Oldhugh

The Choices of the Crisis At Hand

2011-05-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

The Civil War was the coup d'dtat for the Whig party. Having dwindled after the demise of their major leaders and losing of major elections the final death knell seemed to sound within the devisiveness of the war.

When lowered to its common denominator, the current "civil war" is the battle between European style socialism and the American free enterprise system. There are many twists and turns involved due to the complexity of the issues and their intertwining in the political structure. Hanging in the balance is individual liberty and the accompanying expression of ingenuity and accomplishment that it spawns and the top down elitist systems that are socialism.

In my observation the crisis has accelerated exponentially with the two year tenure of the progressives in control of the presidency and both houses of congress. Blame the prior administration as they may they cannot negate the fact that both houses of congress have been in Democratic hands since the 2006 elections. All legislation emanates from congress and to my recollection President Bush only vetoed one bill in that time, So, though not prominently publicized, the "Dem's" have controlled virtually all of the legislation produced in the last four and a half years.

All honest parties recognize that the current proposed budget of roughly $3.6 trillion with an estimated $1.6 trillion dollar deficit is unsustainable. They know that a $14.3 trillion dollar deficit which with current spending projections can only rise creates a situation that is unsustainable. All concerned know that the current entitlement programs which, less defense, represents about half of the budget, faced with the existing demographics, is unsustainable as it is now structured.

The question for both parties approaching the 2012 election, is whether they play politics with the situation to achieve a hopeful victory, or do they present solutions which give hope of solutions that address the problems as well as are fiscally sustainable. We're seeing indications of that. Thanks to Rep Paul Ryan, the Republicans are attempting to present plans to address these problems, especially entitlements, in a serious manner. And thanks to the GOP leadership, they have held their ground in related votes, in the face of intimidation and scare mongering. The Democrats have not produced their mandated budget which is over seven hundred days in arrears, but have only answered with finger pointing, negativity and fantasy ads of old ladies being pushed over a cliff.

A plus for the nation is the apparent awaking of the rank and file voter. Poll after poll verifies the fear of this group of voters as spending and debt crisis becomes more apparent The task the GOP faces is articulating the substance of their position. This consists of defining the problems in terms understandable to them. Joe Six Pack understands, "if you make $50,000 a year and spend $75,000, something bad is going to happen?". You don't have to get into economic theory.
Next it would help to say that this is their initial attempt and if the Democrats will put their plan for this issue on the table, we can debate them openly and with the accreditation of the voters, attempt to do the best to select an approach that is best for the country. And thirdly, which is probably the most important to the voters, is to take your stand unabashedly, boldly, and with confidence. Donald Trump's main appeal was that he defined some of the problems and attacked them boldly. The same with Cris Christie. And they didn't back up. The awakened citizen is
saying to congress, "don't just stand there, do something".
Back to the Whigs. This financial crisis is the current equivalent to the Civil War. The party that loses the hearts and minds of the voters in the addressing of these major issues is doomed to oblivion. If the Democrats prevail and we have four more years of progressive legislation and executive edicts, our present concept of government and many of our individual liberties will be on the road to extinction. If my vision is correct, the inevitable results caused by the basic laws of economics will bring a crash which will by a popular demand for stability, usher in a radical authoritative regime.

If the Republicans stick with a conservative approach which the people understand and accept and win the election, including the Senate and Presidency, and if stand fast on the implementation to fix the problems, rather than posturing for political gain. And the size of government can be reduced drastically and the forces of the free enterprise system be unleashed, the United States of America can return to solvency and greatness.

Term Limits - Has It's Time Come

2011-05-22T16:15:00.000-07:00

A serious problem in this country is becoming more apparent lately, if current polling implications are correct. In recent polls taken by Scott Rasmussen of 1000 likely voters, only 29% thought the country was headed in the right direction, 23% felt congress’ actions had the consent of the governed and 53% of those polled thought that elections were rigged in favor of the incumbent. This covered polls taken in one week! If this is indicative of the feelings of constituents, then what is the motivation for congress to do the things that they do?

With a quick Google I found that of the current congress, 10 members have served over 36 years. Of the current House 26 had twenty or more years there and in the Senate, 21 had twenty or more years. I can only guess but it would be my strong inclination to say that getting reelected was if not at the top of the list, very close. I love my representative and his voting is representative of the feelings of the residents of this district. However if one leaves private life and devotes over ten or fifteen years to the public sector, one would have to think about it as a career. All of us know that if you have a career it logically follows that you have ambition. If you have ambition the main focus of your endeavor , naturally, is to do what would further your career. In politics the first necessity of furthering your career is to stay in office – keep getting re-elected. What are the requisites of doing this? High among them are raising money and getting larger numbers of people to vote for you. How can you accomplish this? Do favors, help pass legislation, etc., that either favor a group of people or help line some people’s pockets. You have now reached the point that your constituents – “the ones that brung’ you”- are down the ladder in the hierarchy of concerns. A noticeable residual effect is that access to your representative gets harder and usually amounts to generic emails touting his accomplishments, or a quick nod at a fund raiser. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned.

I would raise the question, isn’t it time we revisited the need for term limits. What duration that would encompass would be debatable. For starters I would feel two terms in the Senate or six terms in the House - twelve years - would be a place to start. With the average age of our representatives this would seem to allow for public service and a private career. Many in the Senate, though I have no data to support it, would appear to have already advanced in some private endeavor before election to a point that returning to private life would still be feasible and many who entered politics later would actually be close to retirement age. They have a very generous retirement package now and if it even had to be sweetened some, it would pay off for the taxpayers. In addition, the change should mandate no employment in lobbying or otherwise trying to influence action by congress as a whole or by individual legislators. Other restrictions should be considered to make their break with the political structure as complete as possible.

This will not be originated in congress. Self interest is a normal human reaction. The special interests and lobbyists will not like it. They have a lot invested in time and money in gaining the ear of the powerful. It is also the destination of many in congress upon leaving. It would have to probably be done by constitutional amendment, or as happens some times, the threat of one.

Until serving in government again becomes a temporary public service with the main objective being to further the lives and well being of the ones represented as a whole, and with the probability of going back to the area you represent and living under the laws that you pass becomes a reality, the idea of our country having a truly effectual form of representative government will not come to pass.

These thoughts provide more questions than answers, but in the situation the country is in now and with a very noticeable awakening of interest by the average voter, it is certainly one whose time has come.

Return to Federalism

2011-01-21T09:51:00.000-08:00

A relatively under reported phenomenon is afoot in the country. It is interwoven in the political philosophy of the tea party movement. There is an awareness of it evidenced in most of the country except Washington, D.C. The concept isn't new - in fact it was the mortar used in constructing the constitution. This concept is republicanism. It has been encroached on little by little over the years. The Progressive movement, starting at the turn of the last century, has worked hard to negate its legitimacy in our country's form of government. To do so would shred the constitution and berate our nation's history and tradition. "We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands." The Republic- that association of sovereign states, has been overpowered by an ever growing central government.

There is no doubt in studying the development of the Constitution that a group of states realizing the limitations of trying to deal with each other as well as foreign nations, were willing to give up some of their sovereign rights to form a nation - a union of individual states. There is absolutely no doubt that they were doing so in a limited way ceding only specified rights which they felt necessary for successful union, but retaining all others to the states themselves. Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution enumerates 18 powers given to the national government. The first ten amendments , a "bill of rights" was a condition of ratification by several states. Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It seems obvious that the States continue to be legitimate entities, that they have ceded only limited powers to the federal government, and that unless voluntarily relinquished through valid legislation or the amendment process, are to be maintained by the States.

The harsh, progressive agenda of the Obama regime may have awakened a much needed giant in this country - Federalism. I would use the term "states rights" except that the term was co-opted in the sixties in relation to integration and the race issue. Too, federalism is intrinsic to the founding of the country. As noted above the uniting of states to form this great country had no contemplation of capitulating all their rights and treasure to a central government. After the last election nearly sixty percent of the states have a Republican governor. Some twenty-one state houses saw one or both chambers swing to Republican. Two issues, "Obamacare" and the overreaching and tyrannical regulations being promulgated by Federal Agencies such as the EPA, FDA, FCC and HHS designed to circumvent the will of the people and their elected representatives, have sparked many states to start fighting back using the judicial system. On Obamacare twenty-six states united in suing against the individual mandate in a Florida court. Two other states, Virginia and Missouri have filed separate suits. States such as Texas have challenged the EPA's intervening in the issue of pollution permits. Some legislatures have passed or are contemplating passing legislation which reinforces the right of the states in certain issues to take precedence in areas either constitutionally or traditionally left to their jurisdiction.

It is important to the country that in this process the courts address the limitations of the federal government and their seemingly unlimited usurping of authority normally left to the states.
This may be the last great hope for return to limited constitutional government.

Size of the Federal Government

2010-12-04T16:00:00.000-08:00

Today the President proposed a two year pay freeze on the salaries of civilian government workers. To quote the old Saturday Night Live skit, "well isn't that special". USA Today noted that the average government employee receives in pay and benefits about 150% the pay of their private sector counterpart. The number of government employees making $150,000 or more has increased ten fold in the past five years and doubled in the past two. By the way, who has been in control of the federal purse during those years. The House majority leader, at least by inference, has noted that the federal work force is vital to the country. We have added another 100,000 or so in the last couple of years.

All the while poll after poll has shown that the American taxpayer feels government is way too big and that it continues to grow while the private sector struggles. What are we getting in return for the money spent? Most obviously the main product of big government is its attack on individual freedom. Article I, Sec. 8 of the constitution enumerates eighteen powers given to the federal government. By the wildest stretch do you see control of the amount of water in your commode, the light bulb you use in your lamp, the caloric intake of your diet, and on and on within those enumerations. This is an attack on your individual rights. It is masked as contributing to your and your families security. With freedom comes risk. People in prison have security. They're fed, clothed and attended to medically, but they are not free.

In the first place much of what the government has attempted to do, neglecting their right to do it, is demeaning to the citizens. Where has government shown its superiority in judgment and intellect in running your business? Is it in the post office. If the legislation protecting it from competition were repealed, private businesses such as FedEx and UPS would run them out of business in six months. Other than its specifically enumerated functions has the federal government or the state government shown superior expertise and achievement over private enterprise. In your private life is the government superior to the parent in monitoring your child's diet. In the realm of the law of unintended consequences, did they foresee that with a smaller commode tank you would just flush twice, using more water than the larger tank. Did they foresee that their was more danger in the disposition of the new light bulbs than the energy saved by trashing the old. Were they smart enough to know that the amount of energy used to produce a gallon of ethanol was greater than the amount saved as an additive, ignoring the impact on food prices as the farm industry swapped food production for government subsidized ethanol production. It couldn't be that special interests benefitted at the expense of the consumer could it.

Probably a fourth or more of what the government does could be outsourced to the private sector and in the context of competitive free enterprise, be done more efficiently and more cost effectively. If we want to recover from the current economic malaise, we should reduce the size of government, de-fang its onerous regulatory tentacles, and let the miracles of the free enterprise system restore the country to the giant growth engine that it has been.

Wake up Rip!

2009-11-28T16:16:00.000-08:00

Rip Van Winkle wakes up after 25 years. When he went to sleep Ronald Reagan was President. The country was strong economically and militarily. She was a leader of the free world. Communism was reeling and losing ground politically and economically.

Boy does Rip get a shock! He turns on the news or probably gets on the internet since the main stream press has quit journalism in favor of propaganda. The revelations -

- Scientists have lied and fudged data to support their position on global warming - and to protect the big federal grant money coming their way.

- The vote of a United States Senator has been bought for $300 million of the taxpayer's money destined for her state. Additionally, she corrects with pride, the original disclosure that it was only $100 million.

- The Chinese communists are lecturing us on fiscal responsibility.

- Federal spending is out of control - TARP, stimulus, omnibus spending bill, cash for klunkers, cap and trade and the push for nationalized health care - of course not under that name.

- Gamesmanship by the Democratic controlled Congress to misinform the public as to the cost of the health care bill by taking payments to doctors out of the legislation and by including tax increases during a ten year period and expenditures for five or six.

- Unelected and unconfirmed Czars exerting huge power over virtually all areas of the economy.
Many of these Presidential picks have either communist leanings and/or affiliations as reflected in their recorded speeches and publications.

- The taking over of a major auto manufacturer. Setting caps on salaries in the private sector.

All of this and much, much more, from a President who campaigned on transparency, bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility.

Our founding fathers stressed the need for virtue by the citizen's in order to make our system of government work. Do we have enough character, morality and love of freedom to ward off the wave of collectivism being thrust upon us? I don't know . I pray that we do. I pray that the good solid citizen's of this country will rise up civilly and say enough is enough at the polls while we still have the ability to do so.

If you think that our form of government can't fall, I invite you to seriously look at the events in Italy , Russia and Germany during the early twentieth century. I have, and the similarity in many areas with what is going on today are frightening.

As Patrick Henry said, "what we gain too easily, we esteem too lightly." Lest we forget.

The Blame Game

2009-11-21T17:40:00.000-08:00

A day hardly passes that we don't hear from the Obama administration cries about the mess which they inherited from the Bush administration. My, but memories become short and selective when it is convenient.

In the election of 2006 both houses of congress came under the control of the democrats. If my memory is correct all legislation is passed by the congress. All spending is authorized by the congress. I think it is then reasonable to ask who really was in control of the economy the last two years of the Bush administration?
I think President Bush only vetoed one bill during that time - the CHIPS program expansion.

When the democrats took control of congress in 2007, the Dow was about 12,500. GDP had grown about 4.8%. The national debt was less than nine trillion and unemployment was at 4.6%. Inflation was in check with the CPI around 2.5%. This hardly sounds like a mess to me.

All of the spending bonanza passed in 2008 was authorized by a democratic congress. TARP was passed by a democratic congress. I am not trying to say that the republicans were not complicit in what went on. President Bush should have used the veto pen more often or, at least, the bully pulpit of his office more effectively to reign in spending. His political myopia on the war and national defense is good in that we won in Iraq - despite what the media says - and at home we were free from further attack. It was bad in that more attention on what was happening at home was lacking by the country's chief executive.

In any crisis there is going to be plenty of blame to go around. To plead innocence for the so called mess that developed when you controlled both houses of congress is hypocrisy taken to a new level.

Some Questions for the President

2009-11-02T17:36:00.000-08:00

Those of us in "the great unwashed" have some questions we would like answered. I'm sure there is an academic response but, humor me, lets just revert to logic.

Questions for the governing elite-

1) If there is a great amount of fraud and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid and the President knows how to correct it, why doesn't he do it? Why wait for sweeping new legislation? If he can and will fix it now, the voters will listen to his new proposals.

2) The President says that the economy has bottomed out and is getting better. The stimulus was by definition, the vehicle of doing this. Only about 25% of the stimulus money has actually flowed into the economy. If he fixed it with 25 % why doesn't he return the other 75% to the folks he took it from. ( Yes, took!)

3) The President says there will not be rationing. If there are 30 million people ( the revised number) coming into the system and the same number (or less) of doctors, nurses and hospitals, how will there be the same amount of services available for the larger number without cutting someone off - either by not providing the service or by stringing it out ( i.e., long lines and adverse conditions for waiting).

4) If the health plan is so great, why are Congress, the Unions and other politically favored groups excluded from participation.

5) Some 81 % in a recent poll showed satisfaction with their current plan. Why should the system be torn apart and rebuilt for the 19%.

6) The President has referred to people being denied health care, yet it is the law that emergency rooms have to treat all, regardless of ability to pay. Isn't this a contradiction in terms.

7) The CBO estimates a cost in ten years of up to 1.6 trillion dollars. Using the figures which government usually uses for decision making, how will the proposed legislation produce a bill that the President can sign given his pledge not to sign a bill that increases the deficit.

8) If the President will not accept earmarks from Congress, why did he sign a budget reconciliation bill that had thousands?

9) Name a government run enterprise that is running in the black and surpassing private enterprises in efficiency and cost?

10) If Medicare is going broke, Medicaid is going broke, Social Security is going broke, Fannie and Freddie are in trouble, and the Post Office is predicting a two billion dollar plus deficit, why should any sane person think that the government can run a national health program. Have you been to a VA or Indian Reservation health facility lately? I have.

11) If we're in trouble from global warming why has the earth's temperature cooled over the last ten years.

12) Why should a day in which this nation was attacked for the first time since 1812, be commemorated by a day of service.

13) When the polls show 52- 80 percent, depending on the policy, to be opposed to the President's proposals, why is he pressing them.

I don't think asking for an answer to these questions, some or all of which have been considered by many citizens other than me, is asking too much.

I won't hold my breath for an answer. I hope this doesn't place me on the "Enemy's List".

Is Anybody Listening

2009-07-30T15:54:00.000-07:00

When as a youth I went to Bible School, we sang a song which went, "hey, hey, anybody listening, hey, hey, anybody there..".

In the crescendo of health care, stimulus, cap and trade, and the avalanche of other rhetoric, the lyrics seem applicable. Is anybody listening? I think I'm trying. What I think I hear, of course, is tempered by my opinion.

Here is what I'm hearing. I am hearing a confrontation relative to socialism versus capitalism. I am hearing a confrontation of a powerful centralized government versus individual freedom. I'm seeing a battle for power over the individual and collectively, the community. I'm seeing an attack on the Constitution of the United States and the principles of our founding fathers at the creation of this great nation. I'm seeing, in modern form, Cain versus Able.

I can only view this in the light of my knowledge of history and interpretation of the constitution, as written. I search for interpretation from such writings as the Federalist Papers and the anti-federalist rebuttal. I try and temper this with a study of history surrounding the colonies relationship with the crown and the very motivation of the colonists to be here in the first place.

The writings of Edmond Burke and John Locke influenced the founders profoundly. The founders were living in an environment of patriarchal dominance. Mother England posited itself as the "nanny" of the colonies. What the crown wanted was what benefited itself not what was best for the colonies.

Thus what goes around has come around. A limited vision by the founders ignored the possibility of a centralized government which perpetuated itself in office and became a surrogate "nanny" for the crown. John Locke emphasized that freedom was tied to property. When you control a person's property you control a person's freedom. Property included the fruits of ones labor not just material items.

The intent to control you and your property gets more evident with each new bill coming out of congress. The technique of control is intervention, not confiscation. You may still own your home and have the privilege of paying for it, maintaining it and protecting it. The government will tell you how you can use it. How much water for a shower, what temperature to heat or cool it, requirements to sell it, what you can put in your yard, whether you can light a fire in an outdoor grill or not, how many gallons your commode tank may hold, and on and on. So much more efficient than the government owning it. Also, afoot is legislation to control your work as an employee though mandated union membership and your work as an employer by giving up much control over your employees due to the union's presence and increased regulatory controls. Much of your individual liberty has been flushed down that four gallon commode.

If the individual would step back and analyze the control placed upon them by federal, state and local governments, and could possibly itemize and record them, they would be horrified.

We can still over come what is happening. We must not give up. We must continue to resist. We must participate. We must with an open mind learn the facts and resist the propaganda by analyzing what we hear and see in light of them. As the early fathers, we must pledge our lives, our property and our sacred honor toward the redemption and preservation of individual liberty.

Back to the Future

2009-05-12T17:11:00.000-07:00

To people under fifty the recent talk of the need for more regulation of the marketplace and in essence, our lives, doesn't seem like such a big deal. To those of us over fifty, if you aren't a bit frightened or at least pissed, shame on you.

Let me elaborate. Not too long ago you moved to a new city. You went to AT&T or the "little bell" to plead for a phone. You might think that you are trying to get a drivers license, or that you're at the post office. " We may get to you next week", the cheery little lady says. Don't say anything or it might be two weeks. And you can have any color as long as it's black. And, oh yeah, it's $50 to install and another $100 or two locations, and on and on. Don't think about going to another phone company because there isn't one.

The paper reflects the latest strike by General Motors. More money, more benefits. You buy a car and at fifty thousand miles like "Mission Impossible" it blows up. If you hear a rattle you might look in the door and see if a good old UAW worker left a whiskey bottle in there. And oh yes, check the wheels and see if all the lug nuts are present.

Need some gas? Go down and get in line. What do you know, they are sold out.

If you didn't live as an adult in the sixties and seventies, you are not as in tune with the ramifications of what the present Administration is alluding to as I am. You see I remember wage and price controls, fourteen percent inflation, and twenty-two percent interest rates. And talk about the Iraq war, I remember the three Democratic wars, World War II, Korea and Viet Nam. If you think 4,000 casualties is bad run the numbers on these boys.

I remember the misery index and a military so weakened that we couldn't fly three helicopters into Iran to rescue hostages without them breaking down.

The saying "he who ignores history is doomed to relive it" is true. It is time for true journalists to come to the forefront and either educate or refresh people as to the real impact of the "good old days" with it's regulation and government control. And I mean the history, not a remade version the way the left would like it to be viewed.

Thank you Ronald Reagan for the twenty-five years you gave us.

Advise to the GOP

2009-05-06T16:07:00.000-07:00

The hottest game in town seems to be giving advise to the GOP on the direction the party should take to regain favor with the voters. It seems a bit ironic that much of it is coming from the Democratic party and their sycophants. Unfortunately much of the remainder is coming from the "Beltway" and media types in New York City.

They are no doubt, smart people. The only problem is that their circle of communicants is their own - the other press, the politicians, the political staff, etc. There is a greater and greater disconnect between the politicians and media and the rest of the three hundred million folks in country - especially those of us in the "fly over" zone. "You couldn't see the forest for the trees" is certainly an appropriate metaphor.

In Hans Christian Andersen's the "Emperor's New Clothes" the moral of the tale was that what people wanted to believe, or those in power wanted them to believe,and it blinded them to the fact that the Emperor had no clothes on. It took a little boy to blow the whistle on the deal.

I am seventy- five years old. When I was thirteen, the GOP controlled the House of Representatives. It wasn't until 1994 when I was sixty-one that they had control again. The reason they had control was a contract with the people based on the precepts given them by Ronald Reagan - smaller government, more individual freedom, lower taxes and a strong national defense. The reason they lost control was they abrogated those agreements and betrayed the people's confidence.

Many would like to say that the country's changed,that people want more government and that for the Republicans to regain favor they must be "Democrat Light" - the old Bob Michael line of "go along to get along." I say baloney. Look at the polls and issue after issue shows that public opinion is "center-right". Look at the April 15th tea parties. Possibly a million, if correctly counted, stood up and said enough is enough. We want our country back. The people feel disenfranchised . The only time their representatives in the House and Senate recognize their existence is when they want their vote and their money. American politics is emulating the politics of Rome at the end of the Republic.

In the movie "Jaws" Quigg is talking about the shark. He painted the shark as one great eating machine. His whole existence is finding something to eat and eating it. An American politician's life is money- money to get re-elected with. Have you tried to reach your representative in Congress lately. Good luck.

The Republican party can again espouse the principles of smaller government, more individual freedom, lower taxes and a strong national defense, and, if they can convince the voter that they mean it and will stick to it and fight for it, they can regain control of Congress.

The ultra conservative editorial writer of the 1950's, Tom Anderson once said, " the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and a dead skunk." Tell it like it is Tom. The Democrats are calling the Republican party the party of "no". By embracing once more the ideas above, they can become the party of "yes"

A Civics Lesson

2009-02-20T16:54:00.000-08:00

One of the mantras of the new president is that "we inherited this crisis." Oh, really!

Civics lesson number one.
Unless I am terribly misinformed, legislation originates in the Congress. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Both houses of Congress were taken over by the Democrats in 2006. The only bill I can recall President Bush vetoing was the SCHIP expansion bill.

When the Democrats took over the Congress the DJI was around 11,000. Unemployment had reached its lowest level in years at 4.7%. The growth in GDP from the prior year was 6.1%. The surge in Iraq had worked and we were experiencing the lowest casualty rates since the conflict had started.

Now the DJI is around 7300, unemployment is above 8% and rising, GDP increase last year was a modest 3.8%. The national debt is headed through the roof and there is a rumor of nationalizing the banks.

Who inherited what. Welcome to the United States of Amerika, comrade. Pravda ( the main stream media) can "see no evil, hear no evil - lots of speaking evil. The purge is on to silence talk radio - even an CNBC financial commentator who dared to differ with the administration's mortgage bail out. Gun control legislation is in the hopper big time. "Buy American" language in the stimulus bill is protectionism. The sop to the labor unions for their financial support is alive and well in the card check legislation in Congress.

This is relegated to not be being between right and left but between free market capitalists and socialism. Adam Smith where are you when we need you.

A giving government sounds great if you are on the receiving end but remember - "he who's bread you eat, his song you sing."

What I Saw Today - Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T17:32:00.000-08:00

Today was a historic day. I know of no one who is, or should be, proud of the heritage of slavery. Though it goes back to ancient times and was engaged in though most of the world, there is no defense of one man owning another. The Civil War decided the issue in the United States. The next hundred years were not kind to the black man. However, with that said, I know of no county in the world that has tried as hard through government action to make up the difference than this country. Civil rights legislation, affirmative action, preferential treatment, all were attempts to right a wrong. Today, I would say the journey ended. A black man has been elected by a significant majority to be President of the United States. Martin Luther King's dream of a color blind society, though not complete, is close to realization. Based on this, I don't see a black man, but an individual who has been elected to lead this country - all of it, black, white, yellow, red and all shades in between.

With these parameters in mind, what did I see today?

I saw a young inexperienced politician from the cesspool of Chicago politics. I saw an excellent speaker, who has campaigned on vague generalities and catchy slogans. I saw a party fostering fears and placing blame on the people in office and possibly creating a self fulfilling prophesy, which took a bad economic situation and made it worse. I saw a man who has associated with persons so far to the left of the main stream of American political thought, that it begs reconciliation.

At the same time a saw an intelligent man with shewed political instincts treading a center-left path of governing. He says he wants to unite the country. Yet he is supported by his parties far left's control of both houses of Congress. A Congress with leadership in both houses that are to the extreme left of the political spectrum and whose obvious quest is for power to remake the country in their own image. A near center course is a great challenge.

He rode to victory on the desire of the people for change due to an unpopular war, dire economic circumstances and to some extent a guilt trip if they didn't support the first African American to run for President.

I feel he will have an unprecedented opportunity to get done about anything he desires. This will last until the economy brings the people the check and they have to pony up to pay for the liberal spending and pork laden stimulus plan, which is nothing more than pork for building voter majorities. The Congressional Budget Office already reveals the ineptitude of this tact in quickly solving the problems at hand. Certainly the market's reaction on inauguration day did not validate a feeling of confidence by the investing public.

I think the old saw of, "hope for the best but prepare for the worst" would be my vision of what is to come in the immediate future.

More Quo Vadis

2008-11-08T16:40:00.000-08:00

In my blog entitled "Quo Vadis Conservatism" I gave my thoughts on the future of conservatism. I would like to follow up on this theme and some "what ifs" that at least would lift the spirit of us conservatives.

In my opinion there are three things that are critical to our party's survival. A side note here - I refer to the GOP not as a political party identity as much as the residing place since Ronald Reagan, of the conservative movement.

First, we have to maintain in the Senate a minority sufficient to filibuster. My first "what if". What if Sen Stevens from Alaska is not seated or could be pressured to resign and allow Sarah Palin's appointment to that seat. Talk about shaking up Washington's. If she would take the job and become the leader of a conservative coalition. There still are some conservative senators in the Republican party. John Cornyn and the two Oklahoma senators come to mind. There are several more who are conservative and those that would be with good leadership. They should have learned, and I think Senator McConnell had, the lessons taught by the Democrats over the last several years on how to raise hell as the minority. Look at what the Democrat's have done, for instance, in regard to judicial appointments while in the minority. They should pick their battles carefully and not waste their political capital on issues that will fall flat because of the opinions of a vast majority of the electorate. Stated areas of Democrats, such as Supreme Court appointments, attacks on the right to work, i.e. secret ballot in union elections, attacks on freedom of speech ( the fairness doctrine) and the second amendment right to bear arms are supported by the people. The ability to stop this type of legislation would allow a great opportunity to publicize not just issues but conservative philosophy.

Second, we have to cultivate young, attractive, articulate, conservative leadership. Those mentioned in my prior blog; Paul Ryan, Tim Paulenty, Jeb Hensarling, Jeff Flake, Bobby Jindal, and many others, seem to have those qualities. The Republican Study Committee in the House is an excellent place for them to hone a conservative manifesto that articulates those principals which made the Reagan revolution so effective. We didn't succeed just because of the "great communicator", but because of Reagan's ability to communicate in understandable terms, the conservative philosophy he possessed.

Third, we need to start now to recruit good people to run for congress in 2010 and 2012. We can't afford to wait and throw a ticket together at election time. We can't succumb to the seniority rationale that brought us Bob Dole and to some extent, John McCain. We also need to work on taking over or back over state houses and state legislatures. This, I believe will be the result of a more conservative and focused party apparatus. Last we need to get our message out. We have to protect talk radio and the Internet and print sites which will give the conservative view fairly. In this regard we must articulate the virtues of the free enterprise system. It is under attack by the left from the most advantageous position in decades - control of all three sectors of government.

All is not lost, but the task is large. The "true believers" must step forward. Many of those who have flocked to the conservative banner have been opportunists instead of converts. We must spread the message and believe and live by it.

Quo Vadis Conservatives?

2008-11-06T17:03:00.000-08:00

Let's face it. The Republican party is a mess. We picked the runt of the litter (politically speaking) to be our candidate. He proceeded in running the worst campaign since Bob Dole in 1996. In spite of this he might have made it except the tidal wave of a crashing economy. Even with that it might have been salvaged with a quick reaction to show that the real blame for the housing crash was rooted in government pressure on financial institutions to make loans to people that sound lending practices would have refused, and that the housing crisis was the catalyst for the break. Also he faced an articulate, Harvard educated, black man who ran the best campaign since Reagan. I think this was appreciated by both sides. The bonus was a media that decided to hell with journalistic standards, they were going to make him the next president of the United States. An unpopular president caused congressmen running for re-election to run to distance themselves from the administration and support of the campaign.

As Glenn Beck pointed out, the fact that 54 million voters braved long lines to vote for McCain and that the margin of victory was little more than Bush over Kerry in ‘04, would indicate that this doesn't necessarily indicate a realignment politically of the country. An added beam of light was the number of conservative ballot initiatives that won - some in blue states like California with the gay marriage amendment.

The agenda of the far left will fail. The agenda of Obama and his liberal supporters is socialism. It may be socialism light - such as France - but it is the control of government over the economic welfare of the people. If Obama follows his campaign rhetoric there will be, as Phil Graham puts it, more people riding in the wagon than there are pulling it. There has to be enough power in the engine to pull the train. Socialism, historically has shown that the train slows down very rapidly.

What can be done to save the Republican party? First, the party has to be conservative to a greater or lesser degree to have a contrast with the Democratic party. For years the Republican party was the Democratic party lite. It would be their mantra that things would have been a lot worse if it hadn't been for them. People like Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan brought respectability and credibility to the party. Regardless of what the pundits say, this country is still center-right. The platform of growing the economy with lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government still resonate with the people. Second, we have to not live in the past, but face today's problems with solutions involving the free enterprise system. Social Security, health care and energy were problems six months ago and are problems now. Our job is to meet those challenges with the use of the private enterprise system as possible with government only providing viable parameters for this to be possible.

Fortunately, we have a cadre of intelligent, articulate young Republicans to lead us in this challenge. Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Tim Paulenty and Jeb Hensarling are just a few. Oh yes, don't forget Sarah Palin. I hope the abuse of this race and the slander of the media only made her tougher and more determined. We've got to make the case that free enterprise is the best economic system to grow the pie for everyone. That to grow the pie people have to keep most of what they make. We have to reconstruct the idea that hard work and a little luck can reap rewards, and if you miss the ring you can pick yourself up and try again.

The Emperor's New Clothes

2008-08-30T11:00:00.000-07:00

I have seen the liberal pundits wail in print today about the inexperience of the pick for Vice President - Sarah Palin. It is not without some merit that her youth and inexperience should be noted. Columnist Richard Cohen writes, "-she is eminently unqualified to be president of the United States. That 3 a.m. call had better be a wrong number." Well, well, I wasn't aware that vice presidents were to be the recipient of the 3 a. m. call. I somehow thought that was supposed to be the president.

This would be a good time for Democrats to go back and read Hans Christian Anderson's ageless fairy tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes". I think Mr. Cohen's remark is just as aptly applied to the Democratic nominee from Illinois. Obama by any reasonable standard doesn't have the knowledge and experience to receive the 3 a.m. phone call. Will he have Biden on speed dial and quickly forward the call?

The office of President of the United States is in the executive branch, Mr. Cohen. Experience in an executive capacity is a bit different from casting a vote on the Senate floor, especially if it involves flying hastily in from the campaign trail to vote on legislation you've probably not read. I'm afraid most of us would not count for much being a community organizer in Chicago as executive experience. I'm afraid "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is canceled and his "phone a friend" option is rather suspect in the White House. Obama has the weakest credentials of any candidate I can remember, which goes back to Franklin Roosevelt. FDR had been a governor, Truman a Vice President, Ike a military commander, Kennedy a military commander, Johnson a Vice President, Nixon a governor, Ford a Vice President, Carter a governor, Reagan a governor, George H W Bush a Vice President, Clinton a governor, and George W Bush a governor. Only John Kennedy came close to Obama in his lack of executive experience at a significant level. So this is the man who is eminently qualified to be the president of the United States. Mr Cohen, the Emperor has no clothes on.

Then comes Sarah Palin, who by the way, is a nominee for vice president, not president. She has been a city mayor and a state governor. Every mainstream media report I've seen has referred to her as a first term governor. Pardon me, didn't Senator Obama first get elected in 2004 - since senator's have a six year term, doesn't that make him a first term senator? His record reflects a total of 143 days in attendance when the Senate was in session. Foreign policy experience? He might as well say he got it by sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express. He went on a rock tour to Europe and the Middle East and after being prodded visited Iraq, pressed a little flesh, and performed in Germany where he dissed the wounded soldiers to shoot a few hoops.

It is a shame that the left wing's desire to have an articulate, Harvard educated, black president has clouded their vision. Guys! The emperor has no clothes on.

What the Meaning of "Is", Is

2008-08-24T16:06:00.000-07:00

Our former President, Bill Clinton, brought this candidly to our attention during his impeachment hearings ( you do remember this, don't you). Rhetorically speaking this is a good question.

For centuries philosophers have been struggling with perception versus reality. John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume and Immanuel Kant wrestled with the concept of what is real, what is material. In the years following, some consensus has developed to support the idea that for the most part, perception is relativistic, that accurate perception is always the perception of a relation.

The idea of social perception came to light in the 1940's. One class was of the sensory perceptions of such things as anger or danger, a second being those perceptions that are understood by reference to their social determinants. Of this second class of social perceptions it has been said that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver.

David Baldacci recently wrote a great novel titled "The Whole Truth". The story centered on an entity that basically created perceptions of fact that were totally fabricated, but playing on human nature and one's perceptions of what should be, could imitate fact. It is fiction but it is scary because it mimics real life so closely. Accepting the premise that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver, it is easy why Barack Obama can be either the messiah or the anti-Christ.

Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant all accommodated the reality of material things. There are such things as facts - facts being such things which can be substantiated by sensory, empirical or scientific methods - which can logically be accepted to exist.

This brings me to the problem with liberals. Their perceptions are derived from their preconceived desire for a certain result - not from fact. The myriad of legislation passed during the Johnson era reflected the liberal desire of what should be. Much of it fact has shown, didn't work. Clinton, more of a pragmatist and faced with an opposition party congress, accepted welfare reform because the programs in place didn't work. We've spent tons of money on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs and the issues addressed still exist, some even in greater depth than when the legislation was passed.

Like the ideas of the '60's and '70's, their policy indicates their desires and ignores the reality of the chance of accomplishment. This is seen in energy, global warming ( if there is such a thing realistically controllable by man) and foreign policy. Obama's tax plan is really a plan for redistribution of wealth. It is Karl Marx in drag. It ignores the fact that Communism was a failure, socialism is a failure, and that the American free enterprise system has worked.

The question now is whether the Democrats can sell their perceptions to the voters or whether the facts can get enough people back to reality to elect McCain. Somebody in the McCain camp needs articulate that change to the Carter days is not the change people really want. What McCain needs is the Hippocratic oath of politics - "do no harm".

Hillary My Hillary

2008-08-23T16:22:00.000-07:00

Well, the great suspense is past. The Messiah has anointed Joe Biden as his VP - yes the same Joe Biden who a few months ago said Obama didn't have the experience and knowledge of foreign policy he needed to lead the nation.

He sent a text message out at 3:00 AM to announce his choice. Some Clinton supporters took this to be an "in your face" response to the ad run by Hillary during the primaries questioning whether Barack was up to the 3:00 AM alert of a crisis. The feelings exhibited by Clinton constituents would indicate that there is a lot of work to be done if Obama is going to bring most of the Hillary backers into the fold.

Some supporters interviewed have indicated there might be some disruption at the Democratic convention. Hillary herself has said a roll call vote was necessary to validate the support she had in the primary. The fact of 18 million votes keeps popping to the surface.

So what is on her mind - and Bill's? One, they are not going away. As one who closely followed their Presidency, with all of its ups and downs, I'm convinced they will not just fold their tent and ride into the sunset. The best thing for Hill would be for Obama to be beaten by McCain. This would allow her to say "I told you so" and be ready to take the spotlight in the buildup for the 2012 convention candidate. With the visibility of the senate, carefully making votes with an eye to the politics of 2012, she would be in a great position to exploit what transpired in the next four years to her political advantage.

If I should be correct, the interesting thing will be to see how she goes about helping John McCain win. It is a game we can play strictly by speculation. Does she have facts about Obama which if known, could hurt him? Will it be by the traditionally proven technique of one step forward, two backwards, that she uses. Keep in mind the Mark Anthony oration of Caesar. Will her praise help bury him?

I, as one of the proletariat, certainly don't know. But it will certainly be interesting over the next ten weeks, to watch and see what takes place.

You've Got to See It To Believe It-Media Bias

2008-08-17T16:20:00.000-07:00

Bias, like beauty, is, to a large part, in the eye of the beholder. If you will accept the fact that this is conceptually a matter of opinion, you might beg the question of objectivity. However, even conceptually, it is not completely beyond the scope of at least quasi objectivity.

To illustrate my point let's take the Saturday (8/16/08) discussion with the two major candidates, put on by pastor Rick Warren. I watched the two hour production in its entirety. It was divided into two, one hour segments. A coin was tossed to see who would be first. The other participant was placed in a sound proof room, per Rev Warren where he could not hear his opponent's comments. After questioning the first candidate and taking a short break, the same questions were asked to the second candidate.

This morning with my first cup of coffee, I read the AP write up of the event. I began to wonder if we were talking about the same event. The AP writer gave Obama approximately two thirds of the print. On the question of abortion, he went to lengths to soften Obama's pro-choice position emphasizing his objection to late term abortions unless the health of the mother is threatened. This in itself is contradictory to previous Obama positions. McCain, in my opinion, did an excellent job. His answers were succinct, addressed the issue, seemed well thought out - and more important to me - seemed to be what he really believed or how he felt about the issue. The AP writer used the succinct answers out of context to give the reader a different understanding than if they had heard the complete dissertation on the subject. Omitted completely was McCain's statement of faith involving his captivity and torture in Viet Nam. One hallmark technique of many biased writer is what I'd call the one step forward, two backward approach. This was a much used disinformation strategy during the cold war. You make a positive statement and then you follow it with two (or more) remarks that would refute or indicate as disingenuous the positive remark. For example, "The man pleaded innocent, though he has twice been charged with a similar crime and unnamed sources were doubtful of his sincerity." One such statement concerned the confinement of the second candidate to a room where he could not hear the answers of the other. To quote the AP writer, " Warren asked both men the same questions. McCain said he did not see or hear Obama's session, which might have given an advantage." McCain didn't say that Rev Warren did and McCain responded to the pastor's statement of fact.

I did find the format interesting. The questions were taken from thousands of emails from Rev Warrens listeners and church members. Both candidates were asked identical questions. The questions were not "got you" type questions or were not slanted to gain a particular response. The respondents were given adequate time to give their views but falling back on a "stump speech", per Rev Warren, was not tolerated. It was a civil discourse involving pertinent issues to the listeners. I would like to see at least a half dozen more of the same thing prior to our having to go to the polls and vote.

Double Standard

2008-08-08T16:25:00.001-07:00

The Mayor of a major U S city is charged, jailed, more charges, a major scandal. Would the press mention the party affiliation of the public official? Well I guess not since neither CBS, NBC or ABC mentioned that the Detroit Mayor was a democrat. If the it had been Mark Foley, there would have been twenty references in one story as to his party affiliation. Did you know that Sen Craig was a Republican? If you didn't you're brain dead. It was mentioned every time his name was.

I have some self respect. If I worked for one of the main stream media, including the Associated Press - the news gathering entity for much of the country - I could not call myself a journalist. When you stop presenting the facts as you know them and stop letting the readers interpret them as they wish you are no longer a news reporter but an opinion writer. This is sad for the American public.

During the cold war, the Soviets were masters of misinformation. The approach of one step forward and two backward was perfected to an art form. An example, " X won the election, but there was a rumor of voting irregularities. An unnamed source saw a trained dog in the voting booth allegedly pulling the Republican lever. Republicans have been accused of using dogs to impersonate registered voters.

These are the guys that yell first amendment rights at the first restraint of their diatribes and rantings by anyone. Where are the ink stained fingernails of the reporters of the old days. Where are the guys ( and gals) who worked their way up from the press room or copy writing etc to become reporters. Today's reporters are all too often upper middle class kids, whose parents could afford the luxury of sending their kids to journalism schools at prestigious universities, knowing that they might not be able to get a job and support themselves.

All I can say is thank goodness for the internet and talk radio.

Oil, Oil Everywhere But Not a Drop to Drill

2008-08-01T16:02:00.001-07:00

This is a drama that doesn't need to be. Politics has always been theater in which fact takes second stage to perception and reality is incidental. But the sad thing is that the press, who is supposed to thrive on fact has given way to opinion and innuendo and done this without shame.

Here are some facts that don't seem to matter.

We are sitting on a sea of oil. The known reserves in the Rocky Mountain region, off shore and in the ANWAR are enormous.

The time to bring oil to market by drilling is not ten years but two to five years, according to experts.

Pollution is not a big factor. Drilling is 99.9 % safe. According to the MMS the amount of seepage from natural causes is a hundred times the average spill rate from drilling.

Speculation is a factor but not a manipulative one. People speculate in a free economy all the time. To break the back of speculative price inflation all that is needed is the probability of increased supply from more drilling, not government regulation. All that would do would be to drive the markets from Chicago overseas.

The truth is that the Democratic Party is in the pocket of the extreme environmentalists, who want high oil prices to reduce the use of fossil fuel for their perception of reduced carbon, which they accept as an inviolate fact of global warming. This is in the face of increasing evidence, not that there is global warming, though this could be in doubt, but to what degree man influences it, and to what extent man can control it.

An example of this is the story recently from a prominent university research program of a new technique to remove a lot of the carbon from the burning of coal. The "Friends of the Cumberland Mountains" protested. They don't want clean coal they want no coal. What these environmentalist "whakos" want is for everyone but them to revert to the cave man status- though those were the most environmental unfriendly people of any.

So, the facts say drill now, drill often, and get independent.

Is Conservatism Dead

2008-07-19T18:12:00.000-07:00

Several recent articles have given an obituary for the conservative movement. The liberal left Congress, the nomination of a candidate whose record is straight done the line liberal and polls showing a desire for change by a significant majority, to one pundit indicates " a vast sea change in politics". The theme is that the days of Ronald Reagan are over. There may be some truth in this.

But if this is the immediate future, it is the result of the Republican party's abandonment of the conservative doctrine, not the conservative doctrine itself. A often misunderstood fact is that the Republican party and the conservative movement are synonymous. Conservative members of congress are representatives of states or districts where the conservative message resonated and this reflected the will of the people there. In fact we often fail to realize how many liberal's are in the party until certain ideological votes but them on display.

I'm a long time conservative. I grew up in the Democratic south. I really don't think I ever knew a Republican until I was in college. I have always had an interest in politics. At the age of seventeen I became interested in the presidential race and became fond of Robert Taft. One of my "lost treasures" was a large Taft button smuggled to me by some erstwhile attendee of the convention. Later I read a little Russell Kirk, was overwhelmed by the vocabulary of William Buckley and found a common belief with the politics beliefs of Barry Goldwater. At the time though, conservatism was just a voice in the wilderness. It took the communications skills and the down home logic of Ronald Reagan to gain the attention of the man in the street. And when results began to validate his actions and beliefs, the field became more fruitful for their incubation. The going was still tough as the Congress was still controlled by Democrats. However at the time there were enough members of congress such as Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, etc who valued the good of the country above political power to assist in the passage of conservative legislation . Than in 1994 the "Contract With America" articulated not only conservative principles but the willingness of a group in congress to make it work, that the people responded by giving us a Republican House of Representatives for the first time in something like sixty years.

Things went well until the aura of Washington and the political temptation put before the party got the Republican party to governing like the Democratic party. Nothing can turn off people like a fake. When the Republican party abandoned conservatism the voters abandoned them. As in a marriage or any other committment, once trust is broken, it is hard to repair. So here we are.

I still believe that the American people will not only support the principles of lower taxes, a strong national defence, free trade, supreme court nominees who vow allegience to the Constitution, less government intervention in our daily lives and a free enterprise, capitalistic economic system, but will rally around it, warts and all, if they had not been betrayed. Like the old carnival shell game, they have been fooled once too often to fork over their dough or their allegience until we can again show fidelity to these principles which we claim to espouse. It will take more than an apology and rhetoric to accomplish this. Actions do speak louder than words.

The Blame Game

2008-07-16T16:13:00.000-07:00

Before I begin I need to make something clear. I have the highest regard for my two senators and my representative to Congress. I have, not because they " bring home the bacon", but because they represent my views and the views of a preponderance of my fellow Texans. This said I move on to Congress.

The liberal Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half. What legislation has been passed or proposed. They have paid off their constituent special interests. To labor, an increase in the minimum wage, war against free trade and proposing a bill to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. For their tort bar friends, delay on the foreign wire tapping bill in order to offer the telecommunications companies as fodder for the trial lawyers. So given their payoff to the ones " who brung them", how have they tackled the major problems at hand?

What else! As a good liberal you attack problems by blaming someone else. Bush, of course is their main and easy target. What ever the problem is Bush caused it. How ridiculous. The Constitution gave Congress the "big stick". They appropriate the money. They confirm major appointments, they declare war, or as in our current situation, authorize the use of force. But everything that goes wrong is Bush fault.

How do they approach problem solving? What else, have an investigation. Get the TV cameras rolling , roll out your most vindictive and vilifying remarks and blame somebody - anybody - for what is wrong. The oil crisis? Blame the oil companies. Of course they only average about 8% profit - less than half most sectors of the economy - but any gains they have is because of supply and demand. If it was not for Bill Clinton's veto we would have oil flowing from the ANWAR today.

Their investigative specialty is to try and eliminate their enemies. All over Carl Rove - for what?
Resurrect the "Freedom of Information" act to silence talk radio. Try and drag the CEO's of big oil before the rolling TV cameras and vilify them.

I guess if you can't engage in civil debate and make your case, and you crave power, you have to do something. It's kind of like an alley fight - anything to win.

Term limits and a return of the Senate being elected by state legislatures? Never happen but maybe not such a bad idea.

Quo Vadis Conservatives?

2008-07-02T16:21:00.000-07:00

I've been a conservative since as a teenager I supported Robert Taft for the Republican nomination for President. I have not flagged or failed in my loyalty. I am a Republican because for most of my adult life they have more closely embodied the conservative principles in which I believe. Unfortunately in more presidential elections than I would like, I've had to vote against someone and not for them - the lessor of two evils. I find myself in that position again this year. John McCain I feel, is a man of principle. I will vote for him because I have confidence he will try to do a few things I think are essential. I think he will fight and win the war against terror and not leave our troops hanging out to dry. He will, as he promised, nominate men who are strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, third he will fight for fiscal integrity in government spending, fourth he will continue the policy of free trade, and last but not least, he will use the "veto pen" to stop radical legislation coming out of the current congress.

In the past the Presidency, though not irrelevant, had some constraint in the Congress. With the Pelosi - Reed congress and the possible expansion of Democratic control ( as the the Republicans hide and cringe under their seats), the power of the President, if liberal, is exponentially expanded.

As Dick Morris recently expressed it "McCain is sleep walking through the campaign." In my opinion, he is the worse campaigner since Bob Dole and that is saying a lot. He has missed opportunity after opportunity to bring Obama to a discussion of the issues, and he has gone off on a tangent to alienate his conservative base. If he is thinking he can gain the White House with dissident Democrats, independent and "moderate" - whatever that means - Republicans, then he is in outer space.

So what do conservatives do? First we have no choice but to vote for McCain, hoping that he is a one term President and that he picks a VP who is conservative and who can be our hope in the 2012 election. But we probably won't ring door bells, drive voters to the polls, and drop money in the mail every time a McCain solicitation comes.

It appears to me that we must, to save what we have built through Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich ( whether you like it or not the Contract With America was great and gave us 12 years of governance until we blew it}, decide on a course of action. One would be to vote McCain but focus our energy on recruiting and electing conservative congressmen - both to the Senate and House, both in this election cycle and in 2010. This could be easier than you would think. The people of this country were inspired and believed in what we said in the Contract With America. They backed this up with their vote. We won the Congress and then over time, we let the folks down by succumbing to governing like the Democrats we replaced. As the "founding fathers" intended the Congress is the real stabilizer for the country and the real seat of power in government.

Second, we must use our means of talk radio - which with Democratic control we'll have to fight to keep- and any other means at our disposal, to overcome the main stream media and their attempt to bias the information of the public to the liberal view.

Mainly, the conservative movement must reaffirm the principles of Reagan and the Contract of America. We must not only embrace them but we must let it be known that if in power, we will do our utmost to follow them. We must believe in our principles and in their meaning. The Democratic path leads to economic disaster, loss of individual freedom, and to a greater or lessor degree, governmental tyranny.

We are at a cross roads. We must seek Divine guidance, believe in our principles and work like hell.

Scatter Shooting

2008-06-08T17:07:00.000-07:00

With all that is going on currently in the world and my seemingly out of touch position relative to much of it, I have to rant a little. This enterprise, no matter how meaningless, is desirable to me to keep my sanity. It's like "defraging" your hard drive.

Here are some questions for my liberal friends.

- Why is referring to McCain's age by comment or inference O.K. while comment or inference relative to Obama's race or religion a cardinal sin.

- Why is Senator Obama's pastor, his wife's utterances, his international experience, his associations in the past, his reference to the blue collar folks of Pennsylvania off limits.

- Why has the main stream press not publicized the progress in Iraq?

- Why has the planet cooled for going on two decades and this has gotten no press.

- How is it that Al Gore's trust has a 8% plus interest in a company that sells cap and trade credits?

- When we are supposed to be "color blind" and beyond race we should agree it is time to focus on issues. But yet Senator Obama seems to want special dispensation from discussing issues. Why ?

Excuse my frustrations but maybe this will help me to get it off my chest. If there are comments I would like to hear them.

Half a Loaf

2008-06-08T16:14:00.000-07:00

There is an old adage, "half a loaf is better then none. Or as my banker used to say,
"part of something is better than all of nothing."

This is what is facing us as Republicans. To us, John McCain is bringing to this campaign a lot of baggage. His votes as a senator on drilling in the Alaska wildlife preserve, global warming, the proposed cap and trade energy bill, election reform, etc have not just been anti-conservative, they have been "in your face" anti-conservative.

My first election interest was the 1992 election. I was really impressed by Robert Taft and his conservative philosophy. I have been a conservative ever since. Unfortunately most of my adult life, relative to presidential elections, I have ended up voting against someone instead of for someone. Ronald Reagan gave me my first opportunity to vote for a winner with whom I shared strongly their political philosophy.

This year we are faced with a grim dilemma. Obama is unacceptable. His speech on defense shows his desire to gut the military capability of this country, practice appeasement, U N supremacy and ,in essence, national suicide. Add this to the total liberal, big government and elitist beliefs and you spell disaster. To imagine having a president in time of war who will not wear a flag lapel pin or put his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem and you wonder if we have awakened in George Orwell's "1984" world.

So what about McCain. As I indicated in the title to this piece, something is better than nothing. What can we pretty well count on with John McCain? In national defense we would have a leader we could feel would not sell out America. A man who by his courage in combat has shown his love for his country and his devotion to duty. In John McCain we would have a person who would fight run away congressional spending and by my observation would use the veto pen to back up the bully pulpit. We have a candidate who has pledged to appoint strict constructionists to the supreme court - and who I think we could rely on to keep his word. I think we would have a president who would veto bills which expanded the power of government in economic affairs.

This is certainly speculation. But we can't accept the alternative. So all of us should get off of our hands and push for the election of McCain. America as we know it can not survive Obama.

Yes, There Is Racism

2008-03-26T16:59:00.000-07:00

I am a seventy-four year old Southerner. Have I seen racism? Yes! From white and colored water fountains to separate but unequal schools. I also remember Italians being called Wops and people of Polish decent called Pollacks. I recall Native Americans being depicted as savages to be mowed down by white cowboys.

However, I also experienced Martin Luther King, the marches and the speech at the Washington Memorial. I remember the Johnson administration and the Civil Rights Act.
I know first hand about affirmative action. I know about racial quotas. I've seen the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in action who's prime concern is to protect minorities from real or supposed injustice.

My children have gone to public school with black children and been taught by black teachers since the first grade. They had some black friends. In most instances they never chose their associates by the color of their skin but by what they did and how they acted.

I have gone to white churches for my entire life and have never heard racist remarks uttered from the pulpit. My denomination has sent millions of dollars to mission efforts in black countries.

Our speech has been edited to eliminate any word which could possibly be negatively construed by blacks as degrading. From colored to Negro to Black to African to African American.

Where is the racism? Are those who talk about it looking into our hearts? Or is this on the black side a presumption that if you're white you're against blacks. If this is their thinking where did it come from. It didn't come from the schools, which are so politically correct it's sickening. It didn't come from the press which is so paranoid that truth takes a back seat to being thought of as racist.

Where is the racism? It is in the black churches, which have a weighty influence on the black community. Most white churches would say oh, that the white membership was as strongly influenced by their church as the black community.

America is not a perfect society. We are made up of people who are imperfect. But to say that the country has piled on an ethnic group based on the history since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, the EEOC and political correctness is beyond credibility. Think about it.

"The intent of the framers"

2007-09-21T16:03:00.000-07:00

I was listening to a television commentator - a Democrat by the way - who was critical of a presidential candidate over his interpretation of the second amendment regarding control control.

The issue I wish to address is not the second amendment per se, but the bantering of the of the term " the intent of the framers" in addressing the meaning of this statement.

It is interesting to me how handy it is for both right and left to make this a support for their fall back position, in order to justify their assertions about a particular issue or opinion. The more conservative members of the supreme court are often bashed for using this as a reason for their position.

It appears that the issue of whether interpretation of the constitution should value this and use it as a guide to proposed legislation or in judicial decisions, or not.
Like so many points in the development of our Constitution the need for compromise trumped the clarity of language and supporting definition of intent that would prove critical in knowing the intent of the framers two hundred years, plus hence. The "necessary and proper" clause or the meaning of the tenth amendment have caused a wide variety of interpretations.

Patrick Henry, that quintessential revolutionary, said that one generation should not bind another - since being governed was at the consent of the governed, the future generation should not be bound by the past. Jefferson himself even went so far as to try and quantify what a generation was in years, thus putting a limit on its applicability. On the other hand, Madison took the position that for stability the interpretation of the constitution should be constant adding to the stability of governance.

So as the old hair coloring ad said "does she or doesn't she". Do we take the intent
of the framer's as we interpret it, as an immutable base line for interpretation, or do we take the Constitution as a "living document" subject to the interpretation of the living generation?

One thing seems sure to me. It is either one way or another. The real problem with politicians is that they want to have it both way. They want to interpret gun control in one way and abortion in another.

So here you have it. You can't scold the fifty-five white men in Philadelphia for the compromises that had to be made to pass a constitution, but at the same time the vague wording in some instances has caused some tough issues in current times.

Will we last under our current system - who knows. Maybe it will be Divine Providence that will tell the tale.

One More Time With Feeling

2007-09-04T18:35:00.001-07:00

The third time is the charm, but maybe not the last. Again I turn to term limits. I have given in a couple of previous blogs my reasons why I think we should have term limits for our congressmen (No I won't say congresswoman). His name is Larry Craig, "the potty king".

Take a look at the congressional scandals and tell me the average tenure of the perpetrators. I don't know but I will assure you after over a half century of observation, there won't be very many ( if any ) freshman representatives or senators involved. Most of the ones I have observed have significant time on the "hill". I believe I read where Craig had served 26 years. Lets go back to Wilbur Mills, nearly a half century ago. Move on to Dan Rostenkowski with a tenure of about 25 years. What about Foley or Jefferson.

Lord Acton said "power corrupts". All of these guys had accumulated a lot of it. When being in congress ceases being public service and becomes a career, and a very powerful and lucrative one at that, the game changes completely. The main objective becomes to get re-elected. The way to get re-elected is to raise money. The way to raise money is to do favors. The way to do favors is to forget about the common good and use your power to help the selected sugar dads and moms who furnish the bucks.

Along with continued residence in Washington comes a loss of contact with the "home folks". You go home and shake hands a couple of times a year. You keep funds flowing for the bridges, libraries, parks and other sops to the locals. You keep close contact with the big buck guys and make sure they're taken care of. After awhile you forget to "dance with the one that brung you" or even who they are. You find power comes with a lot of temptations relative to those who either want to be close to it or share it.

So my friends, if you want to clean up politics, if you want the Craigs et al to go away, or if you would like to see sanity and some respect for traditional values reappear, lets limit the time of temptation and let the boys and girls after a short stay come home and live among us.

Hiether and Yon

2007-08-11T11:26:00.000-07:00

A CODA ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDICIARY

The "Dems" have done a great job, both in the majority and minority, of stopping President Bush's judicial appointments. This is true especially in the levels of appointment below the Supreme Court.

The tactic of using the artificial filibuster has gone unchallenged. I say artificial because it is a mere threat - it seldom if ever makes it to an actual action of such.
The only reason that I can think of for the Republican's while in the majority not to challenge would be a fear that they would soon be back in the minority and need the tactic themselves. I remember as a kid on the school yard, two kids in an altercation and one drawing a line with his foot with the warning "Don't step over this
line". It's a case of put up or shut up. The Republicans shut up.

Also during the Senate "inquisitions" on Roberts and Alito the term "original intent" was often thrown out. I want to make some of my own observations and opinions - of which I have many- known. First, when one writes something down isn't this his or her original intent? If it wasn't why would you write it. Obviously the Constitution was a consensus, often the result of compromise, of the group assembled. However, most of the mover's and shakers of the Constitutional Convention also were prolific writers or were quoted by those like Madison, who were astute and precise note takers. Thus we really do know much of the original intent of the founders. A recent lecturer on the Constitution said that since the founders inserted a method to change the Constitution, that it showed they didn't expect the document as it was to remain inviolate. For those who adopt the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" I would ask the following question. If the founders knew that there would need to be changes over time and they provided a basis for an orderly and democratic method to do so, why has it been so seldom used. Rather than an appointed Supreme Court taking it upon themselves to change it with their opinions, why haven't they thrown it back to the mechanism included by the founders? For the age of the country we have very few amendments.

The simple truth is that liberals want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their on liberal concepts of what the country is, and ought to be. If they want change let them go the amendment route in place. The path was intentionally made difficult so that changes made would be well thought out and significant enough to survive the ordeal. This would limit spur of the moment and changes with limited support. If its faults are so great that amendments won't do it, there is a procedure for a constitutional convention to draft a new one.

The Bear Revisited

2007-08-03T16:15:00.000-07:00

In February I expounded on the return of the "Russian Bear". Since that time the evidence continues to grow that Mr. Putin has set Russia on a course that is not to our advantage.

Our press has been so busy with the vilification of George Bush that they have little time to raise their heads from their collective posteriors and see what's going on in the world. The British newspapers, in my case the Financial Times, takes this a little more seriously in light of the recent exchange of words over the extradition of the ex-Soviet agent who poisoned Anatoly Litvinenko .

Putin has raised serious objections to our placing a missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia. What would be his objection if he wasn't going to commit to offensive action against that country. Does he think that Poland would attack Russia. Does Poland have any offensive weapons that would threaten them? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that what they want is to leave open the door to intimidation of their neighbors - like they did in the twenties and like they did at the end of WWII.

Their position has been bolstered by the high prices and demand for raw material such as oil, gas and minerals, which they have an abundance of . Recently they have used gas and oil as a lever to extract concession from their neighbors.

There is no democracy in the national history of Russia. From the Moscovites to the Mongols, to the Czars and on to the Communists, the country has never been free. Added to this is the paranoia of being a vast country more or less isolated from significant neighbors, and you add fuel to the fire.

The one thing they do understand is strength. This is why the US must return at least to the two party agreement that our arguments and disagreements in at the shore and that we stand united against those who would destroy us - be it Islam or be it Russian.

Where's the Beef?

2007-04-28T17:46:00.000-07:00

The Wendy's commercial of the past had the little old lady looking at her burger and saying," where's the beef?" While it had a specific meaning in the commercial it has taken on a generic meaning over the years.

So with that definition, I'd like to ask the Democratic aspirants to the presidency this simple question, "where's the beef?" Running against the incumbent or the other party's philosophy is as old as politics. It has in the past worked well and may do so in the future. When you get past the presidential election as a game and consider the contest as one for the leadership of the free world, this isn't enough. In the debate in South Carolina and the appearances in California this week, the whole show has been who could attack George W Bush and the war in Iraq with the most vigor.

The time has come to re-phrase the debate. Given: the policies of the Bush administration have been wrong for the past six years and especially in the conduct of the war in Iraq. For a candidate to have any credibility at all they should admit that they voted for the war with the best information at hand - just like the President- if they did. (Give Obama a walk). As the map at six flags says, "you are here." We are in Iraq. What is your policy going to be to extricate us from this war and stabilize the region. Please don't tell me you are going to "redeploy" our troops and enter into negotiations with the countries involved and especially the insurgents. It is increasing clear that the insurgents are the ones , or the ones who directed , the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers.

Do these people expect us to believe that with our troops gone and with no force to back it up, that these killer's of innocent civilians will lay down their arms and ,over a cup of coffee, tell us their grievances , negotiate and shake hands and be nice. If they believe this they have been in Congress dealing with Republicans too long. How are they going to keep peace between the Shites, Sunni's and Kurds? Do they think that with all stability removed from the area that the sheep will lie down with the lions? Excuse me for a Christian inference.

It is time for the press and the voters to say , acknowledging the mistakes of the Bush administration, what specifically are your plans for the Middle East. No cliches, not platitudes, no generalities. Give me the details of what you will do if President.

You know what you will get? Nothing. At least nothing of substance. You will get just what we requested not to get - cliches, platitudes and generality's. You will get sweetness and light - all mankind is good and willing to reasonable and cooperative if only Bush removes the troops. If you believe that get out your Koran and your burka and get ready to pray. You're going to need all the help you can get. Can you imagine the Hollywood smut factories with an Islamic censor! See you at the movies.

Emasculation of the GOP

2007-03-20T16:46:00.000-07:00

An old ribald limerick went, "Twas the night of the Kings castration. The royal ball was coming off." I think I missed something. Has the GOP lost their manhood? (Yes, manhood in the masculine).

I know the press is liberal. I know the war is unpopular. I know that in politics, re-election trumps principle. But give me a break, when the town bully is on the loose is their no one left to step up and call his hand?

Since November the Democrats have been on a rampage. There have been attempts to stop the war, rumblings of tax increases, convictions for non-crimes, pot shots at the constitutional authority of the executive branch , payoff for special interests that support the Democratic party, and 'nere a whimper from the GOP. The Democratic party holds the Senate by one seat. The control of the House is based on a group elected on middle of the road or right of center conservative principles. The demise of the Senator from South Dakota and a walk across the aisle by Senator Lieberman, whose party turned their back on him, would up end the Dem's Senate control.

So where are the troops? Where are the Republicans. If they believe in something other than the good life of staying in office, why don't they stand and fight. Even people like our good junior senator from Texas will criticise the firing of eight U S Attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the President and who, from some reports, were not willing to press his policies. Clinton fired 93 and not a whimper.

If the Republican party has no principles, no loyalty, no direction and no guts, then what they get they deserve. "How sails the ship of state, sir." Badly listing on the starboard side.

Term Limits - re-re-re-revisted

2007-02-21T17:08:00.000-08:00

I know I'm like a broken record. To my younger friends who do not remember or know what a record was - it was something upon which music was reproduced which included a round medium that spun with a needle which saddled in the groves which produced music. When it broke, the needle couldn't progress therefore it repeated the sounds of the last grove repeatedly. My apologies to the engineers, if any, who read this and accept it as completely inept.

In the Roman Republic offices were held for a period of one year. The exception was the Censor who held office traditionally for eighteen months. There were checks and balances at every turn to prohibit abuse of power. When we look at the congress of today and see the practice of elective service as a lifetime career objective, we shouldn't be surprised at the results. I believe Charlie Rangle was elected in 1954. Nearly all of the Democratic committee chairs are 20+ year veterans. At least the Republicans with all their faults had put term limits on committee chairman posts.

How would term limits ever come about. One would be the complete disintegration of the political system as we know it today. The dark ages of participatory government from which hopefully, would rise a new republic. Never say never but it is doubtful. Look at the French revolution. It resulted in more of a mess than it cured with the over throw of monarchy. This county, like many things in nature, was born in a particular time and with a particular set of circumstances. If you, like me, are Christian you will say it was God's will. It could occur by revolution. But if history is any gauge, it would only be after a despotic period where the populace would suffer terribly.

One thing is for sure. The politicians will never give it to the people freely. The only alternative I can think of is some spark that would cause a ground swell of sentiment against the system as it is. This may sound far fetched, but so would the idea that a bunch of blogger's could have grounded John Kerry's bit for the Presidency.

I do believe sincerely that this is the only salvation for the nation in any similarity of the form the founding fathers gave us. Pray for the return of reason.

Beware the Bear

2007-02-19T16:22:00.000-08:00

Americans always want to be optimistic. We reveled in the fall of the Berlin wall and the following disintegration of the Soviet Union. We saw at least a token shift toward a free market society. We saw a country struggling to change - a country with a history of oppression spanning several hundred years - trying to enter the free world as a progressive and market centered society. There is an old saying, " the more things change the more they stay the same." From the Huns to the Czars to the Communists, there has been little freedom societally or economically in there history upon which to build.

With this background why would we be surprised at the emergence of Putin as the leader of Russia. Here is an ex-KGB czar, knowledgeable in the power structure and the means of controlling it in control of a vulnerable new governmental structure. He is welcomed - a guest of the President of the United States, chomping on barbecue at the Crawford ranch- as a friend and new ally of the U.S.

To astute observers, the scales fall from the eye and we see things that are rather disturbing. Muscle used to wrest control of the largest oil and gas corporation from its entrepreneural owner - who lands in jail. A strange poisoning of his rival in the Ukraine, almost taking him out of the picture. A defector of the KGB mystically poisoned with radioactive material. Nuclear and military technology sales to Middle
Eastern enemies of the United States. Moves toward mutual defense pacts with China and India.

By now we ought to be getting the picture. For all that this country has going for it we have a myopic view of foreign policy and the world in which we live. The world in total is a turbulent, violent and unstable place. We have our attention on the Middle East. What about Africa. The strife, violence, and civil unrest there is ignored by the mainstream press and most Americans. The ascension of dictators in Latin America are dismissed or ignored - Noriega is back, Chavez in Venezuela, and his surrogate in Bolivia. Violence in the far east, the nuclear threat from North Korea, and the constant unpredictability of China, seem to be blocked from current concern.

In this country we have the most partisan power struggle I have seen in my lifetime. This is the first I can remember where the welfare of the United States has been totally sublimated to the political quest for power. We seem to be only behind the rest of the world in the factions using guns to get their way.

Republics have a relatively poor record of survival. From Tacitus to Jefferson we've had revealed to us that virtue is what supports the survival of freedom. Rome lost it and perished. If we aren't careful we will too. If we fail to realize our perilous position in the world and confront the foriegn policy hurdles that lie in front of us, and leave the conflict of the partisans to internal affairs, we may be doomed to the ash pit of history.

2006-11-02T17:15:00.001-08:00

I hope that the pundit's wishful thinking doesn't come true. That is the change in control of both the House and Senate. My wish is that it's neither.

Speculation is rampant on what this would mean. We are getting a lot of press on
Democrats who would be in leadership positions in the House, if the Dem's gain control. From the individuals themselves and from a cheer leading main stream press, we get impeachment proceedings, tax increases, investigations and hearings for every economic sector which is profitable or successful, minimum wage increases and other sops to their union pals, and on and on.

As a hick in East Texas, I'd like to take a stab at a few I haven't heard discussed - not saying they haven't- just that I haven't heard them.

First changing the rules. If the Dem's get the Senate I predict that they will by hook or crook, attempt to change the rules back to a simple majority. The main stream press will extol the virtue of majority rule , simple fairness, etc.

Protectionism will swell with intense speed. The poor American worker - union that is- only making $25 per hour for sweeping floors will be the poster boy for tariffs, trade restrictions, etc.

More government programs will be the order of the day. To hell with defense, those nice suicide bombers just need love and understanding and they will leave them alone. What we really need is more federal money for schools (NEA), the environment (Sierra Club), and every special interest group that votes Democrat. The Republicans will look like misers compared to them. If you doubt this think Great Society.

Government agencies will become the KGB of the Democratic Congress. Charlie Rangle who will most likely head Ways & Means has already said the IRS needs to close the collection gap on unpaid taxes. As a practicing CPA for nearly thirty years I can attest to dealing with that agency under Democratic appointed Commissioners.

The military will wilt. Through restrictive appropriations the capability of the very people they will lean on to advance their agenda, will diminish. Iraq is bad, but Somalia, Bosnia, Hatti, those Clinton battle grounds are good - especially if the French will send a couple of hundred troops to add legitimacy.

I can only hope that the law of unintended consequences will kick in and the complacent public will get a belly full of the Democratic party before the 2008 elections.

One More Time- for the 2006 Election

2006-11-02T17:15:00.000-08:00

I hope that the pundit's wishful thinking doesn't come true. That is the change in control of both the House and Senate. My wish is that it's neither.

Speculation is rampant on what this would mean. We are getting a lot of press on
Democrats who would be in leadership positions in the House, if the Dem's gain control. From the individuals themselves and from a cheer leading main stream press, we get impeachment proceedings, tax increases, investigations and hearings for every economic sector which is profitable or successful, minimum wage increases and other sops to their union pals, and on and on.

As a hick in East Texas, I'd like to take a stab at a few I haven't heard discussed - not saying they haven't- just that I haven't heard them.

First changing the rules. If the Dem's get the Senate I predict that they will by hook or crook, attempt to change the rules back to a simple majority. The main stream press will extol the virtue of majority rule , simple fairness, etc.

Protectionism will swell with intense speed. The poor American worker - union that is- only making $25 per hour for sweeping floors will be the poster boy for tariffs, trade restrictions, etc.

More government programs will be the order of the day. To hell with defense, those nice suicide bombers just need love and understanding and they will leave them alone. What we really need is more federal money for schools (NEA), the environment (Sierra Club), and every special interest group that votes Democrat. The Republicans will look like misers compared to them. If you doubt this think Great Society.

Government agencies will become the KGB of the Democratic Congress. Charlie Rangle who will most likely head Ways & Means has already said the IRS needs to close the collection gap on unpaid taxes. As a practicing CPA for nearly thirty years I can attest to dealing with that agency under Democratic appointed Commissioners. In this vain the Dem's will rejuvenate the "fairness doctrine" which can be used to mute talk radio. It would follow that regulatory control of the internet would follow. This would be used to selectively restrict blogs, chat rooms, etc. - not "Moveon.org." of course.

The military will wilt. Through restrictive appropriations the capability of the very people they will lean on to advance their agenda will diminish. Iraq is bad, but Somalia, Bosnia, Hatti, those Clinton battle grounds are good - especially if the French will send a couple of hundred troops to add legitimacy. Military personnel will be trashed. One might remember Mrs. Clinton trying to make the marine guards at the White House her personal servants.

It's too bad that the memory is so short. Those of us who lived it should re-live the Jimmy Carter years of 22% interest rates, 14% inflation, a military that couldn't muster 9 workable helicopters to try and free hostages in Iran. Income tax rates as high as 70% ( and that was after Kennedy had brought it down from 90%). This could go on and on.

I can only hope that the law of unintended consequences will kick in and the complacent public will get a belly full of the Democratic party before the 2008 elections.

"If I Were King"

2006-10-15T15:26:00.000-07:00

A classic poem by Justin Hutley McCarthy was titiled "If I Were King".

As we look at the present situation in government, I'd like to offer some conservative ideas "if I were king".

"If I were king.." missile defence would be a top priority. Top dollar and priority would be to continue Reagan's idea, already proven credible, of a system to protect us from missile attack.

"If I were king.." we would close the borders. This is a big task in a country with the size of our borders and especially in a free society, but it can be done. This would be separate and apart from a policy on immigration in general or what to do with illegals here in particular. The old first aid advise for cuts was stop the bleeding , protect the wound, and treat for shock. Sealing the border is our equivalent to stopping the bleeding.

"If I were king.." we would leave the UN. The United Nations has accomplished nothing in its existence. Any positive results have been done with our money and often with our blood. Disraelli once said "Countries don't have friends, they have interests." Let's associate with our friends to accomplish common interests to further the successful existance of free societies.

"If I were king.." we would put America first. Isolationism? No. But American interests instead of multinational corporations and conglomerates that have us adopting policies that benefit their global pocketbooks rather than the interests of the American public. An example. I believe in free trade but the economic interest of the Chinese in continuing to trade with us could be used to urge their controlling North Korea and promoting peace in the region.

"If I were king.." I would unleash American ingenuity to free us from dependence on unstable foriegn suppliers. We could be energy independent. Nuclear energy has been proven dependable and safe. Half of France's electricity is from nuclear sources. There have been no major accidents. Jane Fonda and Three Mile Island have haunted us long enough. We have an abundance of coal. The advance in clean burning technology has made this a viable source also. We have plenty of oil. We can exploit the off-shore and artic known reserves and by stripping away burdensome regulations, make existing sources more accessable.

"If I were king.." I would appoint supreme court justices who would interpret the Constitution in light of the federalist system on which this country was founded. I would work in concert with legislative initiatives to return every point of American life possible to the lowest representative level of the people.

"If I were king.." pork barrel politics would end. Earmarks, special interests and lobbyists would be things of the past. The tax system would be based on a balanced budget transparent and strictly for the needs of a lean federal government. Free enterprise would be encouraged with a reasonable saftey net for the less fortunate. The interference of the federal government in to the lives of individuals would be as minimal as possible.

"If I were king..", since we will always have a need to defend ourselves from the predators of the world, there would be compulsory military service. Twelve to eighteen months of active duty would probably be sufficient, with possibly a reserve training requirement to learn and/or maintain skills necessitated by ever progressive technology.

"If I were king.." there would be term limits on all elected officials. No longer would government be a career option. I would suggest twelve years - two Senate terms or six House terms or any combination of the two. After that they would be prohibited from being a lobbyst for three years or in living in Washington, D.C or the surrounding area for the same period. Nor could they hold any job either in the federal government or in any organization more than forty percent subsidized by the federal government.

"If I were king.." freedom of religion would be just that, the freedom to worship the God of your belief in the manner in which you believe. It would involve your eternal soul and your relations with your fellow man. It would not be a vehicle to tell other people how to live individually or through government pressure.

Oh! If I were king.

Why Do We Take This S__t

2006-09-21T16:50:00.000-07:00

I can't quote the source but someone opined that "countries don't have friends-just interests". Maybe the U.S. should take this advise seriously. It seems our foriegn policy seems to vascillate between the utopian dream of freedom and democracy for all, and the left version of everybody is right but us.

I grew up with the idea that isolationism was an evil. We had tried it in the early 20th century and many felt had paid a price in two world wars. I don't think that is the answer. What I do think is an answer is "America First". We have tried to buy friends and it didn't work

Foreign Policy Considerations

2006-08-27T16:37:00.001-07:00

Foreign policy is difficult at best. Any student of history is aware of this and the results of its failure and success. Any historian should note the law of unintended consequences where what for the time and for all appearances, was a highly successful policy sowed the seeds of future distress.

One thing seems evident to me. The more dependent a country is upon raw materials or some other requirement of a particular region or country, the more difficult relations can be.

We have now a global economy. But whether 3-M or Coke has a bad year in Europe is not going to damage significantly the overall U.S. economy. But a disruption of oil is another matter.

We cannot become completely independent on the raw materials we need. We could if we put our minds to it, improve out situation in regard to the most important things.
Energy out weighs everything else at this point in time. First we have to win back the country from the idealists who can't accept reality. We have huge reserves of coal. We have the capability to develop vast amounts of nuclear energy. We have huge oil reserves in Alaska and off shore, if we would tap them. Americans too, might have to trade their SUV's in for a compact or fuel efficiency auto. Hybrids could save tremendous amounts of fuel. Our real pinch point in petroleum for autos is refining. We haven't built a new refinery in years because of the huge costs associated with over-regulation and saftey concerns.

If we were not so dependent on Mid-east oil would our policy be different? I don't know but I know we would have more options.

Foreign Policy Considerations

2006-08-27T16:37:00.000-07:00

Foreign policy is difficult at best. Any student of history is aware of this and the results of its failure and success. Any historian should note the law of unintended consequences where what for the time and for all appearances, was a highly successful policy sowed the seeds of future distress.

One thing seems evident to me. The more dependent a country is upon raw materials or some other requirement of a particular region or country, the more difficult relations can be.

We have now a global economy. But whether 3-M or Coke has a bad year in Europe is not going to damage significantly the overall U.S. economy. But a disruption of oil is another matter.

We cannot become completely independent on the raw materials we need. We could if we put our minds to it, improve out situation in regard to the most important things.
Energy out weighs everything else at this point in time. First we have to win back the country from the idealists who can't accept reality. We have huge reserves of coal. We have the capability to develop vast amounts of nuclear energy. We have huge oil reserves in Alaska and off shore, if we would tap them. Americans too, might have to trade their SUV's in for compact or fuel efficiency auto. Hybrids could save tremendous amounts of fuel. Our real pinch point in petroleum for autos is refining. We haven't built a new refinery in years because of the huge costs associated with over-regulation and saftey concerns.

If we were not so dependent on Mid-east oil would our policy be different? I don't know but I know we would have more options.

Federalism Revisited

2006-05-13T17:51:00.000-07:00

In my last writing I talked about the tenth amendment. I feel it it is the unsung and ignored hero of the Constitutional Amendments. The only time that Congress even acknowldges that it exists is when it's a viable argument to block some piece of legislation or make some political issue sound more feasible. Hey, should one amendment carry more weight than the others? Weren't they all adopted with the same passion and intent?

There is a lot of logic to back up uniformity in laws and regulations in the various states of the nation. We are citizens of the United States not the state of Texas, Maine or California. The mobility and civil and commercial itercourse across state lines makes it illogical not to have common recognition of basic rights and institutions. To not be able to drive from state to state without a specific drivers license in each state would be lunacy.

However states are different. People in South Carolina don't always hold the same values or have the same problems as the people of Maine. This is supposed to be where Federalism comes to play. Especially in the area of values and traditions the bonding together of the individual states had the intent of letting each state maintain its identity, traditions, and approach to local problems, while allowing conformity in matters of interstate commerce, defence, etc.

Like most things the pendulum swings too far one way or another. Today the idea of the state having any autonomy is given little credence. The grasp for the consolidation of power in a federal government is undeniable.

Is this good? One of the most stable and democratic countries in the world is Switzerland. It still is basically a confederation of independent cantons. It has seemingly worked well.

As we self destruct we might ponder this and look once more to our founding fathers and their idea of a country consisting of a federation of independent states.

Whatever Happened to the 10th Amendment

2006-04-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

From the left we hear about their first amendment rights. From the right we hear about their second amendment rights. My question. What about all of our tenth amendment rights. For those who haven't visited the Constitution lately, the tenth amendment states that all rights not specifically prempted or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the states.

It might be amazing what term limits for congressmen plus a literal interpretation of the tenth amendment might do for this country. The left is fearful of Federalism. The idea that the State of Georgia, or heaven forbid, Arkansas might have the right to determine the education of their children or whether they wanted to allow abortions, blows their minds. An interesting question to me is why this hasn't been hammered out more in the judicial system than it has. What is interesting to me is why as other clauses have stretched beyond the imagination to grow government power, the restraining effect of the tenth has never been injected seriously in the argument. The commerce cluase has been stretched beyond all comprehension to give the Fed's authority over an ever expanding part of our livlihood. Where was the tenth? When the federal government took over education, where was the tenth? When the divine Supremes granted the God given right to abortion, where was the tenth? Why is it that this key amendment to the constitution can't be invoked in the debate about such issues.

Maybe one of these days the tenth will be rediscovered. Who knows, maybe then sanity will return to the land.

There Are Wars and Then There Are Wars

2006-04-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

There are wars and then there are wars. What in the world could I mean by that? Let me explain. But first a caveat. I do not claim to be a historian. I do not claim any academic credentials for my thoughts. Like most of my blogs, I'm just putting in text my humble observations and opinions. Therefore, caveat emptor.

I postulate that there are two basic types of wars. First, there are wars with intended goals. There is some objective, political, geopolitical, territorial, etc. for which the conflict is intended. Examples include the Napoleonic Wars, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, the Spanish American War, World War I and the Iraq War (circa 1990).

Secondly there are idealogical wars. Examples are the 30 years war, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II and the present Iraq/War on Terriorism conflict. This is by no means all inclusive. There are many others of both types.

With either type there enters in the "law of unintended consequences". Probably a prime example of this infecting a war was World War I. This was intended to be a short lived war which through unintended consequences, turned into a prolonged and bloody struggle.

I think though, without accounting for the untended consequences, it is obvious that of the two types, the idealogical war is by far the worst. This is the type of war that we now find ourselves engaged in. Whether the main stream will admit it or not, this is the type of war we're in. We are in a struggle of cultures. The world of Islam is in a struggle with the world of Christianity and secularism. This is a war for the souls of men not just territory or material things. We must accept this and prepare for it or the consequences may be horrific. The hisory of Islam is one of violence. If you will look at history in the era of Islamic conquest you will see the most violent and uncompromising war ever fought. The countries which succumed to the cresent either became vassels of the reliion or died - no compromise.

Until this soaks through to the American people we have no way of meeting successfully this challenge.

Pro Lifer's - Lets save Roe

2006-03-11T16:44:00.000-08:00

I hardly ever get ready to blog that I don't see a column or article that beats me to the punch. I was thinking on this idea after doing a weird thing - reading the transcript of Roe v Wade. A lot of people talk about it but few really read or study the case to see what the opinion actually says. Actually through the web you can even hear tapes of some of the proceedings. I had done just that when I read a recent column by Cal Thomas talking about, rather than out right repeal, pro life advocates might work on gradually reducing the effects. He focused on the fact that a large number of those considering abortion, when shown a sonogram of the fetus, changed theri minds. If Roe had been the end of the story it would have been one thing but for abortion advocates, it was just the beginning. We've moved on from the restrictions of Roe to unlimited access at any time, strict secrecy, and then partial birth abortion. Few realize that Roe limited unrestricted access to abortion to the first trimester. Few seem to remember that a significant factor in Roe was that the abortion be performed before the fetus could viably survive outside the womb.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I am not alone in suggesting that Roe was wrong without the issue of abortion playing a role in it. Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution? This is debated continually by noted legal scholars. Is the fetus a person? If so what about the constitutional rights protecting innocent persons from harm - or death without cause. Medical science is allowing premature babies to survive at earlier and earlier stages of development - who's to define when a fetus becomes a person.

It is time for the courts to step up to the plate and clarify some of these issues. It is time for open debate on the constitution. It is time for public education to expose our young people to the constitution in a scholarly way not in a mode of indoctrination.

Maybe for the time being Roe should be our fall back point with us, demanding that the license to kill babies, not retreat beyond this point.

Thank God for the Middle Class

2006-03-11T16:13:00.000-08:00

We see the rioting, the terror, the bloodshed all over the world and say to our self, "what's going on?" "What do most of these places have in common?" You can go through the list of supposedly important things for a nation; natural resources, climate, manpower, relion, government, etc. What is the one thing they all seem to lack? It's a middle class. It seems to me that one thing the stable civilizations seem to have in common is a middle class - the bigger the more stable. Most of the turmoil is in places where there are two groups, the haves and have nots. Now you can define middle class in a multitude of ways. Politicians love to do this making this group coincide with what ever attributes they would like or need for their own goals. I'm thinking of it with a broad brush. A recent figure I saw said that only about 12% of the people in this country lived below the poverty level. The unemployment rate is now below 5% and this is even taking into consideration the people who were in the workforce but for one reason or another don't want to work at present. One such group could be working women who decide to drop out of the workforce either to have a family or to stay home and raise them. If you look at the percentage of homes with TV's, cars, washers and dryers, etc.,or look at the percent of married families who own homes, I would have to classify those people as middle class. Some would laugh at calling someone with a family income of $200,000 a year middle class, but they generally work, have obligations that require a great deal of their income, participate in most of lifes functions that occupy the lower middle class families - in a different way,perhaps, and to a greater or lesser extent, but the same.

If you could postulate this to be true than the next question is why to we have a middle class- and such a big one. Could it be capitalism. Could it be that the opportunites of a free capitalistic state cause people to take risks and to work harder. I believe you could be safe in saying that the freer the country both in the realm of governance as well as economics, the larger the middle class.

Because of the above hypothisis, I'd have to agree with George Bush in our need to encourage the spread of freedom and paticipatory government. It takes a free county to have a free economy. It takes a free economy to generate a significant middle class. It takes a significant middle class to generate civil stability.

Term Limits Revisted

2005-12-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's time to revisit term limits. This has been conservative territory forever, the Republican's control both houses of congress and the executive - what's the big deal?

The answer is at least two fold (probably many fold-but two come to mind quickly). First, to equate Republican with conservative is fantasy land. Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, etc can't make the cut. As a matter of fact, depending on your definition of the term, there may be fewer than a person would think. The second reason is that Republicans, including some we think of as conservatives, are not immune to the re-election first, and everything else afterwards, virus that is commonly found incubating in incumbency.

Most of the definitions of conservatism would include to some degree, most of the following ideas; limited government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and a strong national defense.

Wow, and here are our guys increasing the bureaucracy, spending like drunken sailors, waffling on extending tax cuts (much less cutting more)and whimpering about Iraq and a time table to get out. Any questions?

Term limits that would allow two Senate terms and six House terms would be great. If you can't get it done in 12 years you aren't going to get it done most likely. It would lend itself to continuity and yet cut out this "public service" as a career.

Like true tax reform, it will probably never happen but who knows.

To be or not to be - the Republican problem

2005-11-16T17:39:00.000-08:00

Is this the end of the line for conservatives? Or let us put it another way, is it the end of the line for the coalition of conservatives and the balance of the Republican party.

The Democratic party is a coalition of special interests. You have the unions, the gays, the blacks, etc. They each have a special area that is central to them, which many times is mutually exclusive relative to the other members. Therefore, they will support the other members in efforts in which they have no particular interests, as long as the others reciprocate. It has worked well for years.

The Republicans have a problem. For the past ten years or so, since they gained the majority, the coalition has been one of ideas. Ideas are more intangible than handouts. At first the ideas centered around principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, less taxes, and a strong national defense. To quote a well known coach, "They danced with the one that brung them." But to use Phil Gramms illustration, there were those pulling the wagon and those riding in it.
The ones riding got a little queasy. With success came the natural tendency to forget who "brung" them. They began to spend like drunken sailors. As the liberal press hammered tax breaks for the rich, they hid under the bed. As the war against terror drug on they read the polls and ran for cover.

Beyond a doubt, the country is pretty well divided. The defection of the "riders" ground the Republican wagon to a halt. Thinking of the next election detracted from the fact that if it hadn't been for the "ideas" there might not be a next election for some of them. They could not stay the course, thus we have the scuttling of the ANWR drilling, the failure to extend the tax breaks that have breathed new life into the economy and a resolution by the Republicans in the Senate to end the war regardless of the cost in the long run. Poll driven politics is the order of the day. But poll driven decision making is dangerous. There is nothing more fickle than public opinion. This knowledge is one reason the founding fathers favored representative government over direct democracy. A politician sticks his neck out today based on a poll and tomorrow its chopped off. Ask the democrats who went on public record when we went to war in Iraq based on intelligence of weapons of mass destruction (not that the mainstream press will trumpet this).

There is a void of congressional leadership. That is a megaphone on Bill Frists sweatshirt, not an "S. He can lead a cheer when we're winning but he can't carry the ball. They sidelined the "hammer" in the House with the trumped up charges from Austin. Therefore there is no party discipline there as there once was.

What has to happen? In my opinion a couple of things. One, the President has to put some new leadership in his staff who can help him deal with Congress. Second there has to be some leadership in Congress who can fight fire with fire. We need a Republican Lyndon Johnson who can twist arms either by persuasion or by force. There are three more years to right the ship. It's listing badly but hasn't taken on water to the point of no return.

Will we recover or will the Republicans again become the "go along to get along" party. Only time will tell.

2005-11-13T15:24:00.000-08:00

Mired in Miers

2005-10-11T14:38:00.000-07:00

As a good conservative I've been severely challenged as to the proper position to take relative to the President's Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.

Infected with the David Souter hangover, I cringe at the possibility of a repeat with a person with such unknown conservative credentials. Yet on the other hand she is the President's choice. We've howled before at criticism of nominees on the basis that the President has a right - no an obligation - to chose someone of his philosophical persuasion. At this juncture I'm prone to go with George Bush.

First, he has consistently chosen candidates for lower courts based, at least in appearance, on the criteria that he campaigned on during both elections. Some critics have pointed to other choices made by the President which have not been good. The examples given were other than judicial.

Second, Bush may and probably should, have some doubts about his team in the Senate. If a staunch conservative with demonstrated credentials were nominated would his bunch get down into a hair pulling butt biting free for all and even if they would, could they win. We could all beat our chests and feel we stood up on principles, but we would have a defeat and an uncertain return engagement in the next nominee.

Thirdly, it is the Presidents choice. If we really interpret "advise and consent" in the strict constraints of Federalist 78, the can only ask for the characteristics which Bush strongly says Ms. Mier's possesses, character and competence. He feels she has these. For the rest of us we'll just have to wait and see.

Katrina

2005-09-05T16:50:00.000-07:00

Let's play the blame game. The left loves it. Guess who's coming to dinner - George.

The government didn't respond fast enough. The mayor of New Orleans is mad. Fact. On Saturday ( the storm struck Mon AM) the head of the National Weather Service called the mayor and urged him to call for mandatory evacuation of the city - he didn't. The President called and urged that he issue a mandatory evacuation order for the city - he did- eighteen hours later. He sent the people to the convention center and the superdome. The city had no provisions for food, water or medical assistance. Little for protection. Of course this was Bush's fault.

Two days before the storm hit President Bush declared a state of emergency for Louisiana. This gave the govenor the ability to call up the National Guard and to request federal assistance from FEMA and other Federal resources. She, by the way, commands the National Guard of the state unless called to Federal service.

The levee system has been know for decades to be unable to withstand a category four or above storm. Bush didn't veto any legislation providing the funds to do this. He hasn't vetoed a bill since he has been president - and has been critisised for that too. The Democratic senator from Louisiana says its all his fault.

It gets whackyer. Jesse Jackson says the response was slow because the many poor were black. Bull.

The truth is that this country isn't prepared for such an emergency. That is true at the local, state and federal level. New Orleans is 12 feet below sea level. It has dodged the bullet in several storms. There were several hundred buses at the mayor's disposal but no plan of evacuation. This is true at the state level also. As for the Department of Homeland Security - heaven help us if the terrorist element succeed in a major strike. The lack of organization and planning was apalling.

If we just have to blame someone there is plenty to go around. The question is what is to be done about this going forward.

The Blame Game

2005-08-12T10:35:00.000-07:00

The loss of a son is a terrible thing. All of us who are parents can sympathize with parents of young men killed in Iraq, or anywhere else. No parent is prepared to bury a child - it simply is contrary to the laws of nature. I say this to preclude the following comments from the mothers who have recently gone on television blaming the President for their loss.

My son chose a different vocation, but suppose he had chosen to be a fireman or a police officer. And let us say that in performing his duty in one of those capacities, he were to lose his life. I would be devastated. I would grieve. I would be wounded forever. Would I blame the President of the United States, the governor of the state, or the mayor of the town? You would say that would be absurd. We all need to blame someone or something to balm our wound. Who would you blame? Would you blame the law that said it is wrong to steal for the shoot-out at the bank where your son was killed. What about the fire? Who do you blame there - God. Was it the fault of the careless mother that left the eye on the stove on with grease in the skillet?

The policeman and the fireman take a job knowingly that comes with risk. Whether they take it for money, benefits, enjoyment, the fulfilment of serving one's fellowman, or a combination of those reason, they do it willingly and knowing the job comes with risk. Our military is a voluntary establishment. Gone is draft and compulsory service. Each man wearing a uniform has voluntary stepped up and taken an oath to protect and defend the United States of America. It isn't a selective oath that says I'll do this if I think the cause is just, or that I agree with my commanders. It is an absolute commitment to the mission and tasks assigned.

The loss to be felt for mothers and fathers of fallen servicemen is not to be diminished. The right to question the policies made by the government to put someone in harms way are not to be denied. But to blame the President of the United States and berate the country for which he died is not only wrong, it is an affront to all the parents who have born this loss with respect and held their son's death in honor and in patriotism.

The Theory of Constructive Idleness

2005-07-21T13:39:00.000-07:00

I assume I'm not alone in sometimes getting a bad case of the "don'ts". Those days when you try to grind it out but the inertia is just too great. I don't relish those times but they happen to me - the older I get the more they happen.

I'm a great believer of the idea that some is better than none and that you need to produce something, even if it isn't as much or as fruitful as what you would like.

With this in mind I have developed my "Theory of Constructive Idleness".

First, knowing my gas tank doesn't hold as much fuel as it once did and whatever is supposed to pump sometimes doesn't, I try and compensate somewhat for it. In the morning I make a list. It's not etched in stone but it reflects the things I hope to get done that day. Since I don't know when my motor will start to sputter, I put the "must do's" first and then go on from their in descending order of their importance to me.

Sooner or latter I'm going to stall. What then? Well if you stop and think about it there are a lot of small things that you never get around to. These are things that are more grunt than challenge. As an example there are things to file which have never gotten filed. Often those are in my sacred stacks, which I protect with my life and have knowledge of each thing in them. But sooner or latter the stacks have to be addressed so you will have a place to put your coffee cup. An idea candidate for constructive idleness. I have reference service up-dates which are still in the box. File them. There may be some personal items hanging such as researching a stock or calculating the value of your investment portfolio - get with it. You might have a thought that hit you last night during your two a.m. bathroom trek of something you thought you knew but are a little fussy on - look it up. As a last resort you can always "google" - or worse yet, as I'm doing now, blog. It works for me.

A Specter Hangs Over the Confirmation Hearings

2005-07-20T14:39:00.000-07:00

None of us know what a Justice John Roberts would be like. We live with the memory of Souter in our minds. We have a different deal in that Roberts is more of a known than Souter. He has gained conservative credentials with prior service in Republican administrations and has shown good poise and judgement in his two years on the appellate bench.

The idea though, that the Dem's will give him a free ride is fantasy. The left wing organizations have their knives sharpened for his castration. Kennedy, Shumer et al are salivating. No one that Bush could nominate could avoid this. First, because the only thing the left has going for it is to get what they want through the courts, avoiding the legislative process. Second, as with every thing else, this is about George Bush and the conservatives of this country. This is another way to vent their wrath at the fact they are in control.

All in all, you still would think his chances of confirmation are good. He doesn't seem to have visible baggage that could be dragged before the public. He was only two years ago confirmed for the Appellate bench with a 16-3 committee vote and a voice vote in the Senate. He knowingly hasn't been controversial since. Because of these facts, it would seem that the seven Dem's who thwarted the nuclear effort would look rather bad if they reneged and declared Roberts an extremist in order to block his confirmation.

Still a "Specter" hangs over the proceedings. Arlen Specter is about as dependable as a long range weather forecast. A closet Democrat, he could be the fly in the ointment by conducting a hearing which allowed the Kennedy-Schumer smear to drag on and by not standing up for his party and his President's nominee. If he lets this turn into another Clarence Thomas freak show or Robert Bork lynching he should be at least relieved of his committee chair, if not drummed out of the Republican party.

Let's Fire the "Supremes"

2005-06-24T13:18:00.000-07:00

Let's fire the Supreme Court. Radical, huh.

Let us use a little Socratic dialectic. Not being a scholar or academic ( the two are not one and the same, unfortunately), please humor my simplistic lay definitions.

What is the Supreme Court?
It is the judicial branch of the government.

What is its purpose within the original framework of our nation's founding?
It was included as an arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution.

Would it be true to assume that by these definitions it depends on there being a Consititution. Obviously, if there was no Constitution they would not be needed.

Is the Constitution a written document?
Of course - written in very good English.

Are the Justices of the Supreme Court literate?
Certainly, they're well educated.

If a document is written and we read it what does it mean?
It means what the author or authors of the document who wrote it purported it to mean.

How do we understand what the author(s) meant?
We look at the biography and the writings of the authors
within the historical context of the times.

Has the text of the Constituion changed, except for amendments thus provided for by the document itself?
No, its still the same document

If one reads the document today and substitutes his meaning for the authors, based on the definition just given, is it then the same document?
Well, no, its now the reader's document.

If the document is no longer the "founding fathers's" do you continue to need the Supreme Court which was established to arbiter and interpret their document ?
Well, I don't guess so.

Since the "supremes" are more or less trashing the Constitution, lets legislatively abolish the court as established by the Constitution. Assuming we do need a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches, let's elect the judges for a limited, but adequate length of time, by popular vote. Since we can keep a President no more than eight years, lets arbitrarily start with an equal time frame for the court.

Then if they want to make "judicial" decisions based on international opinion, foreign court interpretations or the desire to assure a certain outcome, they will at least have to answer to the people who put them there and who can also remove them.

Con-a-Senior Week

2005-06-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

The euphuism "con" has long thought to be derived from confidence as in confidence game. I pose that this may not be true. I submit that the "con" comes from the word "congress" There can be ample support for this from a litany of legislation which they have passed. The tax code is a perfect example. In the 1993 tax law - thank you President Clinton- the phase-outs, floors, ceilings etc attached to various deductions and credits resulted in deceitfully limiting these to anyone who had a job , especially if a man and wife were working.

One of the classics is social security. Until 1983 social security was exempt from being taxed as income. At this time the law changed to tax up to 50% for incomes exceeding a certain amount. In 1993 up to 85% could be taxable based on another incremental rate. These amounts were not indexed for inflation.

There is a payroll tax on your income to fund social security. In figuring taxable income this is not deductible, thus you are paying a tax on a tax. I know of no other place in the tax law where a double taxation is involved. Then when you receive the social benefits, which in essence have already been taxed twice, you are taxed again. If you choose to continue working you pay into the fund with more taxes and help pay your benefits received, and of course, are again taxed on that tax. Also, remember, that with the floors not being indexed to inflation that every year that the CPI rises (which is every year) your tax increases.

At the present workers are paying more into the system than what is being paid out. The so called "lock box" surplus is raided by the dear Congress to build a library in West Virginia or refurbish an obsolete train station in Texas.

Then at election time these same members of Congress go home and tell the seniors how they are fighting to protect social security and make their senior constituents more secure. Give me a break. The truth would be "old geezer, send me back to the "hill" so I can screw you again." The least they could do would be to vote for a "Con-a-senior Week". At least it would be on the record and on the calendar.

Can Republicans Govern

2005-06-15T16:32:00.000-07:00

We talk about leadership in politics, but is this an appropriate term? What the idealists call leadership is actually, in contemporary American politics a composite of two components. First and foremost it's about power. Second it's about public relations.

Politics is and always has been about power and the ability to use it. The master of the skill I think in my age was Lyndon Johnson. Wheter the applicable component was fear, intimidation, coercion or compromise - or most probably a combination of these he could get things done. The second part is press. The liberal press and TV is still the most predominant form of information disimination. It is not necessarily in what they say but what they may not say, or the place they say it. An example is the recent tie of Anan to the oil for food scandal. The New York Times put this on page six. As it heated up they moved it to page 10. Ditto (maybe different pages) for the Washington Post.

The ability of the Democrats to practically shut down the legislative process with a minority is ridiculous. Whey do they get away with it? At the worst the Rebublicans should make them do the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" bit and keep the floor day and night like the "old timey" filibuster of Huey Long et al.

The media problem may be overcome, but the power problem has to be addressed by Republicans. The failure of the majority to execute the powere they should have exudes weakness. It 's time to act or forget it.

Charlie Brown Revisted

2005-05-27T16:46:00.000-07:00

In my last blog, frustrated and disillusioned, I mentioned the old Peanuts routine of Lucy pulling the ball back just as Charlie Brown tried to kick it. I compared this to the way the Demos are handling the Repubs in the Senate. What I'd like to see in that scenario is Charlie Brown telling Lucy, " you do that again and I'll kick your ass". That's what I would want Charlie to say and that is what I want the Republicans to say. When the "cave in kids" had the mike after the so called compromise, someone made the statement that they had to think about them being in the minority. Well if they keep acting as they are, its not just a possibility but a good bet. It's almost like a death wish. The good old days were where the Republican minority was a given and they could stay forever in the lush land of Senatorial Oz by just saying, "gee, we can't do anything, but we kept them from getting all that they wanted".

Let us apply a little logic here. Things never stay the same - they always change. Let's look at the country based on the last few elections. There hasn't been a run away election since the second Reagan presidential election. That was twenty years ago. Since then we've seen the nation polarize into fairly even divisions. Let's assume that this isn't going to change soon. There is a lot of evidence that this is the case. Further assume that the Republicans had the guts to change the Senate rules to make a majority rules. What would likely happen? Probably nothing much. Since we've adopted the terms lets talk about "red states" and "blue states". Let's further extend this line of thought to the Presidents appointments. There are some safe seat Republican senators that can bolt the party. But there are some "red state" Democrats which put their re-election on the line by being branded as obstructionist and anti-Bush without a good reason. The Republicans have just as much chance of passing their legislation in this scenario as they could with the super majority requirement presently in place. Secondly if they can't make their case in this situation, maybe the legislation hasn't the merit to pass anyway.

I used to love a poem called "It's All In A State of Mind". One line went,"full many a race is lost ere ever a step is run, full many a coward fails before his task is begun. Think big and your deeds will grow. Think small and you'll fall behind. If you think you are beaten you are. It's all in a state of mind." Put it on your wall Republicans - you need it.

Don't Believe Her Charlie Brown

2005-05-26T15:19:00.000-07:00

Hey "Peanuts" fans. Remember how Lucy would pull back the football just before Charlie Brown kicked it? How he never caught on! Welcome to the U.S. Senate. It seems the Demos have just pulled the ball away again and Sen Frist and the Repubs still don't get it.

The spectacle of the Bolton hearings can only add to the disgust of conservatives who are watching this dog and pony show and wondering if they missed something on who is the majority party in the Senate. Listen up guys! Bush won the election. The republican party picked up Senate seats in the election! You're not the minority party anymore and "go along to get along" isn't going to cut it with the voters forever.

The game has changed so it may be that the rules need to change with it. The country seems almost equally divided. If it is going to take a super majority to conduct business than neither party will be effective. In this case a simple majority ought to be the rule. The Republicans obviously can't hold all their people together even in crucial votes like confirmation of their President's nominees. We still have Democrats from "red states" whose obstructionist practices should be ammo for their next election opponent. The Constitution pretty well defines the cases where a super majority is in order. Trying to co-opt the Executive branch's duty to appoint and completely stretching the "advise and consent" provision to a point of lunacy should not be acceptable.

I say "go for it". Use the Constitutional option to bring back majority rule except where specifically directed by the Constitution. Let the Democrats be recognized for the obstrudtionists that they are and trust the voters to do the rest

United Nations

2005-05-24T16:48:00.000-07:00

Lets hear it for the UN. It seems they're at it again. The UN is blaming the US for problems in Afganistan re prisioner treatment. How long is it going to take us to learn. We have been carrying them financially for sixty years and all we've gotten for it is grief.

In crisis all they have ever lent to the fray was their name. Korea - the UN in forces were what? A few Brits, a few Turks and a few asorted others. Were the French there? Don't think so. In Viet Nam all we got from them was grief. In the "Cold War" - no help the Russians had the veto and their allies. All we've ever gotten from the UN is the bill.

The idea floated a short time ago seems smart to me. Get out of the UN. Form a new association of free democratic nations with mutual ideas of freedom and justice as we do and go from there. It probably won't happen but its a damn good ideal

Whatever Happened to Debate?

2005-04-29T13:52:00.000-07:00

With the potential filibuster in the Senate over judicial nominations, we should turn to the subject of debate.

In its design by the founding fathers, the senate was to be the deliberative body of the Congress. Members had a long enough term that they didn't have to be as sensitive to the locals and could take a cold hard look at issues without immediate voter reaction, supposedly to rationally assess the issue relative to the good of the country. This would be accomplished by the rational, civil, contemplative debate and discussion by the good members of the senior congressional body.

Where is this debate? Where is fact? Where is civility? Tune into C-Span and watch this process. It often resembles a school yard brawl by twelve year olds more than the cooling pot of the Capitol. Just look for the civility. Listen as the great orators of our time yell "my dad can whip your dad".

Is this a societal thing? Have we degenerated to the point that we can have no civil debate and compromise? If this is an indication of the state of society in today's world, heaven help us. The question arises as to who cares. Being partisan and being civil are not mutually exclusive. Each member should obviously be opinionated but not necessarily closed mind on each issue. Good legislation is the product of give and take, each side hoping to get the best of their ideas incorporated into the final product. At the birth of country many devisive issues had to be addressed. An example was slavery - big barrier between north and south. Cool heads and inteligent minds succeeded keeping this issue alone from making our country still born.

The current situation is so disturbing to me because the crux of the process is to keep away from debate. Why else would the "advice and consent" function of senators have them yield to a reluctance to debate and vote on nominees for the judiciary? Is the desire to prevail greater than devotion to the Constitution and to the voters of their state who sent them to Washington?
Has the Senate taken on the character of street mob? Every nominee the President sends up should be allowed to be debated and voted on on the floor of the Senate. To most of us the idea still rings true that "majority wins". The Constitution enumerates instances calling for a super majority. Advise and consent was not one of them.

If the Democatic party is so in love with the filibuster, do it right. Go with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Bring in the cots and water pitchers.

Thanks a lot, Jane

2005-04-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

With all the current attention being paid to energy prices and our dependence on foriegn oil, I find it weird that so little is mentioned about nuclear power. I did a little research and the best I can tell France obtained about 80% of it's energy from nuclear power. I have heard no reports of major saftey hazards or accidents involved in this production. In fact the Russian incident is the only major accident that I know of. True, we got a scare at Three Mile Island but no mass destruction.

I guess we can thank Jane Fonda for that too. The scare movie she stared in seems to have had the same effect as Rachel Carlson's book "Silent Spring" did for DDT.

Why has no one at least opened a dialog concerning expansion of nuclear power in this county. Can it be that the Hollywood defined political correctness of nuclear has muted all discussion or consideration of the subject? Maybe other considerations would make it a poor option, but I have heard no mention of it at all. I have no idea as to the cost of building a nuclear power plant relative to other sources of power. I think however, that I'm not alone in wishing
to hear the pros and cons. Maybe bloggers can help initiate some discussion about some of these issues that main stream journalism seems to avoid

Ethics Lessons from the Media?

2005-01-24T15:11:00.000-08:00

Give me a break. In Friday's WSJ there was an article discussing whether we bloggers need a code of ethics. This from a press hot off of "Rathergate". This from the main-street media that look the other way if it's their guy and attack like a hungry hound dog if it's not their man. This from kazillions of "would be" editorialists who are paid to report facts but seldom do. This from a press that have become masters at utilizing the old one step forward and two backward against its opponents. Example:
"John Doe made a million dollars last year. There are rumors, however, of mafia connections. Unconfirmed rumors report the possibility of IRS agents being seen in the neighborhood where Doe lives." Get the message. Look at this the next AP news article you read.

Part of the problem is the evolution of "journalists". In times past most reporters had risen through the ranks from less noble positions as the press room or other mundane areas of the business. They had ink on their fingers and stains on their shirt pocket from a leaky pen. They were journeyman craftsmen. Now its Joe who can't make up his mind what to do for a living and who had a dad that could foot the bill for Columbia school of journalism.

The basic ethics problem in the nation as a whole is that of basic morality. With liberty goes responsibility. We seem to have forgotten that fact. We don't get paid, claim a lack of bias, or try to influence politicians. If there was a code of ethics who would prepare it? With what authority? What would develop would be censorship and the abridgement of free speech. We are still subject to the laws for libel just like any citizen, so lets just leave it there.

Relative Memory

2005-01-14T14:38:00.000-08:00

It is well known that as age increases past some certain point the short- term memory seems to go. It also seems true that as the short-term memory decreases the long -term memory seems to at least hold its own if not increases. Some times it increases so much that it teeters on the edge of believability.

It is funny that in some professions or occupations, the memory seems to go faster than in others. In the '70's we were told to worry about the coming ice age. Today some of the same people are the proponents of the global warming theory. I'm not a rocket scientist but reason seems to say that people that can't tell me Monday what the temperature will be Friday should be suspect when they project the earth to warm one degree in twenty years.

Then lets take journalism. Is it a profession, an occupation, or a job. Whatever, it seems that it is supposedly defined as having to do with telling people the facts. Now logic would say that a fact should be something concrete - that could be proven by some test or observation. Gravity is a fact. The income tax is a fact - if you don't believe that try not paying it. Only to journalists do facts often depend on the political party in power. Ergo the deficit. A significant national deficit is not a problem unless the Republican's are in power.

We are in a situation to greatly be affected by our foriegn oil dependency. France and other countries have a good record of saftey in the production of electricity from nuclear power. Thanks to a movie it has completely been removed from consideration in this country despite the fact that it has been proven safe. We have abundant supplies of oil in the artic. But we don't want to disturb the caribou. Forget the fact that they are dying in droves from partisites. Oh we could use insecticides, but thanks to "Silent Spring" we don't use DDT any more.

We could go on and on but everyone knows the drill. Maybe economics will change the situation. If and when the public decides that jounalism is about facts again, they may punish in the pocket book those who peddle opinion under that name.