Immigration

The demagoguery from the president and the "Gang of 8" gives me heartburn.  Especially disappointing is Marco Rubio, who checked his principles at the door of the Gang of 8 meeting room.

Imagine a fantasy Washington, DC, where lawmakers actually did what was best for America instead of what was best for their power and position.  In such a place, a truly commonsense solution would be passed and implemented.

Unfortunately, even the immigration laws already passed have been ignored by the president, who essentially has implemented his own immigration laws without any input from congress or anyone else outside his White House staff and maybe Big Sis.

My solution has been posted before, but maybe it's time to reiterate.

If we started today, the first step would be a nationwide announcement.  Use television, newspapers, radio, and any other sources to get the word out.  The announcement goes something like this:

Attention all those currently residing in the United States of America without permission.  The United States is allowing you 6 months to return to your home country.  The 6 month grace period ends October 31, 2013.  During this 6 month period there will be no change in current enforcement methods in place regarding those discovered to be in the country illegally.

As of November 1, 2013, the immigration laws of the United States will be enforced to the letter.  Whether a person is caught illegally crossing the border, illegally employed at a US-based entity, or otherwise living in this country without permission, that person will be given 30 days to produce evidence of permission to reside in the US if requested.  Without proof of such documentation permitting residence in the country, such illegal residents will be promptly deported to the capital city of their country of origin.  Each deportee will also be placed on a list of people to be permanently denied entry into the United States, and if caught back in the country after deportation will be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for breaking immigration laws.

Likewise, beginning November 1st, 2013, all United States employers must use the Social Security identification database to verify the eligibility of all current and potential employees for employment.  Those employers caught employing ineligible people will be subject to a fine equal to the annual salary of each ineligible employee for the first offense.  The fine doubles on the second offense, and the company officers will be subject to prosecution and likely jail time for the third offense.

Anyone here illegally must return to their home country during the grace period, but may apply for a work or residence permit that could allow re-entry within 90 days.  Qualifications for re-entry include the following:

• Evidence of assets sufficient to insure the immigrant has the means to fully support him/herself without government assistance
• The official ICE 'Employer Intent to Employ' form from an employer that certifies that a stable job is awaiting you when you re-enter the country
• An official certificate from an ICE-recognized educational institution that proves you have passed an accredited English Language Competence Examination

When approved, you may re-enter the United States accompanied by your immediate family.  Immediate family is defined as your spouse and children, who must be natural or legally adopted.

So much for those illegal immigrants currently in the country.  From Novermber 1st forward, all illegal immigrants encountered through normal contact with law enforcement will be processed for deportation.  No more arbitrary selective deportation as currently practiced by the Obama administration.

That's the catch, isn't it?  Suppose everything I described in the above solution is passed by Congress.  In the first place, he won't sign it.  But in the impossible event he were to sign it into law, suppose he decides to ignore it and continue selectively enforcing immigration according to his own whims and perceived political advantage?  The entire effort would then be rendered immediately futile.  The president could be sued to force him to enforce the law, but by the time the case makes its way through the courts he'll be out of office.  Likewise impeachment proceedings.

So there's not much point to trying any immigration legislation.  At least until or unless a president takes office who actually respects the rule of law.

Too bad.

Common Core

The argument over something called "Common Core" has been boiling out there for some time.  But I've been mostly oblivious.  All I really knew was that it was a sort of National set of standards for education.  I knew that there are lots of folks at the Indiana Statehouse who are in favor of the program, and that our previous leader at the Indiana Department of Education may have lost re-election because of his advocacy for Common Core.

What I didn't know was pretty much everything else.  I didn't have any idea what Common Core was, or what specific arguments for and against were being made in the debate over its adoption.

That changed somewhat when I heard Greg Garrison's radio program this morning.  He invited a proponent of the program to come on and explain why it's going to be a good thing for education.  He then brought on opponents to explain why they oppose it and prefer to stay with the ISTEP.  I thought Garrison was exceptionally fair with both sides, simply asking them questions and allowing them to say what they wanted to say without arguing or promoting either side over the other.  In fact, he admitted that he has not yet taken a position on the issue and is still trying to gather more information himself.  That's the best way to present an issue on any media forum, as far as I am concerned.

I learned a lot about the arguments, if not about the actual standards.  My initial reaction leans toward the anti side, mainly because the proponent took too much of his time trashing the Right-Wing kooks from the Tea Party who were mischaracterizing Common Core.  That turned me off, as I think it did Garrison, who rebuked him a bit for straying away from making his case to engage in mudslinging.

The bottom line seems to be that Common Core is an attempt to set national standards and testing for English and Math.  Other subjects are being developed, but are not yet adopted.  The reason it's needed, according to proponents, is so different states don't certify their students as having met core standards when each state uses different standards. 

The argument against Common Core is fundamentally based on the mistrust many have against anything created and managed by the Federal Bureaucracy.  The proponent used this mistrust against the other side, accusing them of harboring paranoid fantasies about terrible government misbehavior in forcing anti-American or anti-Christian lessons into the curricula.  And they also fear the Big Brother type tyranny of capturing performance data and even biometric data for monitoring and control of our children.

When the anti-side came on, they calmly explained that although they know such federal overreach is not present in the current version of the program, they can produce a document from a Department of Education staffer that expresses those "paranoid fantasies" as future goals of the Common Core program.

The anti-side also noted that Common Core has lower standards than ISTEP.  Why would Indiana adopt a new national standards program that lowers the bar for our children and hands the whole program over to Washington, DC to be administered at an exhorbitant cost?

So at this point I question the need for a national standard.  Colleges can already evaluate students from the various states with testing from the SAT and ACT, and they'll learn how well each state actually educates the students they send out to those colleges.  So what's the overwhelming need to nationalize this?

I have long been in favor of dissolving the Federal Education Department.  Education is the responsibility of the community and the state, and the Feds have no business getting their fingers into it.  The only role I could consider supporting in Washington would be a small organization that researches educational programs in the various states and helps share information about those programs that produce the best results.  The only way such a national organization can be helpful is by helping find and distribute methods and practices that work well. Even so, states don't need a Federal agency to do that, they could more easily and cheaply collaborate among themselves.

Absent more information that convinces me there's a compelling argument in favor of national education standards, I'm going to line up on the "No" side.

Seeking Understanding

The debates have been going on this week about how to describe the Boston Bombers.  Although they were clearly Islamic terrorists, the Left is working overtime to try to paint them instead as a couple of disaffected individual actors unafilliated with any movement.  The argument almost sounds like it could be made by Christians - ie

Love your enemy
Do good to those who hate you
Turn the other cheek, if he takes your coat give him your coat also

But they don't use those words.  Also, the same folks continue to make horrible and false accusations against Christians.  So apparently their charitable feelings toward followers of Mohammed do not extend to followers of Christ.

I'm struggling to understand.

The truth is that the Tsarnayev brothers were indeed Islamic terrorists.  They were not just a pair of "nice guys" from the neighborhood.  Why can't the left-wing news outlets just admit that basic truth?  They openly wished and prayed to their pagan gods that the bomber would be a white tea-party member.

We all wish the Tsarnaev brothers hadn't become so alienated and radicalized, but the unavoidable truth is that they were.

The leftist news folks also are trying desperately to create a strange argument that somehow says the brothers were not acting under the direction, support, or cooperation of terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda. 

While we don't have any definitive information about that one way or the other, what is it exactly those news folks hope to achieve by hammering so hard on their hair-splitting message?  If the brothers bombed all those people at the Marathon in the name of Islam, why is it so vitally important to separate them from the other larger and more formal terrorist organizations?

I suppose they're using the same approach as with Major Hassan, who they still say killed all those military folks at the base because of a case of "workplace violence", rather than an Islamic terror act.  Why?

It's easy to find the heated arguments of the Left in this case.  But it's not so easy to find the reason for those arguments.  I can't figure out what they hope to achieve.

The closest explanation I can find is the infamous article by David Sirota, Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.

But even that doesn't really explain it to my satisfaction.  Sirota seems unhinged with the suggestion that if a terrorist act is actually carried out by Islamists, it might destroy the entire Left-Wing agenda.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Left-Wing agenda destroyed before it destroys all of us.  But I fail to see why being honest about who the bombers actually were has anything to do with politics.

The Coming Collapse of Obamacare

There's a very good article about the topic at The American Spectator.

The only difference between Middle-Class Obama supporters and me is that they don't know what's about to hit their families at the end of this year.  How many ordinary folks will look at their new Health Insurance bill in January and adopt the attitude of the Democrats who wrote this terrible travesty?

"It's going to be hard to scrape up another 10 or 15 thousand dollars to pay for my health insurance, but you know, we're all in this together!"

I don't think so.

Even if they're covered on their employer's plan, watch out.  I've heard from many companies that they're going to do one of the following come January:

Increase their employee Health Insurance deduction by 50 to 100 percent,
Change their plan to feature a much higher deductible and co-pay, or
Eliminate their health plans altogether and elect to pay the fine.

I think everybody's going to be hopping mad.  The gigantic insurance bills are going to come with new mandates from the government - "You better buy this or we're going to take the money from you anyway".  Shortly followed by the realization that they can't get in to see their doctor.  All of a sudden he's backlogged 6 months.  That's if he didn't decide to retire, leaving folks searching for a new family doctor only to discover that nobody's taking new patients.

The only hope we have left is that next year's elections result in a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate and complete control of the House.  They'll try to repeal Obamacare, but the president will veto any and all such attempts.  They'll try to defund it, but we'll find ourselves back in another fiscal crisis as the president refuses to sign any budget or spending bill that does not fully fund his monstrosity.

But I don't hold a lot of hope that Americans are smart enough to send new people to Washington determined to help fix this mess.  More likely they'll re-elect the same old well-funded rulers who will make sure Obamacare remains the law of the land.

Whatever happens next year, I foresee all of us getting poorer and sicker.  As much as I'd like to offer hope that we can replace Obama with a responsible president in 16, I have mostly lost faith that ordinary Americans can elect the people who will fix the problem.  They'll probably vote for Hillary, whose "solution" to Obamacare will be National Health Insurance.

Good Luck everybody.  We're going to need it.

Shall we pass it to find out what's in it?

As near as I can tell, that's the way the Senate wants to handle their new Immigration bill.

The so-called Gang of 8 gleefully rolled out their massive new immigration bill this week.  But I couldn't tell you much of anything about what's in it.  What little I've heard is more aptly called characterization than fact.

Oponents say it immeditely legalizes all 12 million or so illegals already in the country.  That seems to confirm the charge that says they are better called "undocumented Democrats".  Which would also seem to indicate that Republicans are signing their death warrants by supporting it.  Although lately I can't be sure McCain and Company are actually smart enough to realize that fact.

Opponents also say it fails to take any serious steps to secure the border.  It rather makes vague promises that the border will be secured in the future.

Since it's something like, what, 1,600 pages, I certainly haven't read it.  Neither has most of the Senate, I would imagine.  Unless it turns out to be a brilliant, fair, and commonsense solution to the illegal immigration problem, I'm guessing it will destroy Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations.  And my odds on it being a great bill fall at less than 1 in 100.  So goodbye, Rubio for President.

The saddest thing about this whole issue is this:  We've got all the laws we need to solve the illegal immigration problem already on the books.  All that's required is for the government to simply decide to start enforcing them.

May I pose a very simple question?  If a President decides on his own to selectively enforce laws, change them unilaterally, or ignore them altogether, is that not dereliction of duty?  Beyond that, could it be construed as high crimes or misdemeanors, thus grounds for impeachent?

Life in 2020

A typical day in the year 2020

I rise in the morning to get ready for work.  I don't live in the country anymore, because all tillable land was confiscated by the Federal Government a few years ago in response to a food shortage.  The government response was to confiscate all tillable farmland and place it under the control of the Department of Agriculture, which now manages all American farmland to produce the needed amounts of each commodity to feed the country.  The news media told us all that this plan would not only solve our food crisis, but would also ensure farming would be much more environmentally responsible under the management of Agriculture.

I was compensated for my small farm with an amount of money that the government claimed was its fair market value (I didn't agree, but what could I do?).  I was "strongly advised" by a government social worker to rent a small apartment near Indianapolis with my wife, which was only a block away from the nearest bus stop.  By the way, I no longer have a car either.  Only government officials and people with job responsibilities deemed critical to their communities are allowed to keep and use automobiles.  Friends have said that the going rate for getting declared by someone at the DMV to be one of those providing critical services to the community is around $10,000.  I have that in savings, but think it's too much money to risk just to get permission to own and use a car.

I get on the bus a block down at about 7:30 every morning and arrive at the office in Indy by 9.  My trip includes 2 bus transfers, a train, then about a half-mile walk to the office.  I used to be a self-employed software consultant, but new government regulations caused my business to dry up.  Independent contracting agreements were not exactly outlawed, but the federal government put in new regulations requiring every contract to be scrutinized and approved by the Department of Commerce.  That review and authorization was expensive and time-consuming, plus contracts became highly likely to be rejected for a laundry list of incomprehensible reasons.  So such contracts just became a thing of the past.

Most private industries were nationalized by the government anyway.  They never use the term "nationalize", preferring instead to use words like "rescued" or "stabilized" or "saved from bankruptcy".  The way it worked started with a government agency finding some egregious violation of Federal regulations, most commonly associated with environmental rules.  They would then be assessed a fine that usually exceeded their company's net worth.  Then the Federal Agency that had primary responsibility for regulating that industry would come in and offer a way out; if the company would simply sell a controlling stake and turn over their operations to the government, there would be no jail time for the officials.  The company officers would receive a nice severance package that might climb into several millions to simply retire and leave their business to the Feds. 

That nationalization process is still ongoing today in 2020, and I think it will take at least another decade before the government finishes nationalizing every private business in America.

So my new job is with the government.  I'm a Business Analyst for a formerly private company in the logistics business.  Somebody from that company called me out of the blue just as my last private contract was rejected.  He offered me a job, paying a decent salary that was about two-thirds of what I had been earning as an independent.  Between that job and the relatively reasonable rent for the apartment I was strongly encouraged to move into from the farm, I can get by OK.  The toughest part is having to pay over $25,000 toward my health insurance exchange.  It doesn't actually pay any medical expenses unless I exceed the $30,000 annual deductible, so it's basically a waste of money.  Which I have no ability to change, since it's mandated by the government - if I refuse to pay the premium, they simply reach into my bank account and take it.  They set that system up back around 2010, when they began requiring everyone to provide their bank account information with our tax returns.

There are cameras on every street.  Some of my friends say the government can pretty easily put together a little movie that shows them everywhere I went and everything I did for any given day.  Some folks think the movie also includes audio, so lots of folks are a little paranoid about talking politics or criticizing the government in conversation.  I have noticed that people at work are mysteriously disappearing more often than ever.  The managers never tell us any more about why they're gone than, "Joe isn't with us anymore".  Questions about why are not tolerated, as they explain that termination reasons are confidential.  Disclosing that information is apparently a felony.

I had a pretty good friend at work until 6 months ago.  David was a great guy and we met during breaks and at lunchtime nearly every day.  We even met for drinks after work now and then, although I've never really been a drinker.  One day David just didn't show up, and his boss just parroted the standard, "David isn't with us anymore" line.  He like to talk politics, so I'm afraid that may have led to his downfall.

I am looking to retire in a few years when I hit the official retirement age of 70.  But I'm not sure I'm that excited about the idea.  Without a car, I'd be stuck in the apartment or just going places I can get to in the Indy area using public transportation.  Like maybe hanging out in a park when the weather's decent.  I can't go to Florida, because virtually nobody can relocate there after retirement without government permission.  Last I heard that government permt costs about $50,000 (not officially, of course).  Wow, that bureaucrat's sure getting rich!  Anyway, Florida's a place where only the very wealthy can retire these days.

Vacations are possible, but we have to plan ahead.  Say we want to take a week's vacation in Florida, the waiting list for travel permits is now more than 2 years.  So I just submitted the application this week, but I know better than to look for the permit anytime before 2 years from now.  It's very difficult for us in the sense that we can no longer go visit our children and grandchildren who live in other states.  Nor can they visit us.  We have to use SKYPE to see and talk with our family.  We particulary miss them during the holidays.

The travel restrictions came about in response to terrorism.  President Obama, who by the way was declared "President for Life" by the Democrat-dominated congress back in 2016 (Folks brought a lawsuit that took about a year to get to the Supreme Court, but they ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring suit, not technically ruling at all on the constitutional question), tells us he's eradicated terrorism through this travel regulation system he implemented.  Strange, but I keep hearing about bombs going off on trains, airplanes, and buses.  I saw a burning bus on the way home from work just last week, but there was nothing about it on the evening news last night.

Speaking of news, I remember several years ago we used to have Fox News on television and Talk Radio.  Since I don't have a car any longer, I don't listen to the radio anymore, but it is generally known that Talk Radio is dead.  Fox News was found guilty of promoting "Hate Speech" by the FCC in 2016, which penalized them by arresting their corporate officers and pulling the channel off the air permanently.

There are rumors that some of the famous conservative talkers, like Rush Limbaugh and others, died in prison sometime between 2016 and last year.

Well, at least my job's pretty easy.  I get plenty of holidays and vacation days, and my assignments are so easy that most days at work I'm bored.  I have plenty of time to read or surf the net while I wait for my next assignment.  I mostly read, because the net is so heavily locked down it's difficult to find much of anything interesting online.

I did miss going to church, until I found an underground Roman Catholic parish nearby.  We rotate between various homes and other places to try to stay a step ahead of the police, because it's illegal to gather in groups of more than 10 for any purpose other than a government-sanctioned meeting or event.  Our group is growing very rapidly these days, we just recently had to split into more groups to keep our numbers down so we don't get noticed.  There's a heady feeling that we're living like the early Christians, who were hunted and persecuted back in the first century.

Sadly, our parish priest was arrested about 2 weeks ago.  The police just showed up at his apartment, cuffed him and took him away. We don't know where he is, but fortunately a new priest has just arrived from Africa to take his place.  Most of the Roman Catholic seminaries are now Africa, the only place left on earth where the government does not interfere with religion.  The churches were closed by Obama only recently, back in 2018, apparently because he believed that the churches were threatening his authority.  He claimed at the time that churches were hotbeds for breeding terrorism, but to my knowledge nobody I ever heard of who blew things up was affiliated with the Christian church.  Certainly I never heard a priest advocating violent overthrow of the government from the pulpit, although we prayed regularly for an end to forced abortions, a return to freedom of religion, and a less repressive government.

I finish my workday around 4 and often pick up something at a convenience store on the way to the bus stop that we can cook for dinner.  We don't watch much television anymore, because most of the programming is produced by the government these days, and it gets a bit tiresome.  Incessantly hearing messages about our caring, benevolent government making our country so peaceful, harmonious, caring, and tolerant can drive you batty after awhile.  Even SitComs have turned into silly stories set to laugh tracks of people who love their benevolent government so much they teach their children lessons on being compliant and obendient to their government, which of course leads to success and happiness.

So I increasingly find myself reading the Bible (technically against the law, but they haven't caught me yet), praying, and planning where to hold the next Mass or practicing the music we'll use there.

The Best Thing I've Read Recently on Global Climate Change

From the moment I first heard about the scheme to use the climate to drive global socialism, I suspected that Global Warming (later renamed Global Climate Change) was a scam.

I found the best exposition of the difference between science and politics at Powerline.

I highly recommend reading Dr. Deming's letter if you have any curiosity about the topic of Climate Change.  Even if you're a true believer that our use of carbon energy is destroying the planet by putting to much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you should at a minimum find this food for thought.

Thinking Through Background Checks

They're already the law of the land.  Gun stores have to run all customers through a background check system associated with local law enforcement before they can sell them firearms.

Now we hear that the Democrats have figured out they won't be able to get bans of scary-looking guns (called "assault weapons") or high-capacity magazines (they still haven't figured out whether to call them magazines or clips).  So they've fallen back on something they call "Universal Background Checks".

I don't know the details of the current version of the law, which was written in secret by a hanful of Senators.  But by just listening to the debate, I think I've picked up that the Democrats believe that private sales of guns are the biggest problem that needs to be overcome.  They also claim that polls indicate that as many as 90 percent of American support the idea of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

Why of course, who doesn't think that the criminal and insane shouldn't be able to own guns?

But let's think through this for a minute.  First of all, what does "Universal Background Checks" on gun sales mean?  Well, it would seem to mean that if I want to sell my gun to somebody for cash, say in my garage sale, I can't.  I'd have to get my hands on an application that the potential buyer has to fill out, then I'd have to submit it to the Federal Government.  After some indeterminate time period, certainly well after my garage sale has been closed down, the bureaucracy will come back to me to let me know whether I have their permission to sell the gun to my garage sale customer.  Why am I guessing that answer might be "No" regardless of the applicant?  So presumably at that time I would track the buyer down, collect the cash, and hand over the gun.  If he's still interested by that time, that is.

What if I go ahead and sell the gun to my garage sale customer and ignore the new law?  How will the Federal government find out I broke their law by selling my gun without their background check?  If they do find out, will they send me to prison?  Even if the buyer would have passed the background check easily and has never used the gun for any illegal purpose?

Just the fact I don't know the answer to those questions makes me very uneasy.  I'm not happy with the idea of having to cut through a mountain of red tape just to sell an old shotgun to my neighbor, and I'm certainly not happy with the possibility that there might be somebody from the government slapping handcuffs on me and hauling me off to jail for skipping some silly red tape.

There's also a lot of talk about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.  New York is already doing it.  So how exactly do you define "mentally disturbed"?  If somebody's received counseling for depression, will they be disqualified from owning a gun?  If somebody got a prescription for a anti-depressant or some other psychotropic drug, does that disqualify him from owning a firearm?  What if someone's merely talked to a counselor or therapist at some point during their lifetime? Many atheist liberals call us Christians are mentally disturbed, so would their fellow travelers in the bureaucracy deny us on that basis?

Where does it all end, and who decides, and what are the criteria?

Therefore my message to Congress is this:

Please don't allow anything the Democrats so desperately want you to pass related to gun control.  There is nothing good that will come of this.

CNN Gushing over the Obamas

I was in the hotel restaurant for my breakfast.  CNN was on the television, but I wasn't watching it.  Instead I was scanning through the USA Today as I munched on my eggs.

But suddenly CNN grabbed my attention.  What drew my attention was the new female morning anchor, apparently the replacement for Soledad O'Brien.  Her name I don't know and frankly don't really care.  I looked up from my USA Today because she was over-the-top excited.  I wanted to see what she was so excited about.

She was talking about the White House concert last night, which I believe she was calling "Memphis Soul".  But she wasn't really gushing about the concert or the performers.  She was excitedly gushing over the Obamas.  Sort of like a teenage girl from the 60's who just got to see the Beatles in concert.

That concert got some play on Fox News recently as yet another example of the Obama's living like America's King and Queen.  They enjoy hosting concerts from famous entertainers held privately in the White House for only them and their closest friends.  All at taxpayer expense, of course.

The White House shut down that criticism for this private concert by inviting the PBS cameras in to broadcast it. That way it looks no different than all the White House performances we've been seeing on PBS through the last several presidencies.

The most striking thing I noticed from this small event is the polar opposite coverage.  Sour grapes criticism from the Right about the "Imperial Presidency" contrasted with groupie-like worship of the Obamas is about as stark as you can find an example of the polarization represented by the media these days.

All over a silly concert, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing to the weighty issues of the economy, unemployment, Iran, North Korea, immigration, etc.  The appropriate reporting would have been to say the White House hosted a private concert last night featuring this list of performers.  Leave the discussions about imperial presidency and the Obamas' coolness factor to the editorialists and move on to the important stories.

I know, silly pipe dreams.

Letter to a Democrat

Dear Mr. Democrat:

We've known each other for a very long time, and although I disagree with you on pretty much every issue, I still believe we could be friends.  Unfortunately you seem to hold a hatred for me that I believe stems from a serious misunderstanding about who I am and what I believe.

There are things I think I understand about you.  Many of your attitudes and opinions are based on what you view as your inherent qualities of tolerance and understanding.  You hold the belief that a compassionate government must redistribute the wealth from those who have it to those who do not.  You've also told me that there should never be any judgement or strings attached to that redistribution.  That the simple fact someone is poor and needy is the only qualification needed to receive their share of my hard-earned income.

Please explain why you believe it's compassionate to take half of everything I earn, stuff most of it into the pockets of hordes of faceless Washington bureaucrats, then toss the spare change to the poor.  Are you unaware of that reality or do you really think that solves the problem of poverty?

We hold nearly polar opposite philosophies about the role of government.  You're a socialist and I'm a capitalist.  You believe that people are poor because they are somehow forced into poverty by the greedy wealthy elite.  I believe that people are poor because of their own life choices and are kept poor by the power-hungry socialist bureaucracy who believe they must be every poor person's surrogate parent.

So what exactly is wrong with my idea that those able to work should earn their own way?  I've never heard a logical explanation from your socialist friends answering that question.

You're an atheist and you hate me mainly because of my Christian faith.  Whatever happened in your life that offended you so throughly toward the Church I deeply regret.  If I could only make you understand one thing, it's that Christian people are flawed and sinful.  It's unfortunate that we all can't be shining examples of Jesus Christ to the world, but I know there are lots of folks out there who call themselves Christians that fail to model the principles of the faith to others.  The fact that redemption is available to us despite the evil we do is the beauty of our faith.

My faith makes it clear that sexual promiscuity outside the institution of marriage is wrong.  You call me homophobic for holding on to that outdated and unenlightened point of view.  You also call me a bigot and hateful.  What you don't seem to understand is that I would counsel you against having sex with multiple partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual.  I'd also suggest that divorcing and remarrying is equally wrong.  So if I'm a hating bigot for saying that homosexuality is wrong, then you'd have to apply the same charges to me for my belief that divorce and remarriage is wrong, promiscuity with multiple hetero partners is wrong, and of course adultery is wrong.

It seems to me that my moral compass in the area of sexuality is what makes you more upset with me than anything else.  Why does that upset you so much?  Do you imagine me standing in the corner with my arms crossed, shaking my head and clicking my toungue, whenever you're in bed with someone not your wife?  Getting the Supreme Court to declare homosexual "marriage" a consititutional right does not override God's law and make it morally acceptable.

If I cite the undisputable facts that have demonstrated for most of human history that the nuclear family is the best environment for raising children, why does that upset you?  Children who are raised in a home with a mom and a dad who are gainfully employed and go to church on Sundays are the most successful people over their lifetimes.  Why does that truth threaten you?

As a Christian, I'm deeply concerned for you.  I grieve that you go through life with such anger and hatred for me, even though I've given you no cause to do so.  I grieve that if you do not have a life-altering experience someday soon, your soul will suffer the tortures of Hell.  I'm sorry you will never know true love or happiness, and I blame my own generation who allowed the Socialists and Communists to invade and destroy our educational institutions.

Perhaps one day you will write me a letter in response. I long to understand you better, even though I promise you will never succeed in dissuading me from my faith or my political philosophy. 

I will continue to pray for you.

Sincerely,

Dan

Basketball Update

Tonight I'm watching the Notre Dame v Connecticut women's semifinal, where it looks like UConn is going to take their first of 4 games against the Irish this year.  Unfortunately for Notre Dame it's the most important of the 4 games.  There's still a lot of time left, so I know I shouldn't count ND out just yet.

So Louisville seems to have both their men and women in the national championship.  Was it Florida that did that last?  I suppose I could look it up, but not tonight.

On the men's side, Louisville seems to be the team of destiny.  Everybody seems to be rooting for them, with their very own George Gipp giving them motivation.  Kevin Ware's broken leg and the way it has inspired his teammates makes a nice story, but I'm getting a bit weary hearing it.

Michigan's been playing great, so they can't be dismissed out of hand.  They handled Syracuse in the way I thought Indiana should have, if Indiana had played the way they normally play.  Disappointing.

Next year's going to be very different.  Indiana is almost certain to lose both Victor Oladipo and Cody Zeller to the NBA.  I think Victor most definitely should go this year - I don't see his draft value going any higher if he stays another season.  Cody is a bit different, as he had a bit of a disappointing year.  If Cody came back next year and became the dominant center and national player of the year people thought he'd be this year, he'd be the #1 pick in next year's draft.

But Zeller's probably a top-10 pick this year, so he'll probably go pro.  Perhaps a bit selfishly, I'd like to see him come back next year and help the Hoosiers get that national title while proving he can be tougher and more dominant inside.  Michigan will lose at least 2 or 3 of their guys to the NBA, regardless of the outcome of that national championship game.  Trey Burke from Michigan seems like he'll definitely enter the draft.  Many of the top players from the Big 10 are going pro, so the league will look a lot different next year.

So as I finish up this post, there's a little over 5 minutes left in the game, and Notre Dame's closed the gap but still has a lot of work to do if they're going to pull this one out.  I'd like to see them get the title (UConn's got enough of them), but won't lose sleep either way.

Historic Anomaly

Assuming that history is not destroyed by a totalitarian regime, future historians will be scratching their heads over the events that occurred in the years of Obama.  Sentient Americans with an IQ above 80 are already scratching our heads over what happened last fall and continues to occur.  How can history explain a generation of Americans who have lost their minds?

We re-elected a president who brought us

Obamacare: The worst law in the history of the nation.  If you set out to pass the worst possible law to make healthcare more expensive and less accessible while enriching your political cronies, I suppose Obamacare is what happens.  Even today in the local paper there was a letter to the editor expressing the writer's surprise that so many oppose a law that will help people get access to care and cost less; I suppose she's been living under a rock somewhere.  The poor woman will be shocked when she finds out what happens when the law's fully in force next year.

Poverty:  We haven't seen poverty levels this high since the Great Depression.  Yet this president claims we avoided another Depression by implementing his policies.  I suppose people are more easily fooled this time because all those falling into poverty now get food stamps and welfare.  Slightly more than half the population has embraced the message, "Don't believe your lying eyes, believe me!".

Energy:  Our country is sitting on the greatest energy reserves in the world - gas, oil, coal.  We might come at least close if not completely wipe out poverty if only we loosen the regulations that close those resources and go as far as close down existing sources (i.e. coal).  Meanwhile the middle east is exploding and we're paying record high prices for the energy we need to heat our homes, run our vehicles, and transport goods around the country.

Ruinous Deficits and Debt: The president's own agenda has created a structural deficit that will never be closed.  His only proposal to reduce the ruinous deficits is to take more taxes from the "rich", but then he wants to plow those extra taxes into more spending on his pet projects that only further enrich his friends and cronies.

Religion: He's produced more anti-Christian policy than any president in the history of America.  Obamacare tramples the right of churches and individuals to follow their conscience by forcing everyone to participate in his infanticide agenda.  He further pushes a homosexual marriage agenda that will marginalize the Church and force it underground.

Yet slightly more than half the country turned out in the last election to keep him in the White House. In the highly unlikely event an historian from the 24th century who is scratching his head over how Americans could have allowed all this to happen, here's my answer.

That narrow majority happened because their votes were purchased.  This president successfully used a compliant media to paint his opponent as a threat to those monthly welfare checks and food stamp handouts. Romney's message of bringing back opportunity and jobs that would free the poor from the government dole was twisted into a mischaracterized theme suggesting his objective would be to strip those welfare recipients of their monthly benefits. Therefore the recipients simply voted to protect their income, at least as far as they were misled to believe.

The bottom line is that we have the first president in the history of America who was elected under false pretenses.  Amazingly, he and his campaign advisors perpetrated a massive fraud on approximately half of America.

The Myth of the Stupid Conservative Woman

The poster woman for the political left as the dumbest politician in America has been Sarah Palin.  They still jump at every opportunity to make fun of her today, despite the fact that she hasn't run for anything since losing the VP to Joe Biden more than 4 years ago.

Which is funny by itself, given that Sarah would bury Joe any day, any place, any time in any intelligence test.  The campaign to discredit Sarah Palin went from incessant frivolous lawsuits filed against her in Alaska to an HBO movie solely dedicated to proving that she was hopelessly ignorant during the McCain campaign.

I tuned into that HBO movie for a few minutes once.  The scene I caught portrayed Sarah displaying a stunning ignorance as she seemed incapable of explaining the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.  Pardon me for not buying what you're selling, I sent out telepathically to the producers of the poorly disguised hit piece, as I surfed away to watch something else.

The left has this strange belief that anyone who chooses to be a conservative must be stupid, because in their world the political worldview of the left is the only reasonable one.  Sarah was an easy target because of her unsophisticated accent and manner and the fact she didn't graduate from an Ivy League university.  They have a lot more trouble making believable charges of stupidity against such high profile conservative women as Condi Rice.  But they love to portray Michelle Bachman almost like Palin's sister.

The famous line from Forrest Gump was "Stupid is as stupid does".  So I'll provide my bipartisan list I'll call the

Stupid Hall of Fame
Nancy Pelosi (#1 All-Time)
Barbara Boxer
Diane Feinstein
Lindsey Graham
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Alan Grayson

Newest Inductee: Diana DeGette (the ignorant gun control advocate from Colorado's state legislature)

I'd suggest everybody in this hall of fame falls well below Sarah on the intelligence scale.

Other Halls of Fame worth considering in the future might be

Evil Hall of Fame (Headlined by luminaries like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Dick Durbin. Alan Grayson may deserve a spot in two halls)
Corruption Hall of Fame (Headlined by Bob Menendez, Maxine Waters)

If We Must Have This Debate

Obama's second highest priority for his second term is what he calls "Comprehensive Immigration Reform".   Of course it's only second behind those tax increases he's lusted after since his first campaign.  So he and the Democratic senate are forcing the debate, even though it's low on the list of the country's most critical issues.

All this talk about immigration reform has generated a massive new influx of Mexicans desperately climbing the fences to get in before the law passes, assuming they've got to be in the country to qualify for the amnesty about to be granted by the Democrats.

Most remarkable about Obama's enforcement of immigration law is that he's actually violating it through selective enforcement that is neither fair nor formally sanctioned by the law itself.  He's decided to use discretion in which illegal immigrants get processed and which are released.  Supposedly if an illegal gets caught but hasn't been convicted of a felony, he or she is turned loose.  Otherwise, it's deportation.

But stories abound of illegals with felony records getting released, then committing all manner of crimes in American communities.  So I'm not sure the unilateral "policy" dictated by the White House is actually what's being followed.

There's this "Gang of 8" senators, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, supposedly meeting in secret to hammer out a grand bargain for immigration reform that might actually pass both houses and become law.  Given the current political environment, that seems about as likely has a snowstorm in Hades.

On the Republican side, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are joined by Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio.  McCain has been supporting amnesty for illegals since long before he ran for President against Barack Obama.  That's a pretty major reason he was unable to beat Obama, as far as I can tell.  Lots of folks who found his grandstanding attempts to liberalize his positions to gain the false adulation of the media nauseating.

Equally nauseating is the sycophantic Graham, who is little more than a McCain sidekick.  I hear that South Carolina is organizing a strong candidate to unseat Lindsey, and think it's about time.

Rubio's a rising star in the party, and is walking a dangerous fine line by allowing himself to be sucked into this gang.  It's practically a no-win situation for Rubio.  He may please Mexican immigrants by helping push through an amnesty program, but they still won't vote for him for President.  Meanwhile the conservative base will turn away from him if he supports an inherently unfair amnesty program that automatically legalizes millions of people who shouldn't be here, given the presumed millions of others from around the world that want to come but have been blocked because they chose to try the legal route.

Obama is demanding the immediate granting of "legal status" to all the illegals in the country already (translation: Legal Status=Amnesty).  Without any prerequisites, especially without securing the border first as Republicans are insisting.

I've posted my solution to the illegal immigration problem elsewhere in the blog, but obviously nobody in the Gang of 8 reads it, so virtually nothing in it is in what they've deigned to share with the public about their proposed legislation. 

So I have to default back to the standard GOP requirement:  Secure the border first, confirm it's secure, then we'll talk about what to do with the illegals still here.

Jay Leno had the best line I've heard on the subject lately.  The press has changed the term "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented Democrat".  Most great comedy is rooted in truth.

More Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Secret National Emergency

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

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

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

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

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

Fortune Cookie

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

Your fondest dream will come true this year.

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

What is my fondest dream?

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

What if my fondest dream is for someone else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Conclusions Would You Draw?

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

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

Drones Over America.  Are They Spying on You?

Obama and FEMA Create Civilian Army Trained in Domestic Preparedness

Janet Napolitano: Domestic Terrorism is Top Concern

Obama's DOJ Targets Religious Freedom, Again

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

The View from an Elitist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majoring in the Minors

What are the most critical issues facing America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Blitz

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

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

Demoralizing.

NCAA Weekend 1 a Mixed Bag

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

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

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

Can the Hoosiers beat Syracuse?  Sure.

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

The Big 10 certainly had a good weekend.

The Waste of Time that will be a Travesty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got My Brackets Filled Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy Inferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom versus Fairness.

Millions to Study What?

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

The story goes something like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delusional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand Paul Filibuster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go, Rand!

Bizarre Radio Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Values

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

The list of values:

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

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

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

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

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

My Final Four is Looking Bleak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Campaign that Must End

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letting a Few People in Black Robes Decide

Who would have ever thought it would come to this?

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

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

The ugly truth is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dishonest Reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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