy proposed by that prayer are numerous, and helping someone in need on a person-by-person basis is far superior:

Whenever a liberal expounds on the need for government driven social welfare, the source of the money to be redistributed is never them.  Proponents of government redistribution always intend for somebody else's wealth to be redistributed.  Because it makes them feel better to tell themselves that they care, because they helped take care of the poor by voting for candidates who promised to take money from those who deserve to have their money taken from them.  The liberal never considers himself someone who deserves to have his wealth redistributed.

Government socialism is inherently corrupting.  When you give a bureaucrat authority to redistribute other people's money, you are guaranteed that the bureaucrat will stuff as much of that money in his own pocket as he thinks he can get away with.  The less sophisticated bureaucrats just steal it, while the savvy bureaucrat makes sure to write volumes of rules and regulations that will allow him to steal it "legally".

Government socialism fails to recognize that people are individuals, and each individual has his own set of needs.  Government socialism is by definition a "one size fits all" solution.  Therefore, people truly in need will fall through the cracks of the system if they fail to meet some obscure regulation, while others who don't really need the help receive it in excess by simply learning how to exploit those regulations to their own benefit.

The fruits of socialism are corruption, waste, fraud, and failure.  It fails to lift people out of dependence while teaching them how to turn their dependence into a money-making lifestyle.  It fails to deal with people as individuals and solve each needy person's individual problem.

Worst of all, socialism is the last step on the way to dictatorship and authoritarianism.  Because it kills initiative and industry by punishing achievers in order to reward bureaucrats and sloths.

Therefore, the prayer itself is a sin.