ConservativeTM

34. Bad Greed, Not So Bad Greed

2011-12-04T06:35:00.000-08:00

I am amused by the current rants by liberals about Corporate Greed, yet they never comment on other types of greed, greed which is apparently acceptable. Only corporations are their targets.

First of all, I like the concept of greed in corporations. I’m not interested in working for nor investing in a corporation which seeks only to “break even.” I want to see profits and growth. But
then, I guess that’s greedy of me and doubtlessly, that’s bad greed. Let’s start with personal greed. I have yet to meet a liberal who has ever turned down a raise in pay or a new job because of more money. Isn’t that rather greedy? They leave a company who hired them, nurtured
them, trained them for another company just because they will make more money.
Despicably greedy, isn’t it? No, no, no – in that case, it is “not so bad greed.”

The lovely and perky and very liberal Katie Couric wanted so much more money on her job that CBS ammounced staff would have to be laid off to meet her demands. Did Katie care? Not really.
But then, I guess that’s “not so bad greed.”

Hollywood is a very liberal enclave with vocal types such as Barbra Streisand, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and so on, yet Hollywood money is concentrated into the hands of a very few.
Julia Roberts might get $20 million for one film, yet the average member of the Screen Actor’s Guild makes less than $10,000 a year. Why doesn’t Julia spread the wealth? It’s because she’s GREEDY!!! But then, that also is “Not So Bad Greed.”

University professor’s are notoriously liberal, preaching at the altar of income redistribution. Yet,
in my book, they are about the greediest hypocrites in our country. They can make in excess of $200,000 to $300,000 a year while administrative staff makes less than $50,000. Professors have the power to effect change and redistribute their wealth to all employees of the universities, but they don’t. Mine, mine, mine. Greed, greed, greed. No one yells and screams
at them! Recently students marched and protested at California Universities
because of hikes in fees. This all the while the staff was receiving raises. No liberal staff member offered to refuse the increase to offset the rise in fees, but then, that’s “not so bad greed” I guess.

I recently visited New York City, twenty-five years after my first visit there. Little has
changed. Homeless people are still on the streets and in the subways. Why haven’t shelters been built in the Big Apple to house and feed these poor souls? Greed, that’s why! In a city with
an economy larger than most countries of the world, the focus is on personal and government greed, not on human suffering. Yes, shelters are costly to build and operate, but the solution is rather, just raise taxes. The average cost of an apartment in NYC is over $1 million. Raise property taxes by 1%, sales tax by 1% and entertainment and transportation taxes by 1% - very simple. But no, New Yorkers live by the rule of greed – not me!! The money and the solution should come from the federal government (unless, of course, that means Obama) or we
won’t do one damn thing about the problem.

What about government greed? Social security money is deposited directly into the general account and used to fund and buy votes for sitting politicians. Social Security is one big
Ponzi scheme. Washington just keeps hoping and praying that there will be more people paying into the system to keep it functioning. Like all Ponzi schemes, that never happens. The money
stops and the pyramid collapses. But to change the system, give people viable and profitable options for their retirement would mean the flow of money to Washington would be cut. “No! No! No!” the pols say – “we need that money to operate. People will suffer!!” People are already suffering, those who get their social security checks and wonder how they will live through one more month on such a small amount. But I guess those elderly people are just GREEDY!!!

As I have said repeatedly over the last twenty years, when I meet a liberal who lives the life he or she wants to legislate upon me, I will take his cause more seriously. But so far, that has not happened. In each case, he or she was too greedy to give up what they had for the cause of the common good. “Raise taxes” they cry – “just not MY taxes!”

33. Bet Do Not Pass

2011-01-02T07:58:00.000-08:00

"... as much money can be made from a civilzation's destruction as from its rise." - Rhett Butler, "Gone With The Wind"

No one at a Las Vegas craps table wants to bet "Do Not Pass." By placing this bet you are, in effect, betting against the shooter, the roller of the dice. This bet is considered "unlucky." Unlucky it may be, but statistically it is the best bet. This bet is as close to betting "with the house" as possible. Yet, it is a bet rarely placed.

Why is this? What is it about we humas that we would rather bet on what we would like to happen rather than what we know will actually happen? Why too do we ignore information which would empower us with the knowledge necessary to make prudent and profitable decisions?

Let's take a look at my friend Jake. Jake makes a little over $100,000 a year. He owns a condominium worth $250,000 with a mortgage of $80,000. His debt is heavy, yet it is manageable. Although prudent all his life, Jake begins acting foolishly with his money. He opens credit account after credit account and spends on new clothes, new furniture, electronics and trips. Soon, he has over $70,000 in credit card debt. He then takes out a second mortgage on his home for the full equity value of $170,000. He initially pays off his cards with the money but shortly thereafter he begins to spend again. He also begins paying one payment by borrow money from an alternate source. Before he knows it, Jake owes over $300,000.

Does anyone reading this not know what will happen to Jake? Jake can no longer "manage" his debt. His debt has grown so large that its weight is crushing Jake. At some poiont, Jake will be forced into bankruptcy. But Jake doesn't want to accept this and in turn make the sacrifices necessary to improve his situation. Jake wants to continue believing that everything will be alright. The solution is simple, but Jake does what is easy and ignores reality.

Does anyone want to loan Jake even more money? Will that make his situation better?

Debt is never a good thing, althought debt can sometimes be a necessary tool, if used wisely. But crushing, debilitating debt is always foolish and there never will be a good outcome no matter how much we wish otherwise.

In 2006 I sold my house after only six years of ownership. The prices of homes in Southern California skyrocketed during that time. "Starter" homes exceeded $500,000, putting them out of the reach of a typical family trying to enter the market. My house was purchased by a first time home buyer as well. I calculated that he would have to make over $70,000 a year just to cover the mortgage, taxes and homeowners fees. This doesn't include necessities such as food, car payments, gasoline and so forth. Loans were being made to high risk investors all with the guarantee of the federal government. After all - shouldn't everyone, even our friend Jake, be allowed to buy a house? As home prices rose and mortgage payments exceeded people's abilities to pay, creative loan packages, such as interest only loans, became the rage. There was no doubt in my mind that this house of cards would soon collapse. Yet even as I sold, neighbors scoffed at me. One lady said, "You will lose your shirt! Home prices in this area will never go down!" At that point, they were almost guaranteed to go down and go down they did, losing to date, almost 50% of their value. Two years later in 2008 the banking industry also collapsed.

I didn't know exactly the date or time the banking collapse would happen but I knew it was coming and I knew to get out of the way. Sadly, I could have made even more money if I had then bet "do not pass" on the banking and mortgage industry after I sold. But, Barney Frank assured us, right up to the end, that mortgages and the banking industry were sound investments.

The US national debt grew steadily during the 1900s. Although not wise, the debt level was nonetheless, manageable. It could have been turned around, just as Jake could have made wise decisions to pay off his original mortgage rather than go deeper into debt. Instead, the US government under Obama, Pelosi and Reid decided to take advice from those like Jake and tripled the national debt in less than two years. Like with Jake, is there any doubt as the outcome of this debacle?

Although the federal government cannot, in effect, go "bankrupt," the outcome will be seen in the value of our currency. It becomes worth less and less until, just like the banking industry, it collapses. Once again, I hear the naysayers, "This is crazy, it will never happen!" It is already happening yet people choose to ignore reality and trust that keeping their fingers crossed will restore economic stability.

There is money to be made in the collapse of a civilization, just as stated above by Rhett Butler about the South in 1861. Mr. Butler bet "do not pass" while others, those who believed in "the cause" invested in Confederate bonds, bonds which later became worthless.

Rhett Butler is a fictional character yet the message is anything but fictional. It is time to bet "do not pass" and to bet heavily. In fact, it is really no longer even a bet. A bet implies risk. The collapse of the dollar is inevitable. What is necessary to stop this debacle will never be enacted by Congress or even, if passed, would never be signed by Obama. America will simply don their rose-colored glasses and watch our country go off a cliff.

Sadly, those wise enough to protect themselves and even profit from the demise will be demonized. Just as FDR confiscated gold from those smart enough to purchase it, those who profit over the next several years will be subject to attacks from our concerned, caring government, so that they can ensure the economic misery is suffered by all. In fact, the attacks have already begun. Those in media who dare suggest such a scenario are regularly demonized. I and those who think as I do did not create this situation nor are we responsible for its eventual outcome. I have warned people for years, just as I am warning you now of what will happen and how to protect and profit from what is to come. Yet I, and those who think as I, will later be persecuted, primarily because we paid attention and acted on that information rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that all will be well.

I have bet heavily on "do not pass." I am aligning myself to profit from the upcoming destruction of the dollar, the euro, the yuan, the ruble and the global economy the left so desperately has worked to establish.

If you disagree with me, if you choose to ignore the obvious, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is and invest heavily in US government bonds. I also wish you good luck, as it is only luck which will save you.

Update: After posting this blog I received several comments regarding "Do Not Pass"-type investments. My first recommendation is to buy commodities such as gold and silver. Buying and holding physical silver is a very good idea but also not practical if you have a very large portfolio. You can also buy these metals via ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) which trade exactly like stocks. Their symbols are GLD (gold) and SLV (silver). You can also buy mutual funds and ETFs which are the inverse of various stock indices. In other words, as the S&P500 drops, for example, the value of these funds rise. These ETFs include RSW and QID. An example mutual fund would be Rydex Ursa.

I strongly urge you to read "The Great Super Cycle" by David Skarica.

Another approach would be to buy Swiss annuities. Switzerland was smart enough to stay out of the EU. The Swiss franc and been steadily rising against all other currencies. Buying a Swiss annuity provides protection since as the value of the dollar continues to fall against the Swiss franc, the value of your annuity payments increase.

Who should you believe regarding advice? Well, I can tell you who NOT to believe and that is almost anyone in the media or any "expert" interviewed on television. I have been listening to said experts for ten years telling me that gold and silver were, and continue to be, bad investments yet their return has exceeded any other investment vehicle.

The more you read and investigate options, the more you will learn what is available to you to protect yourself.

32. The Bubble Generation

2009-10-09T05:49:00.000-07:00

I've always wondered into which generation I was born. I was born too late to be a "baby boomer" and too early to be a Gen "X"er. But now I think I have it figured out. I'm part of the "Bubble Generation." My generation has watched the world progress from one political and economic bubble to the next. Although too young to fully understand at the time, the 1960s were the "sex and drug" bubble. It all must have sounded so wonderful with Timothy Leary preaching free love and LSD for everyone. But reality kicked in and society found it rather difficult to function with everybody "tuned in" and "turned on" rather than working, earning a living and raising their families.

The next major bubble was the technology, stock market bubble of the 1990s. Stock prices of companies, with little hope of ever being profitable, soared into the outer layers of space. In 1999 I actually heard a financial anaylst on television say, "maybe P/E (price earnings) ratios don't mean anything anymore. Maybe we need a new method of evaluating stock pricing." Yeah, right - profits don't mean anything to a company and its stock price. I couldn't help but wonder from which Ivy League university she graduated. Of course, that bubble burst and the NASDAQ index lost 85% of its value over just a few months.

The bubble then moved into real estate, especially in California, New York and Florida. Housing prices went up, up, up!! I live in Southern California and made money just sitting in my condo watching TV. It was great!! But, fortunately, having watched the other bubbles burst and learning from them, I sold my condo in 2004 and started renting. Since that time, the value of my old condo has dropped 35% and will likely drop much further.

In all three of the above cases, the word "bubble" is perfect to describe what was happening - something growing but filled with little more than air. And considering the outer skin of a bubble is thin and weak, it is guaranteed to pop.

Now we are in a major political bubble, one with both an older and a newer component. The new component is Messiah Obama, savior of America and probably the world, if you ask his disciples. It is eerie to see magazine racks with his pictures, week after week, month after month, adorning not only political magazines but also health, beauty, women's issues and probably pet care magazines, if I looked long enough. Never has a president and his wife had such constant, worshipful exposure in the media. To further the bubble, Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Interesting, considering that war still rages in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran threatens to obliterate Israel and Mr Peace-Prize Obama sitting in the oval office looking left and right for someone to please tell him what he should do!

Obama was elected on a platform of "Hope and Change" - subjective ideals that mean something different to each person. Many voters who hoped he meant less government and more personal freedom are discovering the "loons" on the right were correct in their dire predictions of 2008. Obama's idealistic hope is a nation like those formed by Mao and Lenin instead of ours formed by Franklin and Jefferson. Considering that Obama has accomplished basically nothing in his life, save for being elected a senator and now president, he too seems be filled more with air than any sort of substance. He is another bubble just waiting to burst.

The second component of this current bubble is socialism. This and Obama's bubbles are fueling each other and both will end badly. Socialism is another empty promise of a utopian world where everyone runs barefoot through clover, smiling and laughing. It seems oddly tied to the LSD induced fantasies of the 1960s bubble, doesn't it? But the promises made by FDR, Johnson, Clinton and Obama are beginning to unravel as the piper is now ready to be paid and the government coffers are empty. Unbelievably, the socialist bubble is already beginning to burst in Europe as staunchly socialist countries, such as Germany, are realizing the folly of the utopian dream and voting for more conservative governments.

The people are rising up. We see it in townhall meetings, Tea Parties, the continued success of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the FoxNews network. People are emerging from the utopian fog and realizing that the socialist promises are merely hot air and that their lives are now threatened by its demise.

Cycle Theorists are pointing to mid-2011 as a major political crisis, one in which Obama may be forced from office. Not by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" but by all Americans who find that the promises made to their generations are nothing but more hot air. It will happen as the US and global economies burst and melt down and all can clearly see that the emporer truly is without clothes.

It will be another burst bubble for my generationm but one overdue and necessary for our economies to get back to reality and move forward on fundamentals rather than fantasy.

31. Depraved

2009-09-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

Depraved: Marked by evil.

I don't know why I am still surprised when liberals expose their hypocrisy. It's nothing new. Al Gore preaches global climate gloom and doom then zips around the world in private jets. Ted Kennedy loves high inheritance taxes, except when it comes to his family whose family trust sits in Fiji, far away from US tax laws. I've written more about this in my essay Who You Calling Rhetorical? But in the last couple of days, I've seen liberals sink to new lows, so low that it can only be called depravity.

Roman Polanski was recently arrested in Switzerland and is being held for deportation to the US for raping a 13 year-old girl in 1977. Shortly after pleading guilty, Polanski fled the country before he could be sentenced and sent to prison. He has remained a fugitive ever since.

I remember reading that Polanski didn't realize he was doing anything wrong at the time of the rape. In France, Polanski's home country, the age of consent was much younger than 18, as it is here in the US. I did not research the situation further and believed that although that might be true, isn't "ignorance of the law" still no excuse?

Years later, I read the full account of the charges against Polanski. In no way was sex with this young girl consensual. In a hot tub, Mr. Polanski gave her alcohol, drugs and took nude pictures of her. According to testimony, the girl resisted his advances and told him repeatedly to stop. Mr. Polanski ignored her pleas and proceeded to rape and sodomize her.

I would think that liberals would be cheering his capture. But then, as I said earlier, I still apparently think that liberals have a soul or at least some sort of conscience. But no, they are pounding their fists and signing petitions for Polanski's immediate release. The National Organization of Women doesn't seem to care, Hollywood clearly doesn't care, neither of the Obamas, parents of two small girls, are saying much. Whoopi Goldberg even said this wasn't really "rape-rape, it was something else." Ms. Goldberg was unable to define, however, what that "something else" actually was.

Roman Polanski is one of them, one of the elite left - Someone above the law, above punishment, above accountability. The pattern of the left is to marginalize women who stand in their way, should they inconveniently get raped. It was "consensual" as was reported regarding Clinton and Lewinsky. She was "a bimbo" as was reported regarding Clinton and Paula Jones. Also regarding Clinton and Paula Jones was James Carville's lovely comment, "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." There is also the Kennedy family rape in Florida where the woman was marginalized. No liberal women's group came to the victim's aid and the Kennedy boy, much like others in his family, was set free. The women you see, are chattel, bimbos, idiots. So somehow, to liberals, these women all deserved it - right? This isn't coming from rednecks in some southern state often distained by the left, this is coming from Hollywood power brokers and leaders in the democratic party. Like they said about Clinton and any one of the women who accused him of rape - "Hey, forget about it and just Move On!"

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Woody Allen supports Polanski's release, or maybe even Martin Scorsese or Harvey Weinstein. But what does surprise me is the number of women, from Whoopi to Debra Winger to Monica Bellucci who see nothing wrong with what Polanski did and are protesting for his release. Ms. Winger said, "it is a three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities." Sick, Ms. Winger, sick.

I don't have children, but I cannot be around the children of my friends and family without feeling fiercely protective. When I am with them, especially the girls, and am in public with them, my eyes are darting back and forth looking for any sign of trouble. I know my body is tense as I prepare to engage any yet unseen enemy of these children. Any man who drugs and sodomizes a child should be sent to prison for the rest of his life. There should be no questions, no middle ground, no "well what about this or that." I know if any child in my charge was raped and sodomized as Polanski did to this girl I would do everything possible to ensure that the beast never saw another sunrise.

I cannot believe that any human, regardless of their political beliefs, could for one moment support the release of Polanski. But Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Debra Winger, Harvey Weinstein, Monica Bellucci, Pedro Almodovar, Woody Allen, John Landis and over one hundred others of Hollywood's liberal elite, don't agree with me. After all, they say, it was a long time ago and besides, we like his movies!

It has been reported that the girl, now 45, hopes the case is dropped. On the other hand, the woman was also paid off in a civil suit against Polanski. So, I guess if you are a liberal, can flee the country and pay off your victims, even child rape is okay.

There is almost no political issue in which I support Obama. In fact, I see him as the worst possible thing that could have happened to America. In spite of this, if any man drugged, raped and sodomized one of his two little girls, I would hope that all of America would join me in ensuring the perpetrator be sent to jail forever. But then, I know now that my hopes would likely be dashed. For if that man was Roman Polanski, Hollywood would probably just shrug their shoulders and say, "hey - just move on. After all, it wasn't really a rape-rape, was it?"

30. A Modest Proposal

2009-09-15T05:57:00.000-07:00

It has been 280 years since Jonathan Swift penned his proposal, and now it is my turn. I've decided to stop fighting the enlightened, intellectual progressives. In fact, I'm picking up their mantle with the exuberance of a zealot. I agree with their vision, their hope of a better future for all. They want healthcare for all Americans. I say great!! But I also say, "Why stop there? Why not guarantee a comfortable and safe future for all Americans?"

So, here is my modest proposal. The US government will give each American $1 million to secure their future. In addition, $500,000 will be given to each family to purchase a home. Health care will be provided, regardless of cost, to each and every citizen of this great country. No American shall ever go without a safe home, a warm bed, a full belly and the best medical care possible. Upon the birth of a child, the government will issue a check for another $1 million to ensure that child's future.

How can any caring, loving, concerned, compassionate American not agree with me? To disagree with this proposal would doubtlessly be because of hate and/or racism. No other reason could possibly be valid. Don't we all want the best for each and every one of us?

What, you say? This proposal is too much? Too extreme? Too generous? I'll ignore for a moment your obvious greed and selfishness and try to be open to debate and negotiation. How about we reduce the amount to only $750,000 per American and only $400,000 for a home. The health care, though, is not negotiable. Unlike so many non-progressives, I have a heart, a soul, a conscience.

-------------------------------------

Just as Swift's essay was satirical, so, of course is mine. Sadly, many of the progressive left would almost agree with such a proposal. Since their make-believe world has no limits or boundries, this proposal, or some variation of it, certainly is possible. Isn't it?

I do agree with socialist progressives that it would be wonderful if healthcare could be provided to every American, even every person on this planet. It would be great if the world worked in such a way that every person could live without want. But this is not reality. We've seen the results of countries trying to ensure "fairness" and the results have been nothing more than common misery for all. No American ever flew to the USSR to avail themselves of their excellent medical care. No wall was erected around the prior communist eastern bloc countries to keep people out, only to keep people in. No one has ever risked their life swimming from Florida to reach a supposed paradise in Cuba.

The issue with Obama's healthcare is its cost. It isn't about racism, or greed or hate. Let's look at my modest proposal and its cost. The US would have to print almost $1 quadrillion. What would be the result? First of all, those dollars would basically be worthless, inflation would drive the cost of every product to stratospheric heights. Even if inflation could be avoided, most Americans would stop working and live off their windfall. If no one is working, who is producing the goods and services we need to live? Someone owning chickens would quickly find a market for his eggs at $1,000 each!

If you, Mr. Progressive, think this is ridiculous and Obamacare isn't, explain to me why the left accused then President Bush of bankrupting our country when the national debt hit $1 trillion yet you see nothing wrong with Obama tripling that debt in his first six months in office. The projections are that should all of Obama's programs be implemented, the debt will rise rapidly over the next ten years to $10 to $20 trillion. How can that possibly make sense to you? On Sunday, Obama shockingly stated that the only way to reduce federal spending, at this point, is to implement this healthcare program. Ignoring the data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which stated that the cost would actually rise, Obama still stands up and makes such a statement. Even worse, there are those that believe him.

Yes, it would be nice to give everyone, everything they want or need, but life simply doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers were wise beyond their time. We can provide opportunity and nothing more. It is up to each individual to succeed.

I have written before in my essay America The Prejudiced of immigrants from all over the world who have found success in this country. We provided opportunity and they came, they worked hard, they went to college, they saved, they invested, they bought homes and they made lives for themselves and for their families. Something not possible in the socialistic countries from which they fled.

Yet through some fantasy delusion, the progressive left sees a socialistic utopia as possible here in the US. Yet in spite of the fact - the fact - that it has never worked anywhere else in the world at any time in history, they still believe somehow, some way, it will work here.

My proposal is satire. To the left, it is sadly somehow real.

(Special thanks to Roger Massengale)

29. The Party of Parrots

2009-09-03T06:07:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I read an opinion piece regarding Obama's recent troubles getting legislation through Congress, especially his health care bill. After completing the article, I continued on and read many of the comments posted by other readers. Not surprisingly I read the same comments I've read many times before from other articles. The comments come from what I now call "The Parrots." A parrot, usually a leftist, is one who continually repeats the same phrase over and over without understanding what he or she says or even why he or she says it. Yet, repeat it they do.

The first parrot phrase I've found is that the Republican Party is the "Party of 'No'." Since conservatives reject Obama's socialistic agenda they have been encouraging their Congress men and women to vote against these policies. Of course, that vote would be "No." Do these same parrots see Democrats as the party of "Yes?" Hmmm.... Whenever conservatives try to push legislation for choice in education, allowing poorer parents the same priveleges to send their children to private schools as the rich, what does the left say? "No, No, No, No, No!!!"

What about privatization of Social Security? If you read my article "Jack Makes An Investment" you'll discover that privatization would conservatively lead to retirement benefits five to ten times greater than the current government controlled program. What has the left said about such a change? "No, No, No, No, No!"

These are just two examples of the supposed "Yes Party" stomping their feet, taking their shoes off, beating them on their tables and shouting, "No, No, No!" But does that stop the parrots from assigning that label to conservatives? Well, um... no, it doesn't.

The second label used against conservatives is that we are the "Haters." Hate, hate, hate - that's all we do on the right, we hate everyone and everything, well, at least according to the parrots. If anyone disagrees with any policy in any way of Obama's - they are a hater. No discussion, no debate, no give and take - just hate. Hmmm...... let me think, what did the left call George W. Bush? Nazi, Stupid, Racist...... I guess I just don't feel the love there. Sounds like hate to me.

Jesse Jackson has made a career spewing hate by calling people racists. Harvard professor Henry Gates was quick to decry his arresting officer as a racist. What about Obama's "Green Czar" Van Jones, saying "they [Republicans] are a**holes?" He's also made racially charged statements referring to "white polluters and the white environmentalists steering poison to minority communities." More hate. On any day of the week, visit the DailyKos and read the postings or check out the HuffingtonPost and read what the bloggers say about anyone who disagrees with the policies of the left. How any rational person can read that crap and see love and compassion is beyond me. It's hate - vitriolic hate. I don't know how many times I've been in a room with leftists and someone makes a political comment to which all I do is simply question their position, asking them to give supporting evidence for their views, and I am met with a litany of name-calling and hate. Hate, hate, hate. Hate and more parrot phrases.

The third parrot example is to me, the most interesting. I first heard this parrot line from MSNBCs Rachel Maddow. Ms. Maddow went to Stanford University yet she too is nothing more than a parrot. She was ranting on about conservatives standing up against Obama and Pelosi's push to ramp up this countries run to socialism. Her exceedingly brilliant parrot phrase was, "if these people hate socialism so much, why do they still draw Social Security and Medicare?" Wow, Rachel, you got me there. Ok, Rachel and the rest of you parrots - are you listening? I'll try to take this one slowly. Yes, as much as I would love to see both Social Security and Medicare phased out, I can't blame anyone, conservative or liberal, for expecting the government to live up to their promises. If I'm 65 years old and have been forced all my life to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into both Social Security and Medicare, yes, I do expect a return, pitifully small though it may be. If I had been given a choice to contribute to Social Security or to a private program and chose the private program, no, I would not then expect to draw from the public option. The same is true for Medicare. For what I and my employer have paid into the system over my lifetime, I could secure private insurance for my retirement years. But, it didn't go into a private account, it went to the government. So, I do expect them, regardless of my belief in the program, to pony up. Just as I would expect the same from any organization, public or private, into which I've paid and who has guaranteed me a product or service in return. Rachel, let me opt out of these programs and put that same money into a private fund and you'll never hear me ask for government assistance. Is that fair? Are you ok with that? But the supposed "Party of Choice" has repeatedly said, "NO, NO, NO!! NO Choice for YOU!"

But if Rachel sees this as hypocrisy, let's take a closer look at the left. In 2001, the state Democrats in Arkansas wanted to raise taxes. Then Governor Mike Huckabee said "no." But, he did respect those that wished for such an increase and created the "Tax Me More Fund." This fund allowed those leftists who believed in the "public option" and higher taxes to put their money where their mouth was and voluntarily contribute to this fund. The result? Six months later the fund had only raised $1,900. I wonder how much Rachel contributed.

I'm all for the "public option" as long as the public who demands that option also pays for it. Obama and his followers want health care for an additional 50 million people. Great - tax them more!! Set up a fund to which they can contribute. Then use that money to purchase health insurance for all of the uninsured. What do you think Rachel?

I'm guessing Rachel and the rest of the parrots will say, "No, No, No!"

28. Two Townhall Questions For President Obama

2009-08-12T06:05:00.000-07:00

President Obama, thank you for taking my question today.

First of all, I want to assure you that I do not represent any insurance company nor am I a plant of any faction of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy." I am not a member of any mob, a racist nor an "evil-mongerer." I am just an ordinary American citizen who is deeply concerned about the proposed health care initiative in Congress. Second, in spite of Ms. Pelosi's views, I do not see my concerns as "un-American" and I trust you will not see them as such either.

In listening to many of the townhall meetings which have been broadcast, members of Congress, as well as yourself, Mr. President, have often been unable to answer specific questions regarding the content of the health care bill. The reason usually cited is that several versions of the bill are currently working their way through committees and it is not yet currently known what will be in the final bill. This is quite understandable. On the other hand, in July, before the Congressional summer break in August, you were trying to push this seemingly unknown bill through both houses before members of Congress and the American public were even able to review its contents.

So, my first question: Mr. President, will you promise me and all Americans that when this bill is fully hammered out, that it will be posted on the internet for a minimum of eight (8) weeks so that all members of Congress and all concerned citizens of this great country are allowed sufficient time to review and understand a bill that will place one-seventh of our economy under government control? This will give us all time to understand and digest this bill and then time to contact our members of Congress with our comments and concerns. Considering the magnitude of this bill and its potential impact on our economy, is this really too much to ask?

My second question: Mr. President, you have made many sweeping promises regarding this bill. One such recent promise is that no one will ever have to stand in line for health care. You have portrayed this bill a the solution to our nation's health care problems and concerns. So, Mr. President, will you promise to me and all Americans here and now, that one additional clause will be placed in this bill. That clause will read:

"All members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the President of the United States, all members of the President's cabinet, all federal employees and all members of the families of each of these offices must be covered soley by this plan. Any elected or appointed federal official, member or employee not choosing this plan must reliquish their office or job within the federal government."

If I was a member of Congress or even the President of the United States, there is not one single piece of legislation I would ever force upon the American people that I would not also wish to apply to me. I trust you, your wife Michelle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Al Sharpton, Dick Durbin, Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and every other member of Congress who is committed to this health plan, hold these same values and will welcome the excellent care which will undoubtedly be provided. And if this plan is not good enough for you, your family or for your esteemed colleagues, then why should it be good enough for any other American?

Thank you Mr. President for your time and your concern.

27. What's In A Name?

2009-05-28T10:19:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, the California Supreme Court actually lived up to their role in government, well, at least six of the seven justices did. Instead of legislating from the bench, they ruled in favor of the majority of Californians who passed Proposition 8, the proposition which bans gay marriage. In their summary, they sent the measure back to the people. If gay marriage is to become law, they said, it must be the residents of California who approve the measure.

Bravo. It’s about time.

But this puts the gay community in a very awkward situation. For their future proposition to pass, they must now somehow convince the same people they have been demonizing in the past to vote for their measure in the future. Since the passage of Prop 8, here is a sampling of what I have seen on television from the pro-gay marriage crowd:

1. Near-rioting in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles. The Mormon church has been a frequent target of anti-Prop 8 activists. But demographically, the churches most responsible for the passage of Prop 8 are the black churches and Latino Catholic churches.

2. During an anti-Prop 8 demonstration in Palm Springs, a small, elderly woman entered the crowd carrying a cross. A demonstrator wrestled the cross out of her hands, threw it on the ground and stomped on it.

3. Tom Hanks calling those who supported Prop 8 “un-American.” Although he later apologized, it’s pretty difficult putting that comment back in a can where it should have remained.

4. In San Francisco, during a Catholic mass, several drag queens dressed as nuns, entered the church and approached the altar to take communion. Again, this was a protest against the churches position on gay marriage, but it desecrated the altar and the sacrament and certainly won no converts to their cause.

5. Anti-Prop 8 groups calling anyone who disagrees with their position as “homophobes” and “hate-mongers.”

It is fascinating to me that anyone in the gay community would think that these actions would rally support for their cause. In fact, it has the opposite effect by polarizing and empowering those who oppose gay marriage. I would think that even Mormons who might have been sympathetic or even voted against Prop 8 now may change their mind after the near rioting outside of their temple.

Fred Phelps, a minister in Topeka, Kansas campaigns heavily against the gay community with his “God Hates Fags” website and organized protests. He is a vile, repulsive man. The gay community, understandably, denounces Fred and his disgusting demonstrations, yet they take his same approach by attacking those with whom they disagree. Is Fred winning over converts with his disgusting antics? If not, why does the gay community feel that it will work for them?

The gay community and its supporters claim this issue is about “rights.” It isn’t though, it’s merely about a word and that word is “marriage.” They could easily have the same rights as long as they use a word or phrase other than “marriage.” Calling it “domestic partnership” or “life partnership” would make all the difference. Polls within California have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of voters are sympathetic and would vote for such a measure. But once the proposition invokes “marriage” the attitudes of voters change. Their position is understandable since marriage has strong religious meanings, especially for Catholics and Mormons.

But this really isn’t about rights or even fairness, it is about money and political power. By keeping your group victimized and agitated you also keep them organized. As long as this remains a hot political issue, money will continue to flow into the Human Rights Campaign and other pro-gay marriage organizations. Take away the hot-button topic and you lose your financial support.

Respecting the beliefs of others and working toward a reasonable compromise is clearly not part of this movement. It is all or nothing. It has been decided that nothing short of “marriage” will suffice. So, more money, more anger, more protests, more victimization, more demonization and more finger pointing are ahead for California and the rest of the country.

What a waste.

26. Dem Bones

2009-05-08T09:42:00.000-07:00

"De back bone connected to de neck bone
De neck bone connected to de head bone
Oh hear de word of de Lawd!"

I guess my biggest problem with liberal ideals is that they all seem disconnected from the reality that everything in life is interconnected. Each of their ideals can only operate in the pristine fantasy land in which liberals abide. Whether it be political or economic, each item exists in a separate little bubble and none of those bubbles apparently interact.

Since we are in a recession, let’s first start with economics. Liberals believe they can raise federal income by simply raising taxes on corporations. Sounds pretty simple, the companies pay more from their profits and the government has more money to spend. Of course, this ignores the reaction from the corporations and consumers. To maintain their profits, corporations will first consider raising the prices of their products to meet the higher tax demands. They may lay off workers, reducing their expenses. They may even consider relocating their facilities to another state or country with more favorable tax codes. In general though, raising taxes on corporations rarely increases revenues to the Feds. In fact, it is more likely to reduce jobs, which then in turn, reduces the taxes each of those employees would have paid.

How about raising taxes on rich people, something Obama and most liberals feel is a solution. Most of those rich people have options, just like the corporations. They may switch investments to municipal bonds to avoid taxes. As tax rates rise, the lower interest rates paid by muni bonds become more attractive and more profitable. They may shelter income by forming a foundation, something the Clintons and Michael Moore found as a good way to avoid taxation. How about moving money offshore? Whether legal or not, this is an option that the Kennedy family found to be quite appealing. In each case, federal and state revenues drop, not increase.

Yet when you mention these outcomes to a liberal, they dismiss them as irrelevant. It doesn’t appear that they really care about outcome – just revenge in some twisted way.

Unions are another banner which liberals proudly wave. Yes, unions do generally ensure higher wages for unskilled workers, but they are more than just a wage problem for corporations. In the 1940s, the vast majority of products in the world were manufactured in the US. Today the number is less than 25%. Unions drive jobs out of the country – that is a fact. Which is better, lots of jobs at $10 an hour or just a very few at $30 an hour?

The US currently imports more steel than it manufactures. The demand is here, but union, government regulations and taxation all drive the production elsewhere. Can’t liberals see the correlation? Are fewer American jobs what liberals really want? Apparently so.

Liberals often complain about jobs being shipped overseas. Guess what? When wages and taxes are lower and there are lower costs associated with less government regulation then the end price of the product is also lower. Guess who ultimately drives those jobs overseas? Bush? Reagan? Greedy corporations? Nope, it is the consumer. By buying cheaper, foreign made products it puts US companies in a position in which they can no longer compete. A liberal acquaintance of mine recently complained about the lack of electric and fuel efficient cars produced in the US. I’ll ignore for the moment that he drives a Japanese luxury import running on eight cylinders, but the reality is that these cars have been produced and have been available and no one bought them!! Detroit wasn’t producing big SUVs because they just liked the look of them, they produced them because of consumer demand.

Bringing these jobs back to the US is really quite simple and needs no government intervention – if all liberals would just dig deeper into their pockets and pay the additional costs of US made products and US made products only, the jobs would come rushing back. But say goodbye to cheap clothing, electronics, appliances and so forth, because US made products, especially those produced in union-only shops, will cost one hundred to one thousand percent more.

I attended a concert by the local symphony shortly after the election last year. I suspect that most of the musicians enthusiastically voted for Obama. I’m sure it never occurred to them that their salaries are paid, for the most part, by rich individuals and corporations. So, while they think they are “sticking it to ‘The Man’” they are actually damaging their own financial future. When the income of any organization or individual is reduced, whether by lower profits or higher taxation, the first thing they cut is their charitable contributions. I’m sure there will be layoffs coming to most of the orchestras, opera companies and other non-profit organizations in the coming years. Some will likely be forced to shut down.

What about our esteemed institutions of higher learning? They love students who major in art, history, women’s studies, cultural and race studies, poetry, philosophy, literature, humanities and so forth. Guess what? Aside from teaching these same subjects, there are no jobs waiting for these graduates except at Macy’s selling shoes. Our economy is demanding engineers and computer scientists and instead we are sending flower children into the real world. Computer jobs didn’t go to India and China just because of lower wages, job positions couldn’t be filled in this country because there wasn’t a large enough pool of qualified workers. As the demand rose, wages rose so high for the few US workers that did exist that it then became worthwhile to export the jobs.

Liberals want to believe that there are no consequences for any of their actions. They praise Obama for his massive spending spree while refusing to acknowledge the future cost to our economy including higher taxes for everyone, especially our children and grandchildren. When confronted with these facts, they immediately go into the same, tired, bizarre excuse that I’ve heard over and over again, “Well, what about Bush? What about his spending?” First of all, Bush isn’t president anymore – get over it. Second, I can only assume that since they approve of Obama’s spending, then they must have approved of Bush’s spending. If not, then they must believe in the child’s rule of “two wrongs really do make a right.” Third, just in case anyone wants to know, I was equally unhappy with Bush's spending and domestic policies.

I can give hundreds of examples just like those above, yet liberals will still reject the logic and continue living in their fantasy bubble world. With Obama as their head mouseketeer, leading their no-consequences parade, our economy will continue to collapse as talented individuals, companies and capital leave this country for economies more firmly grounded in reality.

25. Rational?

2009-04-24T12:46:00.000-07:00

My cousin sent me a link from the alleged investment expert Jamie Dlugosch. The title of the article is “There is no place for gold on the global financial stage.” Mr. Dlugosch states that he “…despise[s] gold and everything it stands for” and that investment in gold is “hogwash!” He then lays out his five “expert” reasons for not investing in gold.

I have no idea what qualifies Mr. Dlugosh to hold the title of “expert.” But what I do know is that his five reasons seem to come more from a novice than any sort of thoughtful expert.

Since mid-2001, gold has risen from $260 to almost $1,000 an ounce. Although it has retreated recently to the $900 range, it is likely preparing for another major run upward. During this same time I’ve listened to investment talking heads on TV bash the buying of gold while gold ignored their advice and continued to climb higher in value. During that same time we watched tech stocks bubble, burst and lose 85% of their value under the Clinton administration. The real estate market bubbled and, to date, has lost 35% of its value. All this while gold increased 285% in price.

So, even though this site is primarily about politics, I’m going to take the time to go through the five points and refute Mr. Dlugosch’s arguments. But then, maybe this is about politics. I suspect that Mr. Dlugosch is probably a disciple and kool-aid drinker of the messiah and doesn’t want to accept that Obama is destroying the dollar, our economy and our way of life. In doing so, this then leads to gold being a very good investment and hedge against losses in other markets.

So – let’s begin…. Here are Mr. Dlugosch’s five reasons for not investing in gold. I have selectively edited his comments on each point. My rebuttals follow each of his thoughts.

1. There Is No Inflation. “….Today, the numbers do not support an inflationary environment and fear over current spending and stimulus of the government creating inflation is misplaced.”

Apparently Mr. Dlubosch actually believes government inflation figures, probably the most manipulated and inaccurate reports produced by the feds. The higher inflation, the more the government must pay in Social Security, government salaries and pensions, etc. It is to their benefit to keep the figures low. I don’t need an official report to know that inflation is alive and well in the US.

The Obama stimulus package, budget, massive borrowing and the Treasury simply printing another trillion dollars to throw into the economy, all work together to devalue the dollar and destroy the economy. Certainly, he can’t believe that this isn’t happening and that all those reasons don’t work to increase the value of gold? Well, maybe he can.

2. Gold Prices Are Easily Manipulated. “Unlike paper currency that is impossible to manipulate in any way, gold can be accumulated by a group of connected buyers for the sole purpose of eliminating supply from the market.”

Wow, amazing. He actually states that paper currency is impossible to manipulate. Someone needs to tell George Soros about this. Based on just one comment he made in an interview about the French Franc, the franc plummeted in value the following day. Or what about China's persistent manipulation of the value of the yuan? Doesn't Mr. Dlugosch read the financial news?

Is the price of gold manipulated? Yes, just as the stock market, oil, corn, wheat other commodities, real estate and currencies are manipulated. And who are the biggest players in these manipulations? It is banks and governments which regularly manipulate currencies, stocks, bonds and commodities. But much like the stock market, these manipulations are short-term moves. The market will always find its correct level over time.

3. Gold Is In Limited Supply. “Those who want to return to the gold standard fail to appreciate that at some point a lack of supply could have disastrous consequences in a gold-based system.”

Yes, there is a very limited supply of gold in the world, only about two Olympic-sized pools worth. It is one reason this metal gets the adjective “precious” in front of its name.

But as fiat currencies become worthless and individuals turn to something to preserve their wealth, precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum are at the top of the list. China has even begun to hoard copper as a hedge against falling fiat currencies.

Is it viable to have a gold-backed currency? Probably not, but that doesn’t make gold a “hogwash investment” over the next 3 to 5 years.

4. Gold Was Dead For 20 Years. “For more than 20 years, the price of gold did nothing. If you invested in gold, you wasted your time. That all changed with fears of inflation and hedge fund speculation several years ago. Today, the church of gold is full of believers. What changed?”

Yes, that is true. But from 1975 until early 1980, gold was a fantastic investment, going from $35 to $860 an ounce, a return of over 2,300%. Mr. Dlugosch, all investments move in cycles. Stocks tend to move in twenty-year cycles. From 1920 to 1940 the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved from about 110 to only 130. From 1960 to 1980, the DJIA again went sideways from about 600 to 800. That was an average annual return of merely 1.45%. But that doesn’t mean that stocks weren’t a fantastic investment between the years of 1940 to 1960 and 1980 to 2000.
If you bought real estate in Southern California in 1989 you watched as the value of your property declined 40% and had to wait another ten years for the value to return to your original purchase price. Investment-wise, was that a good ten years for you? On the other hand, if you bought real estate in 1994 and sold it in 2004 you did quite well.

All investments have periods of boom and bust.

5. The Dollar Is The Global Currency. “Do not underestimate the strength of this country as compared to the rest of the world. Predictions of our demise are premature.”

I agree, we are still a powerhouse of a country. That does not mean that the dollar cannot go into crisis nor is it premature to sound the alarm at the direction we are being taken by the Obama administration and a complicit Congress. Our government is moving in the same direction as other fallen empires by destroying our monetary system and our economy through excessive borrow and spend policies. I’m sure there were those shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire who insisted it couldn’t happen as well. With computers and the internet, it can happen almost instantaneously. Civilizations and empires also come and go in cycles. And even if this is not the end of the United States as we know it, it again does not mean that gold is not a good investment right now.

Mr. Dlugosch founded and edits a newsletter called “The Rational Investor.” I guess we’ll see just how “rational” his advice really is over the next three to five years.

24. The Bubble-Headed Bleach Blonde

2009-04-24T12:43:00.000-07:00

"We got the bubbled-headed bleach blonde
Who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash
with a gleam in her eye." - Don Henley, Dirty Laundry

The other day I caught a few minutes of CNN, you know “The most trusted name in news?” They were discussing another of Obama’s anti-business proposals and the costs associated with such a program. The anchor finished the segment by saying, “the concern is that corporations will pass these costs on to the consumer.”

I couldn’t suppress my very audible sigh. Is there a brain in anyone’s head in the media? How about academia? I’m beginning to seriously wonder.

So, in my effort to educate the left by writing this column, I’m going to give a brief class on businesses and corporations. I’m hoping to enlighten those Ivy League intellectuals that run the news rooms of CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC. God knows, SOMEONE needs to have a talk with them.

Guess what Ms. CNN-Reporter? ALL costs of businesses are borne by the consumer. Did you hear that? The consumer pays ALL COSTS. Instead of repeating this ad nauseam, I’ll just ask you to re-read the first sentence of this paragraph fifteen times.

Costs of doing business include rent, salaries, fuel, energy, raw materials, office supplies and equipment, legal fees, government regulation, lawsuits and, are you ready for this one…….. TAXES. Yep – even corporate taxes – are paid by the CONSUMER. These costs are passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. And, if you didn’t already know, a corporation isn’t even a person – it is merely a piece of paper filed away in a law office.

Now, what about the investors, you know, the stock holders? Hey, maybe they are the evil, greedy ones CNN talks about. Let me ask you a question, Ms. CNN. Suppose a stock broker calls and wants you to invest in the ABC Corporation, a little start up firm that makes ATWs (advanced technology widgets). The price per share is $10. You understandably ask about the company’s profit potential. ABC Corp, your broker tells you, has no intention of making profits – EVER. So, if the company does well, your share price will never be more than the $10 you originally paid. If they don’t do well, you’ll lose your money. Also, since they don’t want to be greedy and make a profit, there will never be any dividends paid to you. So – are you ready to invest? At the bank in a safe, secure CD, you’ll get 3% on your money. If you invest in ABC, at best, you’ll merely get your money back and, at worst, you’ll lose. Is this a difficult decision? If a corporation doesn’t make profits, no one will invest in their business.

Hey, Ms. CNN – are you still with me here? Or am I moving too fast?

Ok, let’s review - if a company doesn’t pass along its costs of doing business to the consumer it can’t make a profit. If it doesn’t make a profit, then investors won’t invest and there won’t be any companies.

During the Clinton administration, Big Bill was hot on raising the minimum wage. A businessman challenged Bill complaining that the higher wages would hurt his business. Yale and Rhodes Scholar Bill replied, “just raise your prices.” Guess what Bill, if I get a raise yet the cost of everything I buy goes up at the same time, my raise is meaningless. I’m in the same spot I was before I got the raise.

The left keeps proving to me over and over again that they are the “feel” people. They make all decisions based on how they feel and never seem to bother using their heads. Yes, it does feel kind of good to hate big corporations. It feels good to point your finger at something or someone else on which to blame your own problems even though it solves nothing. Ultimately, you will be the one that is hurt, not the corporations. You will be hurt either in having to pay more for goods and services, by losing your job or you will watch your investments, your pension, your IRA and your 401(k) values drop like a stone falling from a tall building. If you ultimately drive corporations out of business or out of the country, it will be the employees and again, the investors who are hurt. It’s pretty difficult to hurt a piece of paper – or didn’t you know.

Hey – guess what Ms. CNN, that’s exactly what is happening right now. Stock prices are falling just like that stone off of that imaginary building and with it Americans are watching their savings and retirement funds fall dramatically in value. It started, interestingly enough, as soon as Obama got the democrat party nomination and began his war on business.

Now do you understand? Or will you need another class?

23. The Perfect Storm

2009-04-22T18:27:00.000-07:00

We conservatives have sat passively by for the last seventy years while the wave of socialism, started by the FDR administration, has continued to build strength and pour over us. We’ve worked, saved, raised our families and voted yet the storm, with a brief respite during the Reagan years, has grown larger and more devastating over time.

LBJ’s Great Society cemented the inevitable outcome we are just beginning to witness as those who contribute less and less demand more and more from those who produce wealth in this country. They have demanded, organized, lobbied, intimidated and voted themselves entitlements which are quickly bankrupting our nation.

We conservatives sat quietly and watched in the early 2000s as the Bush administration and the Republican controlled congress did nothing to ease the tide of socialism. Economic values and principles embraced by conservatives were ignored by Bush and the Congress and spending and waste continued unchecked.

Disillusioned by the Republican party and their candidate fielded for the 2008 election, some were desperate enough to vote democrat while many opted not to vote at all. Regardless, the approaching wave could not be stopped. Now all elements have come together to form the perfect storm, an economic Category 5 hurricane led by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the democrat Congress and the main-stream media. Together they will destroy our economy, the dollar and every entitlement program devised over the last 70 years. It will wipe out and cleanse this country of socialism much as Katrina washed over New Orleans. In their attempt to banish the US of conservatism, they will instead be washing away all signs of their precious socialism.

Just as a hurricane needs fuel to continue its destructive journey, this storm needs money - your money - to feed itself. Hurricane Obama will seek out every dollar and confiscate it from those who have worked and saved. It will be taken “for the good of the collective.” When the monetary well is sucked dry, the Fed will print more and more worthless, inflated dollars of which will have no real value.

As much as Obama loves to crow about only raising taxes on a small portion of Americans, it is only the delusional who believe it. Taxes on sales, income and energy have already begun to rise in many states. "Sin" taxes are increasing at astronomical rates. Fees charged by government agencies have already, in many cases, doubled. A rise in corporate taxes means a subsequent rise in the products they produce. These are taxes and fees paid by not only the wealthy and the middle class but also by the poorest of those in our society.

What is soon to come? Inheritance taxes will be raised to levels only seen in socialist Sweden. There will be no point to even attempt to save for the next generation as the government will confiscate it. Already Obama’s administration is talking of confiscating retirement savings accounts, our IRAs, 401(k)s and annuities. These have been declared to be a “failure” by his administration and that they should be rolled into the Social Security system so that the government can "properly manage" them.

Profits made by wise individuals investing in energy, gold, silver and other commodities are already being targeted. Obama wants a big portion of their "ill-gotten gains" and is looking at windfall taxes exceeding 90%.

In the late 1990s, James Dale Davidson published his book, “The Sovereign Individual.” I suggest everyone read his book keeping in mind when he wrote it and then what is happening today. We as conservatives and moderates have no choice but to economically rise up against our government to preserve ourselves. Continued inaction will destroy any security we have amassed.

We must have a two-pronged approach to this storm. The first is to preserve our own wealth and the second is to cut off the monetary fuel that feeds this monster.

First, for those who still work, increase the deductions on your W-4 form, especially if you are someone who annually receives a refund. Stop lending money to the government interest free. If you are brave enough, stop paying taxes all together. After all, doing so didn't seem to hurt Tim Geithner's career.

Second, start paying for purchases in cash, preferably from smaller, locally-owned stores and markets. Negotiate “no sales tax” purchases. Not only do you save money by avoiding taxes, the vendor (regardless of his political persuasion) avoids paying state and federal income tax as he is unlikely to declare the income.

Third, if you are over 59 ½, consider rolling all money out of your IRA and 401(k) plans. Not only are you likely to pay higher taxes on what you withdraw in the future, but you risk having what is left in the account confiscated and rolled into the Social Security system. For those in Roth IRAs, do not count on the government keeping its promise for tax-free withdrawals. Ever since the inception of the Roth IRA I have been highly suspect that anyone, especially anyone of moderate means, would ever see the day in which the government didn’t renege on that tax promise. If you are under 59 ½, I would first stop contributing to your retirement account, take that money and begin buying gold and silver, as I talk about in the point below. If you currently have money in your retirement account, consider the penalties that will apply should you pull money out of your IRA. Reconsider your account and your contributions and what would happen if that money was suddenly gone and under the control of Nancy Pelosi.

Fourth, begin buying gold and silver. Not mining stocks or ETFs, but the physical metals. Be aware that FDR confiscated gold from those wise enough to hold it in the 1930s. Much of it needs to be in vaults in foreign countries such as Switzerland, Lichtenstein, or other countries with strict, private banking laws. Do not use banks with international branches such as UBS or Credit Suisse. Find smaller, independent banks. There is nothing illegal in transferring money to another country and buying gold for the bank to hold. Keep some silver on hand, either in the form of ingots, American Eagles or silver coins minted prior to 1965.

The Obama administration is already hoisting the red flag warning us about violence in the streets. But instead of the wild-eyed, rabid, right-wing conservatives they fear, it will be those people who were promised government money and will now be cut off that will be rioting. It will be their blood that is spilled in the streets as their only sources of income are cut off or the dollars they do receive are worthless.

The storm will pass, but the victims will be like those who stayed behind in New Orleans, believing the inevitable could never happen during Katrina. Open your eyes people, it is happening now and the financial devastation will be like nothing we have ever seen before.

22. The Messiah and Change

2009-03-26T07:08:00.001-07:00

Obama and his disciples are smiling and laughing and celebrating as if there is no tomorrow. Yes, Obama is the messiah bringing change to this country and change that has long been needed. He compares himself to Abraham Lincoln and to Franklin Roosevelt. These comparisons are historically valid, except not in the way Obama envisions them. Where Lincoln unified the nation, Obama will split the country. Where FDR ushered in socialism, Obama will destroy the social programs created under FDR and those he also creates. The “change” Obama is bringing is the end of the federal government as we know it – and it is change that is long overdue and necessary to return this country to the original vision of our founding fathers.

Our country can no longer live under the burden of inept governmental control and regulation. Each social program created sucks more life out of our economy and provides little or no benefits to the supposed recipients of such programs. Like many historical events that seem fated in retrospect, Obama appears to have been selected by God as the right man in the right place at the right time. He will bring this country to its knees and he will go down in history as one of the most incompetent and hated leaders of all time. If he avoids impeachment, or even worse, he will be lucky. He will probably be the first ex-president who will have to live in exile from his home country, fearing for his life.

Unlike the 1930s when FDR began the New Deal and later in the 1960s when LBJ expanded upon those social programs with the Great Society, Obama leads this nation in a very different time. His predecessors did not face a nation whose citizens know nothing but government hand outs and programs as we do today. Millions of Americans demand or soon will demand their Social Security payments – retirement life blood for which they paid dearly during their working years. Government employees, including teachers, look forward to their pensions, many realizing, at this point, that the cupboards are already bare. Generations of families who know nothing but a life of continual welfare programs will soon be forced to work – or they will starve. Government assisted businesses which have no idea how to run profitably will soon find such assistance terminated. All will soon find the rug pulled out from beneath them when the well is dry and there is nothing to give them but worthless, inflated dollars which will barely sustain life.
Also not faced by FDR or LBJ is the internet. A government can only control its people as long as it can control their money. In the 1930s, the thought of average Americans having foreign bank accounts was unreal. Funds can now be transferred to any safe haven throughout the world with nothing more than a click of the computer mouse. As working Americans see their savings taxed to death or destroyed through inflation, they will quickly move their nest eggs abroad into havens such as gold and silver. As businesses are taxed or regulated into extinction, they too will move to business friendly nations with only satellite offices in the US. Corporations will leave the country, taking with them the jobs Americans so desperately need. Yet, Obama will find other ways to tax and confiscate the wealth of this country. Just as FDR confiscated gold from Americans wise enough to hold it as a hedge against the crash and depression of the 1930s, so will Obama come after every American wise enough to protect themselves from the destruction of the US dollar and our successful, capitalistic economic system.

But, unlike other countries and people who fell to communist/socialist regimes, Americans will rise up and revolt. We already see “Tea Parties” organizing and protesting. Several states are in the process of passing resolutions supporting the Tenth Amendment which secures states rights. Governors are refusing to accept stimulus money and with it, the strings which are attached. And many people, even average Americans, are already transferring their wealth to other countries, to protect it from the greedy, evil, power-hungry, self-serving politicians who care nothing about this country and only about their own interests.

Unlike other people at other times, most Americans are not sheep who will simply be led to the slaughter house. We will revolt, not necessarily with guns, but with something far more powerful – our wallets. We will bankrupt this country and with it the communist/socialist ideals that have slowly whittled away our freedoms and our economy. And once this country collapses, it will rise again under leadership also fated by God. Men and women, much like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in the 1700s, will take our homeland into this new century, having learned the lessons of a corrupt and over-reaching government and will place stronger restrictions and limitations into our Constitution.

Yes Obama, you will bring change, but it is the change for which I pray and not the change for which you and your disciples yearn.

21. Phoenix Rising

2009-02-27T09:26:00.000-08:00

What is the function, goal, or purpose of our public education system? Is it to ensure that every American child is educated and knowledgeable enough to compete in today’s technological age? Or is it to simply move students though an antiquated system which hemorrhages money from tax payers while supporting a massive, ineffective, bureaucratic white elephant which produces results that can only be graded as failure?

Regardless of any official response by the NEA, the public school system or any other public school organization, the actual answer is the second. Currently in the US, over fifty percent of students leave school classified as functionally illiterate, with an education level less than the fifth grade. In poorer urban areas, such as Detroit, the number soars to seventy-five percent. Blaming lack of funds is pointless since we already spend more per student than other industrialized countries with superior educational records. Even within the US there is no correlation between spending per student per state and performance results. Private schools and charter schools generally cost much less per student than public education yet they also yield far better results.

Our public schools are bleeding us dry economically and leaving our children completely unable to compete in a modern society. Is it any wonder that American companies turn to foreign labor for computer programmers, engineers and technicians when our children leave school unable to do basic math and write simple sentences. What jobs await a generation of illiterate Americans in an age which demands specialized knowledge instead of merely a strong back for the plowing and harvesting of fields? Yet even in our colleges and universities, the emphasis is on liberal arts, humanities, and racial and gender studies – course work which leads not to in-demand, high-paying jobs, but jobs in education or, for most, as clerks in department stores.

The question that should be asked by our school system is, “What is the most effective method to teach?” This question should be the basis of our educational system. Not only do our public, and even many private, school systems not ask this question they have in fact, continued to teach in the same way as when this country was founded over 200 years ago. We continue to throw a mix of students into a classroom with a textbook and a teacher and expect that nine months later the students will have learned and will retain what is necessary to advance to the next grade and on to succeed in life.

Each element, the teacher, the textbook, homework and the class structure all ensure failure. And failure we have seen. Sadly, the comment I’ve heard from more than one teacher is, “the public has to understand that some children simply can’t learn.” Not only do the methods of teaching employed by our school system guarantee failure, but many teachers have been institutionalized to believe that the onus for education is solely on the student and not upon the teachers and the school system.

Let’s look at each element of our current system and why it should surprise no one that our school system has failed us and will continue to fail us unless radically changed.

Teachers

Excluding a child's parents, teachers are probably the most important link in education. Yet, as humans, they too fall under the bell curve of performance. Five percent will be outstanding, the next ten percent will be very good and the rest fall quickly into mediocrity and on into incompetence. Even those who may have once been great teachers can easily become bored, indifferent and ineffective. Excellent, motivated teachers become frustrated with a system that does not allow change and creativity nor rewards them for successful results. With tenure and the protections provided by the teacher’s unions, these numbers could actually be worse as it is almost impossible to weed out bad instructors in the system.

The better the teacher – the better the education. Yet statistically a student is likely to encounter only 5 to 7 great teachers in their lifetime. This is exactly the number I came up with in looking back at my time from elementary school through college and the number is right on the 5% mark as stated above.

Are the best teachers even in the education system? Some of the most knowledgeable and exciting educators are likely in private enterprise. They have a wealth of knowledge to share but choose not to enter teaching as a full-time profession.

But even with the best teachers, they are not necessarily the best or most effective teachers for each student nor can any one teacher meet every student’s learning needs.

Textbooks

Textbooks are probably the weakest link in our education system. They are written, evaluated by teams of editors and educators, used for a few years, discarded and then new textbooks become available. Yet, as far as I can tell, there has never been a system to evaluate a textbook’s effectiveness. Did it actually engage and teach students? If not, then how can it be changed so as to become effective?

Sadly, this question doesn’t even seem to be on the radar screen of the educational system. Sadly also, this is a great opportunity that is missed in education. As someone who enjoys reading, I know that text does not have to be dull to contain and teach important information.

Structure

This is probably the most antiquated element of our school system. We place our students in a classroom from September until June, break the year down further into semesters and quarters and from 8:00am to 3:00pm hope for the best. All based on a farming schedule that no longer exists for almost anyone in the US.

We all learn at different rates and even those that may learn quickly in math may at the same time learn much more slowly in English or history. Does the structure allow for this? No, there are few allowances. It is the same structure for each student in each subject.

Homework

Homework is definitely an important part of education. Working through problems, researching information and writing essays are all important methods of learning. Yet, homework in our school systems has become too much of “busy work” in which nothing is learned.

Another problem with homework is, who exactly is doing the work? The student? The parent? The tutor? I’ve seen tasks assigned to third graders that no fifth grader could accomplish. Only with the intervention of parents can the assignment be completed. Presently in the school system, homework is routinely not returned to the student for evaluation. If I cannot see what I have done wrong, how can I then know what I need to go back and learn or review? Writing is learned almost exclusively through writing, editing, re-writing and then re-writing again. Not being able to review what is both correct and incorrect with assigned work does not lend itself to education.

What is the objective of education?

Shouldn’t the objective of education be to ensure that all students excel to the best of their abilities? That each student, regardless of their IQ, their parent’s abilities, their economic background or even their language skills, has the best opportunity to learn and be educated? We cannot have a great society if our citizens are illiterate. We continue to move into a technological age that demands scientists and mathematicians yet we turn out students who cannot read, write nor even add and subtract.

The complaint of the public school system is primarily money, although I have heard teachers also blame society, the media, music, etc., etc. All of this finger pointing is a complete waste of time. The tools are available to ensure that each student receives the best education possible, yet, with the exception of some home schooling tools, no large education system is even bothering to move in this direction. Not only is it possible, it is inexpensive.

What is possible?

The answer to our educational problems lies in a virtual internet classroom. The internet possess the power to be the greatest educational tool ever available, a virtual classroom which can reach every student in the world. A tool, if used properly, which can reach and educate every student, addressing their individual learning needs and evaluating each teaching method implemented. And – when methods are not effective, change instantly.

Let’s first start with education objectives – measurable objectives. What should every student know at the end of their formal schooling? What level of reading and comprehension should they achieve? What about math? History? Writing? What tools and knowledge do they need to succeed in society and in higher education?

Once these objectives are defined, the second goal is to determine the best method to teach these objectives to each student. I don’t have to be a teacher to know that some mix of audio and visual is probably the most effective. Start with a great teacher, a great communicator and put him or her on video. Start adding other visual and audio tools to determine what mix effectively impresses the information into a student’s brain. If we are talking about the civil war, show photographs and videos of the battlefields, the people involved, and maps of the region. Produce films that engage students while teaching them facts, not Hollywood pseudo-history. The presentation may not even include a human teacher – animation or computer generated graphics may be what is most engaging. Instead of casting effective teachers aside, as the public school system did with Jaime Escalante, analyze and duplicate their methods and reward those teachers financially for their innovation.

Homework need no longer always be separate from the lecture. It can be integrated into the flow. Learning can become entertaining or even a game with problems to solve and text to read as part of the lecture-type presentation. This not only helps the student to learn but allows the teaching programs to evaluate their progress. A method to track progress, to discover where the student’s learning is deficient and re-present the same material in possibly another more effective format for this student.

If one student requires more video stimulus, the course can automatically adjust to meet that student’s needs. If a student learns and retains more from reading than from audio, the tool can shift again. We know many of us quickly retain information presented in rhyme or song format. This is how most of us learned our ABCs. Employ song writers to compose learning tools, especially incorporating what would be considered dry information such as dates of significant events. We all know when “Columbus sailed the ocean blue” because of a rhyme. Yet most Americans cannot even place the civil war in the correct century.

If students finish a presentation and cannot meet the minimum requirement of a review exam, they can not only go back and re-take the course but can also consider alternative options for this particular coursework. Maybe another program, teacher or virtual classroom is clearer and more effective. Also, those producing the material can change and edit the material should their internal auditing of student progress show that the coursework is not effective in thoroughly teaching the students the required material. These techniques can be analyzed, quantified and duplicated so that every student has access to great educators and excellent teaching methods. The methods can be constantly refined and improved, working toward 100% education of all students. Students no longer need to be afraid to raise their hand in class when confused. The virtual classroom works with them, providing more information as necessary in a variety of formats to ensure that each student understands and retains the material. A student is not locked into one classroom, one teacher or one school.

Education does not need to be dull to be effective, in fact, the opposite is true. We are more likely to learn and retain information when we are entertained and engaged. In college, I had two professors in whose classes I rarely took notes. They were such effective speakers that they impressed the information upon me without my writing anything down on paper. In some cases it was entertaining, such as my economics professor standing on his desk singing, “Look for the union label” to introduce the effect of unions on our economy. In another situation, it was a passionate educator who knew how to speak effectively and impress his knowledge upon our class.

Students with a passion in one course can then have access to further information. Instead of ending the class at the end of the text, he can explore and learn beyond the curriculum, as long as, of course, he continues to do well in all other courses. The programs can even evaluate and use those courses a student finds especially interesting as a carrot to entice them to work through the more difficult subjects.

The programs can even evaluate a student’s strengths and interests and begin suggesting possible careers that would interest a student. The average high school graduate is usually only familiar with one job, that of a teacher, since it is the only profession he or she has witnessed. Programs can introduce students to a myriad of occupations which they likely, never knew existed.

What about those people in private enterprise, the ones actually building the buildings, the bridges, developing software or researching new drugs? Without leaving their laboratories or offices they too can reach millions of students and enlighten them with their knowledge and experience. It can be complete course work or lectures on just one or two topics.

There are no time constraints with such a system. The student can log in and work through each course at his or her own pace. Unlike the current classroom, a student can review any topic that is not clear. Further examples can be presented to clarify the subject. Students who excel in one subject can move quickly, at their pace, through the material, eliminating the problem of a good student being bored by classroom progress while slower students struggle. Which is more important, having students finish school in 12 years and be illiterate, or having them finish in 14 years and be fully educated? Realistically, a system like I propose would most likely greatly reduce the time necessary for education, for both the gifted and the challenged student.

Political indoctrination has become an issue in education. Leftist teachers with captive audiences rant daily about their political beliefs with no opposing view opined to give the students a balanced view. I was also subjected to such bloviating in high school and would not hear any opposing view point until much later in my life. This issue would quickly become a non-issue as parents can review and rate educators in the virtual school. Parents can not only review the material presented to their children but can also become quickly involved in their education as they too can log on and work along with their diminutive scholars.

Evaluation of the current system is almost impossible. Even if it could be properly evaluated, it cannot be effectively changed as teachers are in their own classroom each day, each using their own, unique methodologies. Their weaknesses cannot each be realistically addressed and their strengths cannot be brought to other classrooms.

What of the cost of such a system? The initial cost would be in the production of each module. As education modules go online, the best will quickly profit and will refine and improve their coursework. Even at a cost of only $1 per course module per student, an excellent educator could easily make several million dollars a year. The cost per student for a full year could drop from the current $8,000 to $13,000 to several hundred, including a computer and other necessary materials. Such a system need not be limited to the wealthy, I believe strongly in publicly funded education but I am strongly opposed to government controlled education which provides no choice to parents or students.

Clearly not all courses can be simply reduced to an interactive audio/video presentation. Writing is a great example of something which requires constant feedback, rework and editing. Yet, teachers with a passion for writing can still offer courses, albeit probably more expensive than $1 per course per student, to evaluate, encourage and inspire students. Their work can reach not only those of us who need to write no more than a coherent letter but to those wishing to write the next great American novel.

Some courses would need to move beyond the virtual world into a physical realm. Learning centers could easily be funded and staffed at a fraction of the cost of current education. Small children would also most likely need more mentoring and monitoring. The virtual classroom can be in ones home or in a more traditional setting with proctors and teaching assistants helping the students move through their course work.

Testing, beyond that embedded in the virtual classroom, would probably also be necessary to ensure each student is learning the coursework. Again, such centers could be made available, even temporary centers, to ensure progress.

On-line libraries of course material can be established and the course work evaluated and rated, by staff, students and parents, as to their effectiveness. These virtual schools need not stop at high school. Imagine each of us being able to get a “Harvard Education” each from our own home. If the professors at these colleges and universities truly are the best, then make them available to the world instead of just an elite few with parents possessing deep pockets or the proper political connections.

In a virtual classroom – including university level – industry can begin to influence the curriculum by providing the coursework and teaching the skills necessary for students to succeed in their selected fields. I have attended college level classes after working in the “real world” which were either completely irrelevant or the information presented was totally wrong. Yet there is no monitoring or evaluating of these courses. Not only can providing such course work be profitable to the companies in a variety of disciplines, it also provides them with the educated hiring pool necessary to staff and grow their companies.

As home schooling has become more popular in the United States, those opposed to such a system continually bring up “lack of socialization” as an objection to such a system. A virtual classroom, especially for many students working from their homes would raise the same protest. This is probably the weakest of all objections to non-traditional education. Most of the socialization occurring in our schools is not positive. Peer pressure includes smoking, the taking of drugs, non-performance in school (because it isn’t cool), clothing, pressure on physical appearance, or being classified as a nerd or a geek. Some schools in urban areas do little more than try to control violence. As I mentioned above, slower students regularly suffer from “socialization” in the class room as they are mocked for being “stupid” and for asking “dumb questions.” This process causes them to withdraw, remain silent, and stop learning. But what I find especially difficult to understand is that anyone would rather their child be “socialized” than educated. An illiterate adult, no matter how social, is still unlikely to find work. Socialization can take place in church groups, sports, organized social activities and clubs. School is not the only place that interacting with others can take place.

The possibilities in education are endless with the use of the computer and the internet. So far, only a few home schooling companies and teachers have tapped into this market and are making progress. The established school and university systems will fight such a change as their objectives have little to do with education, their objectives are about maintaining their empire and their power.

Fortunately, it is an empire about to collapse and its destruction will benefit every child and every student with access to the internet.

20. Proud to Be

2008-12-10T04:58:00.000-08:00

There are many differences between conservatives and liberals but the one I find, by far, to be the most interesting is how those on the left and right respond to being labeled by their political beliefs. Say to someone on the right, “You are a conservative!” and they will most likely respond in the affirmative and smile. But say to someone on the left, “You are a liberal” and they recoil in anger.

In a recent conversation, I referred to Obama as a socialist. The reaction from the liberals to whom I was speaking was as if I had just referred to Mother Teresa as a child molester. The look on their faces was a mix of horror and rage. They immediately responded with attacks on Bush. Clearly they were upset about the label and yet I cannot think of a label which more accurately describes Obama’s political leanings. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he wants to take money away from oil companies and from those making over $250,000 at year (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000?) and give it to those who earn less. He has also proposed a host of government programs, including government run health care, as a solution for what he sees as social ills and problems in the US. That is socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism or libertarianism. Redistribution of wealth – the taking from those who earn money and giving it to those who have not, even under the guise of “those who need” – is socialism. What is the mantra of socialism/Marxism? “From each according to ability to each according to need.“ That is from Karl Marx as in Marxism – as in socialism.

Yet the left is appalled by anyone attaching a label to them that so clearly defines their beliefs. Why?

In observing my liberal acquaintances, I can only surmise that they themselves know that liberalism/socialism is a doomed and misguided ideal. In fact, that is all that it is – an ideal. We’ve see the results in the U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea and East Germany and none of these countries under the rule of socialism have caused throngs of immigrants to come knocking at their doors for economic salvation. Most liberals I know live a lifestyle of conservatism yet preach liberalism. It is as if they want to believe in their hearts that the earth is flat (for some reason) yet have seen the pictures from Apollo 11 and know in their minds that it is an illusion.

The next aspect of liberals which I find so fascinating is that to them, their belief system, as it applies to the world, is all or nothing. Everyone MUST follow and be under the control of liberalism, or as they like to say, politically correct thinking. At this point in our history, I would very much like to see the United States fracture into two countries. One being conservative/capitalist, the next being liberal/socialist. When I mention this idea to conservatives, they seem to feel it might not be a bad solution. Although they feel it would be sad to break apart our country, they also feel that those who strongly embrace a socialist ideal should be able to live under their belief system and those who embrace conservatism should also be able to live in peace under their ideal. But, when I mention this to liberals, once again they seem to fly into some sort of rage. They don’t want anyone living in a conservative/capitalist society, even if it is by their choice!!

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by their response, after all, isn’t it only socialist/communist countries that have erected walls and fences to keep people from fleeing their utopia? Conservative/capitalist countries, on the other hand, have had to consider ways to stop the flow of people, even those risking their own lives, who want to emigrate.

In spite of the empirical data showing economic ruin and elimination of personal freedom, many Americans still see salvation only through socialism and only if all people are forced under that one system.

Hmm… I thought the democrat party is the party which believes in freedom of choice!

19. Hawk v. Dove

2008-12-01T18:13:00.000-08:00

18. Jack Makes An Investment

2008-11-04T09:02:00.001-08:00

On June 15th, Jack graduated from high school and also turned eighteen. For a graduation present, Jack’s uncle gave him a book on money and investing to help secure Jack’s financial future. Unsure of his career path and whether or not it included college, Jack decided to take advice from the book and immediately set up a long-term investment program.

Jack contacted two insurance/investment companies and asked them to present their retirement annuity and investment plans to him. Jack is very risk averse and told both companies he wanted only to invest in vehicles in which no principle could be lost and in which all funds were insured by the U.S. Government. Jack told each company he intended to invest $161.20 a month, starting immediately, a continue investing the same amount until retirement at age 65. At that time, Jack would need monthly income from the annuity or investment plan.

Not wanting to be influenced by any element of the two companies, Jack asked that their plans be submitted only as Company A and Company B.

Company A’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $380, but warned it could be less based on market fluctuations. Company B’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $2,400 but said it could be more, much more actually, and also depending on market fluctuations.

Jack was puzzled at the extreme difference in the two plans. So, he asked about other features and limitations of the programs.

Company A responded to Jack’s request stating that should Jack die at any point prior to retirement, all money in the account would be the property of the insurance company. After retirement, the monthly income would only continue until Jack’s death at which time any money remaining in the account would again be the property of the insurance company. There was one exception though, should Jack marry, his wife would receive some retirement income whether Jack died before or after age 65. No money would be available at any time to pass on to friends, family or charities.

Company B’s response was quite different. At any time during the life of the program, Jack could pass the balance of the account onto any designated heir, both before and after age 65, married or not.

Jack, a prudent lad, chose Company B.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Would you think anyone in their right mind would ever choose Company A? I would think everyone would at least want Company A investigated for fraud. Yet a very large percentage of Americans not only believe in Company A, they will defend it as if it were a religion. Hillary Clinton even proclaimed Company A as one of America’s greatest success stories.

Company A is Social Security. Company B is any private investment or insurance company specifically investing in either government insured bonds or government insured certificates of deposit.

I chose $161.20 as the monthly investment because it is approximately 12% of the monthly income of someone working full time at minimum wage. The 12% is the 6% non-Medicare contribution of each the employee and the employer combined, the total amount currently paid into the system.

In spite of these numbers, leftists will defend Social Security and will attack any attempt to privatize the system. They scream that proponents of privatization want to let old people starve and die in the streets. Hmmm…. Which plan has old people starving? I think anyone can purchase much more food and comfort with $2,400 a month than $380 a month – don’t you?

There are other elements to Social Security such as income for dependent children until age eighteen, should one or both parents die. This could easily be included in Jack’s plan as well. For about $20 a month for 20 years, Jack could purchase a term life insurance policy of $500,000. Should Jack die the policy would provide Jack’s family with about $3,500 a month. This additional insurance would drop Jack’s retirement income from $2,400 to $2,200 a month. If Jack never marries, he never needs to worry about this additional insurance.

Considering that both investment approaches include only investments insured by the U.S. Government, this takes away the argument that people could lose everything in a private system, one investing in the stock market or other non-insured investments. Should the investments earn a higher rate of return, Company B could increase Jack’s monthly income by over $1,000 a month for every additional point increase in his average investment return.

Social Security is in trouble – big trouble. Promises made will soon be broken. The age of retirement will undoubtedly increase in the next few years and the likelihood of anyone under the age of 40 receiving any benefits is almost zero. Yet, the left continues to defend the system as a success and fights all efforts for American’s to retire in comfort, having full control of their retirement funds.

This is the same government that now wants to take control of our health care. I’m guessing under that system, we won’t have to worry about retirement income at all since none of us are likely to live long enough to need it.

17. It's Taught At Home?

2008-10-14T08:01:00.001-07:00

If parents repeatedly tell their child he is stupid, the child will eventually put no effort into learning. If parents repeatedly accuse and punish their child for stealing, even though he hasn’t, the child will eventually steal. If parents repeatedly accuse and punish their child for drug use, even if the child has never done drugs, the child will eventually turn to drugs as an escape. Both children and adults will live up or down to the expectations set for them by their parents or by those who influence their lives. By setting the bar low, we humans will not only live down to the expectations set for us, we will also learn to hate our accusers.

So what has the media and the left taught me in my lifetime? For one, I am a racist. I’ve heard it over and over again for the last 49 years. It doesn’t matter what I do, how I treat people, how I live my life, all that matters is that I’m politically conservative. That alone makes me racist. Even those who are politically moderate to left-of-center have been accused of the same vicious label for disagreeing in any way with the politics of the extreme left. During the recent Democratic primarily, anyone voting for Hillary over Obama was also called a racist. Apparently alleged white-on-black racism trumps alleged misogyny.

If I disagree with the politics of the gay community, I’m a “homophobe.” If I disagree with the politics of the feminist community, I am a “misogynist.” There is no open discussion on any issue involving race, sexual orientation or gender. Any attempt to take a position different from the left is shouted down with name calling – names and labels which imply hate.

I will not be voting for Barack Obama in November, not because he is black, but because he is a Marxist/Socialist. I will not vote for anyone of that belief system regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Yet I, and every American who opposes Mr. Obama’s politics – left, right, Republican or Democrat – are now called racists just as those who oppose Hillary are misogynists and those who oppose Barney Frank are homophobes.

Now members of the left, both black and white, are threatening riots throughout the US should Mr. Obama not be elected President. What does name calling and threats of violence say about those who take these positions? Should I embrace them and their ideals? Should I be threatened and insulted into voting for their candidate?

Will there be a backlash in white America against Obama simply because he is black? Will members of all political parties vote for McCain simply because he is white? It’s doubtful – it is issues and character that ultimately drive elections. But if race does come into play, who exactly was it that taught Americans to consider it an issue?

16. Tax The Rich!!

2008-01-24T08:07:00.000-08:00

At the recent debates in Iowa, the democrat candidates made their position clear – the nation’s ills can be cured by raising taxes on the rich and those greedy multi-national corporations. Apparently, redistribution of wealth has worked so well in other socialist countries, such as Cuba and what was once the USSR, that the Left wants more of it here.

As a “polarized” person on the conservative side of economics, I completely disagree. In fact, I want to see the entire system revamped and I’m certain I’m not alone. But, I don’t want to force my conservative, pseudo-Christian beliefs on anyone, I want each person to have a choice. So, here’s my modest proposal: Split the United States into two countries – one secular-progressive/socialist (SPS) and one conservative/capitalist (CC). The SPS States of America will increase taxes on the rich, on corporations and on inheritance as has already been proposed by most of the candidates on the left. The CC States of America will implement the plan proposed by Neal Boortz in The FairTax Book. Under Mr Boortz’s plan, there will be no income tax for any individual or corporation nor will there be an inheritance tax. The only tax will be a national sales tax on both goods and services. Mr. Boortz proposes a rate of 24% to continue to feed the current government’s voracious appetite. But I’m going to be more modest and propose a rate of only 12% because I would like to see an ocean of ineffective, bloated and unnecessary government agencies and services simply disappear. What also will disappear in the CC States is the high cost of tax preparation and compliance. According to the Tax Foundation (as referenced in Mr. Boortz’s book) cost of tax compliance in the US in 2002 was $194 billion. Once we add in opportunity costs, this number soars to over $500 billion a year. Also eliminated would be the IRS which costs taxpayers over $10 billion a year.

So let's review:
	SPS States	CC States
	(current to hist. max)
Personal Income Tax	39% to 90%	0%
Corporate Tax	34% to 53%	0%
Inheritance Tax	45% to 90%	0%
Cost of tax prep.	unknown	$0
National Sales Tax	0%	12%

As the nation splits into two, both individuals and corporations will decide in which country they will live and conduct business. Profitable corporations and working individuals of all income brackets will look at the above numbers before making their decisions. Which do you think they will choose? Those that choose the CC States will not only eliminate the income taxes they would pay in the SPS States, they also eliminate the costs of CPAs and tax attorneys. Corporations would no longer need to spend billions of dollars on lobbying efforts seeking favorable tax breaks.

It won’t just be current US corporations that consider moving to the CC States, corporations across the globe will take a long, hard look at relocating their companies to this newly formed country and taking advantage of its simplistic and fiscally favorable tax structure.

As much as the Left loves to malign corporations and wealthy Americans as evil, nothing generates wealth other than business and no business comes into existence without venture capital. Where does the venture capital come from? Yep, from other corporations and those greedy, wealthy Americans the Left loves to punish with higher and higher taxes.

With such a favorable tax structure, investment money would also flow in from abroad as foreigners seek tax havens for their money. This money would “trickle down” into the economy creating new businesses and ventures. The reality is that money is already flowing out of our country to such tax havens as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein and Panama. These funds would quickly be repatriated into the economy of the CC States.

So who would remain in the SPS States of America? Those compassionate liberals of the current American economy? I doubt it. Already those in Hollywood who espouse such liberal principals as unions and higher taxes regularly produce movies in countries with lower, non-union wages and a more favorable tax status. What about liberal icon Ted Kennedy? Well, his family trust sits on the island of Fiji avoiding scrutiny of all kinds from the Federal government and the IRS. It would be interesting to discover just how much money from other prominent liberals resides in foreign accounts. Using the internet, electronic transfers are available to all working people trying to maximize their return and minimize their tax liability.

The rest of the world is already moving forward. Ireland, whose economy was in shambles decided in the mid-1990s to dramatically lower their corporate tax rate from 32% to 12.5%. Ireland went from being the poorest country in Western Europe to the richest per capita. Eleven countries in Eastern Europe have a flat corporate tax rate of 25%. Bulgaria has a rate of only 10%. Kuwait recently slashed its corporate rate from 55% to 15%.

The Left’s disdain of corporations and profits reminds me of a quote from “Gone With The Wind.” At the Twelve Oaks barbeque, Rhett Butler says to the southern gentlemen discussing war with the North, “I think it’s hard winning a war with words…I’m saying…All we’ve got is cotton and salves, and arrogance.” Just as a country cannot fight a war without artillery an economy cannot thrive and taxes cannot be collected without commerce. Yet we continue to give corporations reasons to do business elsewhere in the world rather than here within the USA.

If my modest proposal is actually implemented, how will the SPS States of America survive as corporations and money flow to the CC States? Anyone who believes it wouldn’t happen is deluded – it is already happening in our global economy. We need to decide if we want to be on the receiving end of corporate dollars – or the end which continues to be depleted. If arrogance and idealism fueled economies it would stand to reason that those under Lenin, Stalin and Castro would have risen to be the most powerful in the world. Instead, the altruistic dream of Lenin has already collapsed and Cuba hangs on a thread waiting for Castro to die. A similar fate awaits all nations that continue to attack wealth and commerce with progressively higher and higher taxes.

15. Sticks and Stones

2007-10-18T05:29:00.000-07:00

I keep waiting for those on the Left in Congress to introduce the federal “Boo Hoo, They Hurt My Feelings Act.” Anyone caught calling someone a name will be arrested and incarcerated. The length of the jail sentence will depend on how traumatized the victim feels. I can’t help wondering if this is how the Roman and Greek Empires fell. Once great warriors became immobilized and crumbled to their knees because the enemy called them “sissy-marys.” As they were busy crying to their senators and being comforted by their mommies, the opposing forces just walked in and leveled their cities.

The Left and their banner of political correctness has already elevated name calling to a near crime, one great enough to end a person’s career. Don Imus was recently fired for referring to a group of female basketball players as “Nappy-headed ho’s.” Although not a particularly nice or funny thing to say they are, after all, just words. But it twisted Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s knickers and they screamed and yelled and called Imus a racist until the network caved in to these esteemed black “leaders” and showed Imus the door. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and Imus is returning to the airwaves. Not that I particularly care for Imus, but I do believe in free speech.

Personally, I like rules to be objective, measurable and have clarity; I like to know beforehand what is correct and incorrect and that rules apply to all people in all situations. Unlike me, the Left isn’t interested in such logical nonsense. If someone is offended by a statement, that statement is then deemed as harassment and the speaker is labeled a racist, a misogynist or that they engage in hate speech. Yet even this subjective standard doesn’t hold. It appears that only those on the Left are allowed to feel offended and only those on the Right are held accountable for their words.

What about Al Franken’s book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot? That’s a rather offensive title on many levels, isn’t it? Imagine Rush breaking down and crying on his radio show relating the trauma he endured being a “horizontally challenged” child. Rush might tell us how the hurtful and offensive words of Mr. Franken bring back horrible memories and feelings of inferiority. Using the logic of the Left, Mr. Franken clearly hates overweight Americans and is probably fearful of them

What about blond jokes and lawyer jokes? What about the attacks by the Left on Christians, you know, those wacky, brainless, religious lemmings. Christians protest but no one on the Left cares. No one loses their job and no one is forced to apologize. Rosie O’Donnell recently mocked the Chinese community by saying, “ching-chong, ching-chong” in reference to the Mandarin language. A staff member told a reporter that America simply doesn’t “get” Rosie’s sense of humor. Hmm, I guess the basketball team, Jesse and Al didn’t “get” Imus’ humor either.

In 1996 Joel and Ethan Coen released their movie Fargo. Although an interesting story, it mocked and stereotyped the Scandinavian and German American communities of that region of the US. Not only were the Coen Brothers not chastised by Hollywood for their insensitivity or cultural bias, they were rewarded with an Oscar for their “brilliant” script.

Even disagreeing with the politics of the Left makes you a target of apparently “acceptable” name calling. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is regularly attacked as being nothing more than a “slave” or an “Uncle Tom” of the Right. Juan Williams, the black author and political commentator, was recently labeled a “Happy Negro” by Boyce Watkins, also a black commentator. Mr. Williams was clearly angry with the reference, but Mr. Watkins has neither apologized nor been fired from any position he holds. In fact, in an article posted on Black American Web, Mr. Watkins defends his comments while labeling “The O’Reilly Factor” as “racist television.”

Jesse Jackson attacked Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white.” Imagine any white – oh, I’m sorry, European-American – public or political figure accusing a like-raced individual of “acting like he’s black.” Jesse, Al and Mr. Watkins would be all over that person for his hateful, racist, demeaning and demoralizing words.

Having been called four-eyes, pizza face, geek and metal-mouth as a child, I am well aware that words can and do hurt people. I’m grateful, though, that my parents didn’t let me wallow in misery over such nonsense or storm into the principal’s office demanding the offending student’s expulsion. Instead my mother would look at me and say, “Get over it! You want to see someone with real problems? I’ll take you down to the County Hospital and you can see kids without arms or legs.”

Alas, such common sense does not prevail in politics. Instead of instilling character and self-reliance in our citizens and leaders, we are instead becoming a nation of crying babies looking to our mommies and daddies to make everything fair.

Buck up people.

14. The Church of the Intellectual

2007-09-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

“What happens when one has striven long and hard to develop a working view of the world, a seemingly useful, workable map, and then is confronted with new information suggesting that that view is wrong and the map needs to be largely redrawn? The painful effort required seems frightening, almost overwhelming. What we do more often than not, and usually unconsciously, is to ignore the new information. Often this act of ignoring is much more than passive. We may denounce the new information as false, dangerous, heretical, the work of the devil. We may actually crusade against it, and even attempt to manipulate the world so as to make it conform to our view of reality. Rather than try to change the map, an individual may try to destroy the new reality. Sadly, such a person may expend much more energy ultimately in defending an outmoded view of the world than would have been required to revise and correct it in the first place.” - M. Scott Peck, “The Road Less Traveled”

“Those who do not believe in God inevitably believe in something else.” - unknown

When did science stop being scientific? When did we stop searching for proof and start putting our faith in theories? When did intellectuals start behaving as zealots rather than somber and stoic researchers seeking verifiable facts?

During my life I have been repeatedly warned of impending doom, of crises of cataclysmic proportions. Each was backed by scientific theory, often supported by computer simulation models. In each case, the outcomes were so horrific that if we as a people did not immediately take action our generation would likely be the last. These theories advanced within the public with such force and amassed such bodies of enthusiastic disciples that it put even Elmer Gantry to shame.

These crises included overpopulation, global cooling, the hole in the ozone layer, the dangers of silicone breast implants and the AIDS virus becoming the plague of the heterosexual community. In each case I listened to the fear and panic of the believers and I also listened to the objections of those with opposing views. In each case, history has proven the hysteria unwarranted.

The believers of these theories moved forward with religious fervor. They alone possessed the truth. Non-believers were blind and were being fed lies by evil and corrupt right-wing extremists and greedy corporations.

The latest crisis based upon scientific theory is that man, through carbon emissions, is responsible for global warming. As before, the zealotry of its followers can only be compared to the most extreme of religious sects or cults. Here is my list of similarities between both groups:

1. Apocalyptic Destruction. Each crisis carries an “end of the world” type scenario and the need to act is immediate. With global warming, some have set cut-off dates in the not too distant future. “If we don’t act now, all will be lost.”

2. We Are To Blame. Only through belief in the theory and redemption by converting others can we find salvation. The enemies we must rally against are those that speak against the Truth.

3. There Is Only One Truth, One Path To Salvation. All other theories are lies. These “false” theories are the voice of the devil trying to sway us from the path of light. Regardless of the fact that many reputable climatologists disagree that humans are the cause of global warming, they are attacked as “not credible” and their motivations are questioned.

4. The Truth Shall Not Be Questioned. Knowledge is handed down from the elders, in this case, scientists and professors. Those that question the Truth are attacked as stupid. They are blind and cannot see. Gore repeatedly claims that not one credible scientist disagrees with his scenario. The Truth is absolute – it is black and white.

5. Evangelistic-Like Prophets Preaching To The Masses. Al Gore is the proclaimed prophet of global warming. Preying upon emotions of believers and non-believers, his movie and speeches work to raise the level of “consciousness.” On May 5th in San Antonio, Texas, Gore even compared global warming to a “spiritual crisis.” When asked to debate the science of global warming, Gore declines. “I am not a scientist,” he responds. One can only assume that the prophet need not explain his beliefs – but his version of the truth shall set you free.

6. Proselytizing. One way we convince ourselves of that which we believe but cannot prove is by converting others. In Ontario, Canada a high school student was forced to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” four times by four different teachers, one being his gym class. No opposing opinions were offered, just the word of the prophet himself.

7. Penance and Absolution. The sins of the believers and non-believers can be forgiven. By changing their lifestyles to “green” they can find personal salvation. But, even believers will stray from the path. Even though Al Gore charters private jets and his house in Tennessee uses twenty times the energy of the average American home, Gore seeks penance and absolution by buying “carbon credits.” Somehow this reminds me of Don Corleone ordering a “hit” on another family and then going to confession to wipe the slate clean.

The truth is that many scientists – credible scientists – disagree with Gore’s theory. Their research and conclusions are readily available, yet are ignored by Gore and his disciples. Their positions often show that although Gore’s arguments may be based on logical assumptions, history has shown these assumptions to be incorrect or at least, not reliable.

An honest debate would seem to be in order – a calm, objective debate by climatologists on both sides of the issue. But the body of believers is not interested in such a debate. These self-proclaimed intellectuals, believers in the infallibility of science, the purity of its approach and the denial that its approach can hold bias, see no need for scientific inquiring and debate.

Even when time proves these disciples and followers wrong, they still hold fast to their beliefs. In 1993, Michael Fumento published “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.” At that time, allegedly scientific models predicted that AIDS would sweep through the heterosexual community, killing like no plague before in history. Mr. Fumento, using data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), laid out his hypothesis that AIDS would never spread significantly beyond the homosexual community exempting high-risk groups such as IV drug users. In May 2007, as I write this essay, no such plague has occurred. In spite of this, I noticed a review of his book on Amazon.com in which the reviewer called the book a work of “pure fiction” and finished, not surprisingly, by attacking the author, calling him a “homophobe.” Although this review was posted in August of 2004, the reviewer still holds fast to her beliefs that AIDS will spread into the heterosexual community killing by the millions.

The intellectual Left mocks and criticizes the Christian Right for the same things for which they too are guilty. They have blind faith in Al Gore and his teachings. They are not interested in opposing points of view. They demonize, label and attack those that disagree with them. They are convinced that they alone hold the Truth and the keys to salvation.

The Church of the Intellectual and its body of believers continue. Though they justify their beliefs using science, there is little that is scientific about them.

13. The Alpha Excuse

2007-09-20T07:47:00.000-07:00

Fourteen months before the 2008 presidential election, the candidates are out in force, pounding us with their rhetoric. Platforms and policies are painted with broad brush strokes with few details provided. Promises are being made which are likely impossible to fulfill but they are made with good reason. These promises set the stage for future excuses.

In his book “Education Myths,” Jay P. Greene gives a perfect example of what I call the “Alpha Excuse.” The public school system is failing to teach our nation’s children even the most basic skills necessary to compete and thrive in our society. The principle excuse given by both the school system and the teacher’s unions is “overcrowded classrooms” and their success can only be attained by “significantly reducing the number of children per class.” Mr. Green points out that significantly smaller class size is not a workable solution. If the average class size is cut in half, the number of schools, teachers and education spending would all have to double. Both the schools and the unions know that such a proposal will never be approved yet instead of looking at alternate solutions they continue blame their failures on those that oppose their initial recommendations.

This “excuse” was named after an arrogant and incompetent co-worker of mine from the 1980s. His actual first name was Alpha. Regardless of the task assigned to him, Alpha always proposed a solution so sweeping and costly he knew it would never be approved, but he always proposed it with much conviction and bravado. Much like the schools and unions above, he now had his excuse, his reason for failing to complete the task. “I told you what needed to be done, I told you the solution to the problem but you refused to implement my recommendations. Is it any wonder the project failed?” Yet, just like the school system, Alpha always had his believers and followers who accepted his excuses regardless of the fact that the problems were eventually solved by others, using workable and economical approaches.

Our politicians are big believers in the “Alpha Excuse.” It works to their benefit on many levels. They propose unworkable legislation knowing it will be rejected in committee yet they are able to return to their constituents as heroes. “I did my best but the greedy, selfish, special interest driven opposition voted it down.”

In a prior essay I wrote about Global Warming and the Left’s seemingly unwillingness to take any sort of practical approach to the problem. Even in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” he outlines the alleged problem but without giving any concrete and workable solutions. The Left often blames George W. Bush and other greedy, selfish Republicans for the failure of the ratification of The Kyoto Treaty, another example of an Alpha Excuse. It was absurd to think we would sign a treaty that places the burden of reducing carbon emissions on the US while not placing those same limitations on emerging and heavily polluting countries such as China and India. But as much as Al Gore likes to blame the right, the treaty was defeated in 1997 in the Democrat controlled Senate by a vote of 95 to 0. Although the press continues to blame the Right for Kyoto’s failure, not one Leftist Senate luminary including Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer or John Kerry voted for its ratification. Instead of considering viable approaches to reducing energy demands, the Left continues to use Kyoto as their Alpha Excuse.

Another example is the “War is not the Answer” crowd. This group continues to point toward negotiation and continued dialogue to end international conflicts, saying, “War solves nothing.” Despite history proving otherwise, this delusional, quasi-religious crowd continues to chant their mantra of negotiation. It’s the perfect Alpha Excuse – even if negotiations do take place, as was the case in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, this group simply wants more and more negotiations. If dealing with thugs such as Hussein is so simple, why doesn’t this crowd prove their theory by bringing an end to gang violence in the major cities of the US? Simply go in, start negotiations and dialogue and stop the drug use, the drug sales and the killings. Prove to me you have the skills to fix this one domestic problem and then I might consider that you have solutions regarding international issues But, if you can’t control those in our own country armed with guns and knives how can I believe you to be able to subdue a madman trying to acquire nuclear bombs?

Jesse Jackson uses a version of the Alpha Excuse every time he talks about “empowering” people. Such a vague and subjective term gives him the freedom to continue his attacks on individuals, corporations and the government saying racism continues to exist and his followers continue to suffer. No amount of empirical data can prove his argument wrong. Only he can determine the moment when they are truly “empowered.”

When HillaryCare raises its ugly head once more, instead of placing our entire health care system under one huge bureaucratic monster, why not test the plan in one major city and set objective goals and a time line for reaching those goals. It would seem that New York City would be the perfect place to test this theory. The “Last Bastion of Liberalism” should embrace such a program. But they won’t and their reasons will be Alpha Excuses. “Unless the entire country is under such a plan, it will fail.” The reasons why will vary, but the excuses will remain. Imagine medicine taking such an approach, “The new drug failed in early, limited tests and had dangerous side effects, but in wide distribution, it will work just fine.”

The coming election year will yield many Alpha-type excuses. Hopefully at least one candidate will emerge who will rise above such nonsense.

12. Sorry Rabbi, I Guess You're Stupid Too

2007-09-20T07:44:00.001-07:00

The Left enjoys calling people stupid who in any way disagree with their unusual and subjective form of logic. So, since I often disagree with them, I guess I’m stupid too. Several months ago I, like many Americans, chose not to see the movie “All The King’s Men.” I chose not to see it because the star is Sean Penn. I won’t see any movie with Sean Penn or Julia Roberts or Jennifer Aniston or Alec Baldwin or a host of other Hollywood luminaries. I’m stupid, I’m told, because I can’t look beyond their politics.

Larry Elder, the conservative talk show host, interviewed the producer of “All The King’s Men” prior to its release. Larry asked him if he was concerned that people would avoid attending the movie because of Sean Penn. The producer stated that Americans were “smarter than that.” He felt Americans could look beyond the politics of the movie makers and the actors and see only the movie.

Well, I didn’t see the movie but I guess I’m in good company because the movie bombed at the box office. What is even more interesting is that after it bombed, the response from Hollywood was that Americans were too stupid to appreciate such an intellectual film. Now wait – are we smart or are we stupid? Interestingly enough, in checking the numerous bad reviews on rottentomatoes.com, it appears that film critics are stupid too.

It’s not that I can’t handle someone not agreeing with me. It’s not that I can’t accept others who don’t share my views. But I don’t consider comments like, “Bush is a f***ing idiot” from the lovely Jennifer Aniston, to be intelligent debate. I don’t consider Julia Roberts comments, “You’ll find Republican in the dictionary between reptile and repugnant” to be respectful commentary. I don’t see Sean Penn’s many diatribes including his missive to the creators of South Park in which he closed the letter with, “All best, and a sincere f*** you” to be anything worthy of respect. But what perplexes me even more is that the self-proclaimed intellectual left can’t even comprehend my position.

I share very few views with Senator Joe Lieberman. But I have respect for the man and am always willing to listen to his opinions. He presents rational and intelligent arguments. He doesn’t name call, he doesn’t yell and scream – he just calmly presents his side of the issue. I like that. I respect that.

So, I’ve chosen to boycott films by those in Hollywood who are less than respectful to the views of others. Considering those on the left from Jesse Jackson to labor unions to Cesar Chavez have all supported boycotts, I would think they could understand my position. But no, if I boycott France or the Dixie Chicks or Sean Penn I’m considered childish and stupid and I want to stifle free speech. The left has tried endlessly to silence Rush Limbaugh but in no way are they ever against free speech. No, that label is reserved for those of us who are right of center.

Shortly after Mel Gibson’s arrest in Malibu, Entertainment Tonight interviewed Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The topic was Mel’s new movie “Apocalypto.” The Rabbi was asked if he would attend the movie. Since the Rabbi is a member of the Motion Picture Academy, they also asked if he would consider voting for the film for any award. The Rabbi answered "no" to both questions.

Even someone as non-intellectual and stupid as me can understand the Rabbi’s position.

Not surprisingly, no one asked the Rabbi why he couldn’t look beyond Mr. Gibson’s virulent anti-Semitic comments and see only the movie. No one suggested that Rabbi Hier wasn’t “smart enough” to look at the film and not the film maker.

Well Rabbi, if you are stupid, which I doubt, you too are in good company.

11. The Children's Medical Corporation

2007-09-19T09:55:00.000-07:00

In January 2013 the newly elected President and Congress of the United States began their first session. At the top of the agenda was health care for children. Unable to pass legislation creating universal health care for all Americans, it was decided to scale back the program and instead cover all children to the age of 18. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats. Their original proposal created a new government agency which would administer and implement the program. The President, a Republican, vowed to veto the bill unless the program was contracted to a private agency. Not having enough votes to override the impending veto, Congress relented and the bill was passed and signed. The Medicare portion of the Social Security tax was increased to pay for the program.

The contract was awarded to the newly formed Children’s Medical Corporation (CMC). This corporation was a conglomerate of existing medical insurance, pharmaceutical and heath care provider companies. It immediately began building health clinics for children throughout the United States. Finally the dream was a reality – free health care for all children. Although available to all children, parents still had the option to seek their own doctor and pay the associated fees. Parents opting out of the program were still required to pay the additional Medicare tax.

After the program had been in place for three years, the media began documenting problems within the system. Television news programs aired investigative reports on the poor health care children were receiving and the spiraling costs. Because of pressure from the public, Congress launched a special independent study into CMC. Here are the findings of that study:

1. Of the health care received, over 50% was rated as “not acceptable” and in the poorest, inner city neighborhoods the rate was as high as 75%. This was not based on opinion but on verifiable testing. The results were disputed by CMC which pointed out that the study was biased and conducted by a “left-wing” attack group.

2. Cost per child of the health care given was 40% to 100% higher than care given at non-CMC facilities – yet the care given at other facilities was demonstrably better.

3. Although impossible to determine an exact figure, it was found that CMC, its associated companies, clinics and clinic employees, spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying efforts and political contributions. Although Democrats in congress were benefactors of these contributions, by far the biggest recipients, including the President, were Republicans.

4. In spite of the fact that CMC costs were higher and the quality of health care lower than non-CMC care, CMC continued to insist that the issue was one of money. A CMC spokesperson quote in a television interview said, “we are not receiving enough from the government to give each child the attention and quality of health care they deserved.” When asked to give an exact figure at which they would deliver the highest quality of care possible, CMC replied, “The more the better.”

5. All CMC employees at all clinics were members of the Health Care Providers Union (HCPU). The HCPU defended CMC stating that their member wages were below the national averages for comparable jobs. “It is critical that wages be increased to attract the best medical professionals possible. The lives of our children depend on it,” stated Marie Dayton of the HCPU local in California.

6. Comparison of the CMC corporate hierarchy to better performing, lower cost health care companies showed that for every 100 actual health care providers there were over 130 administrators and non-healthcare employees. The ratio in the better performing companies was less than 40 non-health care providers to every 100 that did provide care. Clearly, if money was the problem in CMC, it was being directed toward administration rather than actual health care for the nation’s children.

7. In one unbelievable waste of public money, over $300 million was spent by CMC for a new hospital in Los Angeles. After the clinic was completed, it was found it could not be used because it was built directly on top of a major earthquake fault line. While the facility sits empty and unused neither CMC nor any of its directors or administrators have been held accountable.

8. The study also revealed that the richest 5% of Americans rarely used CMC for their children’s healthcare. Poorer parents, of course, had no other option.

Congress launched a massive attack against CMC accusing it of squandering public money, public trust and endangering America’s future by providing poor health care to its children. The White House defended CMC and proposed that Congress appropriate additional funds to CMC for one region of the US. If the quality of care did not improve in two years he would consider other alternatives.

After dramatically increasing funding to one mid-west region it was found that over a two year period quality of care actually fell. CMC built state of the art clinics and laboratories with the money they received but the actual quality of care to the children declined.

As the scrutiny from the media continued, doctors and nurses working for CMC defended the medical care they provided saying, “these attacks are an insult to each one of us personally as well as to our profession. Our love and our concern is for the children of America. Anyone not working here in these clinics and hospitals day after day has no basis from which to criticize us.”

The President, in a complete about face, refused to consider any alternative other than increased funding to CMC paid for by increased taxes. A statement released by the President and endorsed by the CMC and the HCPU read, “I cannot believe that anyone could possibly think that the solution to this serious problem is ‘less money.’ I will not support any move that endangers the future of our nation’s children.”

It was noted in one report that neither the President nor most members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, use the CMC for their own children’s health care. As pressure from the public increased to do something about the situation, the CMC and the HCPU launched a series of advertising campaigns to “set the record straight.” Although there was some grandstanding on the part of Congressional Democrats who wanted the system placed under government control, no action has been taken by either party in Congress or from the White House. For CMC, it is “business as usual.”
____________________________________________________

The above is obviously fiction – set in the future. Although the names and the dates have been changed, the story is true. There is no CMC and the year is obviously not 2017. So what is the CMC-type conglomerate of which I speak? It is the public school system.

1. Over 50% of students leave the public school system classified as “functionally illiterate.” They do not have the basic tools necessary to compete in a modern world. Even though they may (or may not) graduate from high school they operate with skills lower than a fifth grade level. In poor inner-city schools, this number increases to 75%.

2. The average cost of public education in the US in the 2003-4 school year was $8,300 with a high of $13,300 in New Jersey. There was no correlation between amount spent per state and performance. Private education consistently outperforms public education and, excluding the top, most expensive private schools, costs 20% to 60% less than public education. Even charter schools, such as in Oakland, California and Washington D.C., operate at a far lower cost per pupil yet deliver measurably better education to their students.

3. The NEA, California Teacher’s Association, and state teacher’s unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying, advertisements, mailers and political contributions.

4. In a comparison of public to private schools regarding teachers versus all non-teaching positions (including administration) it was found in private schools that for every 100 teachers there were 25 to 40 non-teachers. I recently contacted the Los Angeles Unified School District and found for every 100 teachers there were over 130 non-teachers. Considering that teaching only takes place in the classroom it is difficult to imagine the need for so many administrators and non-teachers.

5. The $300 million facility mention above is the Belmont Learning Center. Far worse than an earthquake fault, the school was built over a waste dump emitting toxic fumes. Unlike Enron, where Ken Lay was justifiably sent to prison, no one in the public school system was held accountable.

6. For all of the grandstanding done by such pro-public education politicians such as the Clintons and the Kennedys, none actually send their children to public schools. Poor people, of course, have no such options as those rich, deeply concerned individuals who consistently reject choice in education. Those hundreds of millions of lobbying and political contribution dollars seem to be having the desired effect.

7. Because of chronically low education scores in Kansas City, a court ordered an additional $2 billion spent to improve the schools. After building gyms, Olympic pool facilities, computer labs, and paying taxis to transport white students to the schools, education scores actually got worse. The schools subsequently lost their accreditation.

Without an education our children will fail in this technological age. With over 50% of children leaving school as functionally illiterate it is difficult to believe that anyone who does not directly receive money from the current system can actually defend it, yet defend it they do.

Comparing a corporation to a government agency may seem like comparing apples to oranges. One is profit driven and one is not. Yet without the objective of profits and without market pressures to ensure excellence, government agencies are consistently wasteful and consistently deliver poor results. If being under government control ensures quality why then is the Veteran’s Administration (VA) health care system one of the worst in the country?

The public has a right to expect a corporation to deliver goods and services that are safe and “as advertised.” If not, we have the right to sue. In 1976 a suit was brought by a San Francisco high school graduate who could only read at the fifth grade level. His charge was educational malpractice. The court found that there was no duty for the state to provide a minimum level of skill and “thus no cause of action in negligence.” So the courts have ruled – public schools have no duty to ensure that our children are actually educated, all they must do is continue to operate schools.

If the public is given choice in education through a voucher system, parents, especially poor parents whose children attend some of the worst performing schools in our country, will quickly exercise that choice and send their children to private schools. Most private schools are not for profit yet perform far better than public schools. Why? If they don’t perform parents will pull their children from the school and it will eventually close. Even the public corporation Sylvan Learning Center, although driven by profits must deliver excellence or their doors too will close. Public schools in Belgium, where the voucher system is used, also deliver excellent education and at a fair price as they too much compete for voucher dollars.

In spite of all the facts and data showing the failure and waste of the public school system, nothing changes. The issue is consistently “more money will fix the problem.” What a joke. If, like the CMC, the education of our children was contracted to a private corporation and these were the results, politicians on both sides of the aisle would be outraged. Since it is a government agency, they are defended. For the public school system it is just “business as usual.

10. America the Prejudiced

2007-09-17T07:17:00.000-07:00

I have been fortunate in my life to meet and work with people who have immigrated to the United States. These friends and co-workers came from Europe, Central and South America, India, Africa and Asia. Possibly because of the nature of my work and the region of the US in which I live, the greatest majority of those who I have met have been from the Pacific Rim – Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Thailand. Their stories and reasons for coming to this country are different and yet the same. Although some were born into wealthy families, came here for their college education and never returned home, most came looking for opportunity and freedom. Many escaped their home countries risking their lives to do so.

After the fall of South Vietnam and fearing the communist North, many South Vietnamese fled their country. They were the “boat people.” Many women, whose husbands had been arrested and often killed by the North, took their children and what little money they had and left Vietnam by night hoping to someday, somehow reach the United States. In many cases these people were robbed, beaten, cheated out of their money and yet, despite these hardships they arrived in America. They came not speaking English, not knowing our culture and often with no money. They had almost nothing going for them except two things – determination and hope.

In spite of all the reasons that they could have given themselves to fail, they instead succeeded. Once arriving, they must have endured all forms of prejudice. Their language, their culture, their customs and their diet were a curiosity at best and an annoyance at worst to most Americans. One former co-worker of mine told me of how his mother brought him and his seven brothers and sisters to the United States. The oldest child at the time was only 14 years old. Although wealthy in Vietnam, they arrived here penniless. Within this one generation all eight children have graduated from college and now own their own homes, they work as engineers, as small business owners and in medicine.

Don Chang immigrated to the United States from Korea with no money in his pocket. In 1984 he founded the women’s clothing store, “Forever 21” and today has 200 stores with over 7,000 employees. I don’t know Mr. Chang’s personal story but I’m sure he faced bias and prejudice. Instead of wallowing in reasons for failure he chose instead to look at reasons to succeed and succeed he has.

Don Chang’s success is extraordinary for anyone – immigrant or otherwise. But when I look at the accomplishments of the millions of people who have come to this country in just the last 30 years I clearly see America as a land of almost unlimited opportunity. The limits are primarily those which we impose upon ourselves.

The other night at a dinner party I met a twenty-two year old college student. He was nice looking, intelligent, healthy, came from an upper middle class family and was born in America of Asian heritage. His view of the US was one filled with bias and prejudice and his outlook for his future was grim. White men, he told me, are privileged and all others merely struggle as doors are slammed in their faces. Identifying himself as a “victim” he sees his opportunities as limited. Based on his attitude, I have to agree. Compared to Don Chang and many of the immigrants I have worked with, this young man had almost everything possible going for him in life, yet he chooses to look only at the negatives – some real but most merely perceived. Every obstacle he faces in life he will assign to the category of “racism.” It is a rather easy out. It doesn’t require self-reflection, change, effort or education. The world is against me and therefore I will fail.

Bias and prejudice exist in all countries among all people. Yet there is no country in the world which provides so much opportunity for so many people from so many different backgrounds as the United States. Immigrants come to this country and they succeed. They accept and recognize certain limitations, look beyond them and move forward. As I look at myself and the other supposed “privileged white men” I know that we too face obstacles in life. We can, if we choose, give excuses such as I am not good looking enough, I am not tall enough, I am not from the right family, I did not attend the right school, and so forth. But society, fortunately, won’t let us get away with such whining. So many with so much less will accomplish so much more than those that declare themselves “victims” and wallow in that label.

In May 2002, eight months after the 9-11 attack, I was in Munich, Germany about to return to the US. My cab ride to the airport is one I will never forget. My cab driver was Arab and as we pulled away from the hotel he asked me where I was from and I replied, “California.” I regret now that I did not have a video camera because the speech he delivered should have been recorded and shown to every “Blame America First” basher in the US. The passion in his voice could not be denied as he proclaimed the US to be the “greatest country in the world.” At the same time he immigrated to Germany his brother and family immigrated to the US. “When my brother was granted citizenship he was told ‘you are now an American, you now have all the rights of all Americans.’ It didn’t matter that his skin was a different color or that he had an accent or that he struggled with English – he was an American. My brother now owns his own home, he has a great job and his children go to university. I have lived in Germany for over ten years. I will never be granted citizenship, I will never be allowed to own a home, I will never be told that I am German. I will always be a second-class resident of this country. You may not see your country as perfect but to me having lived in both my home country and in Germany I see the United States as the greatest.”

Amen.

9. Exit Strategy

2007-09-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

The Left has repeatedly claimed that Bush entered Iraq without first defining an exit strategy and that such a strategy still does not exist. If one does exist I’m guessing that Bush may not be interested in discussing it with Ted, Nancy, Harry or Hillary. But the basic question is valid – what defines success, what defines failure and at what point should a program or strategy be abandoned?

In general, I don’t have much faith in the government’s ability to solve problems. This isn’t based merely on my personal ideology; it is based on the lack of results of the vast majority of government programs such as social security, welfare and the public school system. Before implementing these programs and even now that they continue, shouldn’t we define success and failure? Shouldn’t we lay out an exit strategy?

Despite the Left’s claims that conservatives want to privatize social security to make the rich richer while starving little old ladies, the fact is that for the money paid into the system, participants could be retiring in comfort rather than their current state of poverty. In 2005, the average monthly social security payment to an individual was $895 – hardly enough for someone to enjoy their golden years. Although Social Security was created primarily as a safety net, Americans currently pay enough into the system to create a comfortable retirement if it were privatized. Someone earning $35,000 a year currently pays $2,170 into the non-Medicare portion of SSI and the amount is matched by their employer. Instead, if the participant contributed the same amount into an IRA for 43 years (age 22 to age 65) and assuming only a 6% average annual return they would receive over $5,600 a month in private retirement income. Hillary recently declared Social Security as “…the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States.” Michael Moore had similar comments during an interview on CNN. Let’s see - $5,600 a month privately compared to $895 a month through a government program, hmmm, success or failure for SSI? Hillary? Mike? Comments?

In the mid-1960s then President Lyndon Johnson created his “War on Poverty.” How is that war faring? According to Economist Thomas Sowell, “The number of people receiving public assistance more than doubled from 1960 to1977. The money spent on public housing rose nearly fivefold in a decade and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. Government-provided benefits in kind increased about eightfold from 1965 to 1969 and more than twenty-fold by 1974.” Mr. Sowell also estimates that nearly seventy cents of every welfare dollar never gets to the intended beneficiary instead going to administrative costs such as rent and salaries of the government staff. Imagine the outrage if a charity such as the United Way or the Red Cross so poorly managed your contributions.

Another front on the “war on poverty” is in the Appalachian Region of the United States. Over a thirty-five year period, from 1964 to 1999, the federal government’s Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) spent over $7.4 billion trying to improve the conditions in this impoverished region. Of the 214 counties defined in the Appalachia Region, the number of counties defined as “distressed” grew from 59 in 1980 to 78 in 1990 and increased to 83 in 2000 according to a June 2002 report prepared by MDC, Inc. Although other reports indicate marginal improvement, this region still has poverty rates 21% higher than the national average with Owsley County, Kentucky leading with a poverty rate of 40.9%! Has the $7.4 billion been well spent? Are we winning the war? Is there a definition of success or of failure? Is there an exit strategy? No, and the “war” rages on with no end in sight.

What about public education? How goes the “war on illiteracy?” In spite of the billions of dollars spent each year over 50% of children still leave the school system functionally illiterate with that number soaring to over 75% in the inner cities. Private schools and even public charter schools in the same neighborhoods perform far better and at far lower costs, yet the cry from the Left is that public schools are under funded. A San Francisco court ruled in 1976 that there was no duty for the state to provide a minimum level of skill in the public school system and they have no duty to ensure that our children are actually educated! Not only is there not a definition for success or failure but there is not even a requirement to succeed. Exit strategy? Please.

Hillary is once again talking about socialized medicine. Her prior proposal would force us all into her plan – like it or not. There were even criminal penalties and jail time for both doctors and patients trying to circumvent the plan. Although I strongly disagree that her approach would improve any aspect of healthcare, I would possibly agree to some government intervention providing there were clear, objective and measurable definitions of success and failure and a point at which should these objectives not be met, the program dissolved. How likely is that to happen? I’d say the odds are zero. The fear among not only the Congressional Republicans in the 1990s but also many Democrats was that once implemented, there was no turning back. Once in place, this new bureaucratic monster would never die regardless of the results of the program.

The goals and objectives of these government programs may be noble, but they should still fall under the same scrutiny as the war in Iraq. Before we set up one more government program, especially one as massive as HillaryCare, we should first define the goals of such a program and ensure that those goals are both objective and measurable. We should define both success and failure and most importantly, if the program fails to meet our objectives, then a pre-planned exit strategy should be exercised.

Does this make sense only to me?

8. Happily Ever After

2007-09-10T07:14:00.000-07:00

“…While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.” - Clement C. Moore

Why is it that some people can distinguish between fantasy and reality and others cannot? Does it come from childhood fairy tales? You remember – after a harrowing start our hero and heroine ride off into the sunset to live “happily ever after.” An adult knows that those are words of pure fantasy. But to those whose minds still live in this child-like world, “happily ever after” is real. Somehow, someway if we just believe enough, things will magically all come together and work out.

At the beginning of the first gulf war a liberal co-worker of mine said, “I can’t believe that we would go to war for something as stupid as oil.” No, oil is not a living, breathing thing, but it does ultimately power almost everything we use in this country as well as in most other countries in the world. Turn off the flow of oil and imagine what would happen. Food could not be grown and harvested. Food and products currently stored in silos and warehouses could not be transported. Electricity that powers almost every aspect of our lives would be shut off. People living in areas such as Las Vegas and Phoenix would die by the thousands from heat stroke. What about water? There would be no electricity to power the pumps that bring water to most Americans. Stop the flow of oil and America will quickly start to die. “Stupid as oil?” I can think of almost nothing less stupid to fight for.

I do agree that our dependence on foreign oil is stupid. But here’s where the “Sugar-Plum Dancers” confuse me. They want alternate energy but they deny the realities of such a change. They want power plants to switch to cleaner burning natural gas but they block the drilling of new wells. They love the idea of hydroelectric power but protest against the building of dams. They believe in conspiracies hampering the development of hydrogen cars yet ignore the fact that we would have to burn oil to generate the hydrogen needed to fuel those cars. They also ignore the problems with transportation and storage of hydrogen. When confronted with such dilemmas, they reply, “Well, I don’t know anything about that” and retreat back to fantasy land to continue their ride on the carousel.

The Left protested viciously against the drilling for oil in ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. ANWR lies in the northeast corner of Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle. If developed, less than one-half of one percent of the total 19 million acres of ANWR would be affected. The drilling and development is supported by both the Alaskans and the Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR. In spite of its extreme location and that its development would leave only a small footprint, the Left has successfully blocked the drilling of oil in ANWR leaving little to feed our voracious appetite for oil.

In a recent article by Jesse Ausubel, a well-known and long-time “Greenie,” Mr. Ausubel stated that most renewable energy the Left so passionately embraces is actually damaging to the environment. Here are some of his examples:

1. Biomass – This is the use of living and recently dead biological material which can be used as fuel, for example, corn. It would take almost 618,000 acres of prime farmland to produce as much energy as one nuclear power plant. Almost five acres of land would be needed to support just one automobile.

2. Hydroelectric Power – To meet the needs of each American, over 247 acres of land would need to be set aside as a reservoir of water behind a hydroelectric dam. To meet the electricity needs of Los Angeles County alone would require over 200 million acres of land committed to water storage. That is an area over 75 times the size of the county itself.

3. Wind Farms – To support the electricity needs of New York City the entire state of Connecticut would have to be turned into a wind farm. This assumes there would be enough constant wind to keep those turbines turning.

4. Solar Power – Over 37 million acres of land would need to be committed to solar cells to meet the electricity needs of the United States. Again, this assumes the sun will always be shining without those pesky and annoying clouds.

If the Left won’t agree to drill for oil in a remote area such as ANWR how will they ever agree to the environmental scars left by solar cells, wind farms, areas flooded by dams? Even worse what of farmland used not to feed the world but instead to feed our energy needs? Yet, somehow in their sugar-plum minds everything will just magically work out.

I know, let’s all wear ribbons – green ribbons. That will fix everything. A green ribbon shows that I care. Caring is all that matters. Caring makes me feel like I’m doing something. Caring makes me feel good about myself. Reality? Forget it.

7. No Apologies Here Either

2007-09-06T07:21:00.000-07:00

Dear John Edwards,

I know you must be busy with all the campaign stops and debates you’re attending but I just wanted to shoot off a quick letter regarding some of your recent comments. It’s not that your opinions have all that much affect on me, but with the remote possibility of you reaching the White House, your mind will no doubt drift towards legislation that very well could impact me – hit me where I live, so to speak.

John, last week you said that, if president, you would ask Americans to give up their SUVs as part of your plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Now I don’t mind you asking me nicely to make changes in my life but what I do mind is when the morals and beliefs of those that think as you do are thrust upon me through laws that impact my quality of life.

The problem I have here, John, is that you live in a 28,000 square foot home that must consume a boat load of energy each day. When away from home you fly on private jets that produce more carbon dioxide in one cross country trip than my small SUV produces in over eighteen months. When you leaving a campaign stop I see you settling in to your nice, big, gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade SUV. Yes, I’ve heard that you buy those trendy little “carbon offset credits” that Al Gore is so tickled by, but somehow when I look at my modest lifestyle compared to the lavish one led by you and Elizabeth I just feel that you would need to scale back a long, long way before you even think of suggesting I give up one of my small comforts.

I know the press was dogging you a little on this issue last week, questioning you if there was a contradiction in asking Americans to sacrifice while you are living in a mansion large enough to accommodate over fifteen families. You replied that you came from nothing, worked hard and you “have no apologies whatsoever for what I’ve done with my life.”

Now John, I realize that hanging around with your buddies Ted Kennedy and John Kerry might make you think that most Americans are either born into money or simply marry it. But the reality is that like you, most Americans are also hard working individuals from modest backgrounds that have made their own way in life. For you not to give up your SUV or private planes or luxury home while asking us to start thinking about what we should be sacrificing seems just a tad hypocritical. No doubt you’re also thinking about raising taxes should you be elected president. Not only do I not want you to take away my SUV, I don’t want you to take away any more of the money I earn either.

You see John, just like you, most Americans don’t see a need to apologize for what they’ve done with their lives. They worked hard in school and in their jobs, they’ve saved and sacrificed for their children, they’ve invested and they’ve taken risks. You must know this yet you want us to make more sacrifices and feel badly about our choices in life while at the same time seeing no need to change your lifestyle in any way – well except that Elizabeth has agreed to give up tangerines, a move applauded by Al, Tipper and Leo DiCaprio, no doubt.

No John, I’m not asking you to apologize, I’m asking you and all of the other candidates running for office to be role models – you know, leaders, before even thinking of imposing legislation upon me which affects my lifestyle. I’m asking you to fly coach on commercial airlines, to move into a 1,500 square foot home, to drive a modest car, to mow your own lawn, to iron your own shirts, to prepare your own meals and to get $20 haircuts – just like me and most other Americans. My carbon “footprint” is so small next to yours that you can’t plant enough trees to offset your “greenhouse pollution” next to mine, yet you still want to take away my SUV.

I’m not apologizing and I’m not feeling badly about my life choices and neither do most Americans. But you know what John? I’m only suggesting that you change your lifestyle based on your comments and your beliefs, not mine. I live my life according to my own beliefs and principles and I’m happy for you to live according to yours. But when you cross that line and start talking legislation and forcing people to change their lifestyle to conform to your beliefs, I have a problem.

Thanks for listening, John. Feel free to pass this along to your other liberal friends.

Sincerely,

ConservativeTM

6. Between Reptile and Repugnant

2007-09-03T07:59:00.000-07:00

The diplomatic and thoughtful Julia Roberts once said, “Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant.” Her implications are clear – Democrats are caring, loving, honest, fair and wonderful people while Republicans are greedy, hateful, deceitful and evil. So Julia, does that pretty much sum it up? If America was run exclusively by Democrats then all social ills would be cured – am I right Julia?

August 29, 2007 marked the two year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. On news shows, talk radio and Oprah the subject was New Orleans and the problems that city still faces after the devastation of Katrina. Guests on Oprah displayed grief and sadness at the suffering that still exists. Said one guest, “The people of New Orleans have been forgotten.” The fault, of course, lies squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush and the racist, evil, uncaring and repugnant Republican Party. To quote John Edwards, “If George Bush’s government were as good and decent and focused as the people of New Orleans, whole parts of the city would not still look like the storm just hit.”

The facts are that New Orleans was in trouble long before Katrina. From the 2000 Census, New Orleans had a poverty rate of 28% compared to an overall 12% rate of the US. New Orleans isn’t some small, hidden town in the Appalachian Mountains; it is one of the largest and most important port cities in the United States. Not only is it a sea port but it is also the terminus of the Mississippi River. In addition, New Orleans is a major tourist attraction with Mardi Gras and a host of other festivals and conventions bringing people in from all over the world. In spite of its location and industrial advantages, New Orleans pre-Katrina ranked first in percentage of population living in poverty areas, third in lowest median household income and third in portion of workforce that is unemployed. In 2003, before Katrina, the murder rate in New Orleans was nearly eight times the national average and since Katrina the rate has increased to almost 10 times the average.

So who is running the show in New Orleans and Louisiana ? Since 1936 the mayors of New Orleans have been exclusively Democrats. Since 1877, Democrats have been governor of Louisiana for 118 of the 130 years. How can so much poverty, crime and grief exist in a city and state firmly controlled by Democrats?

The first reason seems to be government corruption. Before Katrina, New Orleans ranked second in the nation for the number of public corruption convictions and indictments. In a 2005 Louisiana State University poll of 419 business executives, corruption in New Orleans was ranked as among the worst aspects of doing business in that city. Investors and managers are reluctant to come “because they don’t want to pay the corruption tax,” said Rafael C. Goyeneche, president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission. New Orleans public schools are also some of the worst performing in the country. Long before Katrina the school system was riddled with corruption, mismanagement and poor bookkeeping. Who suffers at the hands of these caring, non-repugnant Democrats? It is the poor, black children who, with no education, will have no hope for a bright future.

In the days leading up to Katrina coming ashore, it was clear this hurricane could potentially destroy New Orleans. On August 28, Mayor Ray Nagin released a strong warning to his constituents regarding the potential devastation the city faced and ordered them to leave the city. As cars streamed away from New Orleans several reporters remained and interviewed residents. Many discounted the possible effects of Katrina and refused to leave. None I saw interviewed complained of the lack of transportation. But, even if they did, where was Ray Nagin? Where was Governor Kathleen Blanco? What were they doing to ensure the safety of their people? Weeks after the storm, Governor Blanco even admitted that President Bush called offering federal assistance and she refused. Yet the aftermath left Nagin and Blanco blaming only George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

New Orleans is obviously not the only city in the US controlled by Democrats that seems to be unable to deal with their social and fiscal problems. For those who claim to have the answers for this country they seem incapable of solving the problems within their own cities. In the 1980s, both New York City and State were controlled by Democrats. In spite of New York City having an economy larger than most countries, they continued to blame Ronald Reagan, looking to him to solve their problems with homelessness. What were Mayor Koch and Governor Cuomo doing on their own to solve this problem, I mean, besides blaming Reagan and all of the other greedy and hateful Republicans? I don’t know. What I do know is that this problem had a rather simple first-step solution. The city and state governments could have raised taxes on income, property and sales and used the revenue to build shelters to care for its cities homeless. Couldn’t either of these thoughtful, caring and intelligent Democrats think of that? Or, like Julia Roberts, was it just a lot easier to call Republicans names?

Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland and Newark all have been primarily controlled by Democrats for the last fifty years. Yet all rank at or near the top of lists of cities with the highest crime and poverty rates. As I scanned biographies of the past mayors of these cities the one world that appeared over and over again was “corruption.”

If New Orleans, St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit and Newark are prime examples of cities historically controlled by Democrats, I fear how much “better” life could be throughout the US if all decisions were turned over to that compassionate party. The Bush administration reported that over $96 billion in aid and reconstruction has already been spent in the gulf region. Two years and $96 billion later and New Orleans still appears as if “the storm has just hit.” The report also states that over $1 billion has been wasted in fraud and abuse. Who is at fault Julia? Who cares and does not care about the people of New Orleans? Implying sanctity on the Left and evil on the Right doesn’t really add up, does it? So Julia, if Republicans are repugnant and reptilian what adjectives should we use to describe Democrats?

5. Hollywood, An Attainable Utopia!!!

2007-08-30T07:25:00.000-07:00

Wouldn’t it be great if you had the power to create a world that matched your political beliefs? Wouldn’t it be great if you didn’t have to worry about which political party won the next election, that everything you believed could be implemented right now? For all of the money the Hollywood power brokers spend each year to get their liberal candidates elected (or not elected) why don’t they just turn Hollywood into a mini-socialist state? Their budgets exceed those of small countries. They don’t need to wait for legislation. They don’t need to wait for Hillary in the White House. They can do it right now!! They can live their liberal dream. They can show the entire world that they are right and we conservatives are wrong.

So, how could Hollywood transform itself into a socialist mini-state? Actually, it wouldn’t be that difficult. Let’s look at this point by point.

1. Create one “Mega-Studio.” Let’s call our new studio Utopia Studios (US). The left has made it clear that competition leads to corporate greed so US will be structured as follows:

US will recognize all employee-members (EM) as equal.
US will be owned equally by all EMs of the studio. No one person will have controlling ownership.
Each member-employee will have one vote.

2. Unions. EMs will be unionized – workers versus management (but all employees are equal). Unions will be able to strike at any time for any reason. After all, it is their right. All movies will be made at US. Movies now filmed or post-produced in Canada or other foreign countries to avoid union wages will be eliminated.

3. Benefits. Health care will be granted to all employees through the US health benefit plan. This plan will be set up to mirror HillaryCare – the left’s health care plan of choice. EMs may only see doctors within the plan. Any member seeing a doctor outside of the plan will be immediately terminated from US.

4. Free Labor. Unlike current studios, US will not use free labor under the guise of “paying their dues.” Currently actors and those trying to get into other aspects of the industry often work for nothing trying to establish a foothold or make necessary connections. Within the industry, this is called “paying your dues.” This forced or slave labor practice will be eliminated.

5. Economic democracy. US will have a strict distribution of wealth policy. Of the 100,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the average income is less than $5,000 a year (source: collegegrad.com). With leftist stars commanding over $10 million a movie it seems the rich in Hollywood are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. According to the New York Daily News, Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, and Will Smith all command $25 million per picture. Under US, if each of those six stars made only one movie a year, US would fairly and equitably distribute their $150 million fees between the 100,000 new US EMs so each would receive $1,500.

6. Diversity. US will ensure that Asians, Latins, Blacks, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. will be equitably (based on United States census numbers) represented in all aspects of acting and film making. In looking at the website IMDB.com under the “Coming Soon” heading I checked the first 10 films due to open. In all cases but one, the stars were white – only one minority was represented in a starring role. This is obviously racism and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED (Bill Clinton-style fist-hitting-the-podium emphasis added).

7. Poverty. There will be no poverty or homelessness at US. US will provide for EMs regardless of their talent and marketability. As one leftist told me, “Any country that cannot provide for its people is a failure.” There will be no such failure at US.
Inheritance tax – When EMs die any remaining money will be brought back into US to either distribute among all other EMs or to finance movie ventures.

8. Education. US will provide education by a diverse mix of teachers. Private schooling of children of EMs will not be permitted. After all, school choice (such as vouchers) only weakens the school system.

9. Global Warming. This is probably the most important issue US will face. Leonardo DiCaprio will head the “Carbon Neutral” division of US. High rise housing will be built on the US lot. Apartments will be no larger than 1,500 square feet. Since many Hollywood types will be forgoing their 10,000 to 50,000 square feet homes, a tremendous amount of energy will be saved in heating and cooling. Since the apartment complex is on the US lot, SUVs, limousines, and private planes will not be needed. Anyone owning or using one will immediately be terminated. Bicycles will be available to all EMs. For those needing to leave the US complex, shuttles and hybrid cars will be available on a first come, first serve basis.

10. Immigration. With such a utopian community, one so heavily blessed by God, it is completely understandable that hard working souls seeking a better life will want to also become an EM. EMs with full voting privileges and the desire to share in the bounty that is US. Anyone at anytime and with no restrictions of any kind can become an EM and share in its riches. Any other attitude is morally wrong.

So – how likely is this to happen? How likely is Barbra Streisand to give up her mansions in Holmby Hills and Malibu? About zero. For all the talk of the Hollywood left you would think that they would do something within their own community. But they do none of these things. But it isn’t their fault. It’s the fault of those mean, nasty, greedy conservatives. That’s why there are so many social problems in this world. Isn’t it?

New York City is often referred to as “The Last Bastion of Liberalism.” Yet, NYC has one of the worst homeless problems in the country. Why don’t they just address that one simple problem? They could build more homeless shelters and feed those people. What you say? Not enough money – no problem, with the average apartment in NYC now worth $1.2 million they could easily raise property taxes and cover the cost. At $1.2 million an apartment we certainly aren’t talking about taxing the poor here. They’d be taxing those that are rich and greedy and don’t want to share. But does that “Bastion of Liberalism” do that? No, they blame Ronald Reagan, George Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and all those other, evil, repugnant, reptilian conservatives that Julia Roberts loves to hate so much. Here, it is within their power to change things and instead they do nothing but bitch and complain.

But, like every liberal I’ve ever met, they don’t. The liberal ideal is just that – it’s an ideal, an ideal for someone else to implement, someone else to live under. Hollywood wants to talk liberalism and live capitalism. They want someone else to be the practicing social liberals.

Yep – when I meet a liberal that lives the life that he or she wants to impose on me through legislation, I’ll take him seriously. But, I’m not worried, because it will never happen.

4. Who You Calling Rhetorical?

2007-08-27T07:56:00.000-07:00

In a recent interview with “The Progressive,” Elizabeth Edwards, wife of candidate John Edwards, declared a divide between “actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats.” Says Ms. Edwards, “Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it’s like a Hollywood set: It’s a façade and there’s no guts behind it.”

Good point Elizabeth.

With that in mind, I’ve decided to create the Elizabeth Edwards Rhetorical Democrat Award (EERDA). Drawing partly from Peter Schweizer’s book “Do As I Say” here are my nominations for this coveted prize.

1. Senator Ted Kennedy, liberal icon and safe driver. Ted has never met a tax increase he didn’t like, unless, of course, it’s his family who has to pay those taxes. Ted’s family trust was set up in Fiji, not the US. In Fiji the trust is far away from IRS scrutiny. In the 1970s, Ted led the charge to tax the “excessive” profits made by oil producers. Ted’s legislation made a distinction between large and “small, struggling” oil producers, one paying more taxes and one paying less. Guess which side of the fence Ted’s oil profits come from? Yep – the “small, struggling” companies.

2. Al Gore, Guru of Global Warming. Al wants you to take a pledge to reduce your use of energy and the amount of carbon dioxide you generate. Al won’t take his own pledge even though his house in Tennessee (one of several) uses 20 times the energy of the average US home. Does Al have solar or wind panels on his house? Nope – nothing.

3. Robert Kennedy Jr., Kennedy scion and champion of the green. Bob follows in Al Gore’s footsteps, he loves to talk green but hates to take his own advice. Not only does he prefer the comfort of private jets he also fought against the erecting of a wind mill farm near the family estate. Ted joined him in this fight. Bob said, “I definitely support alternative energy, but the wind farm plan makes no sense for the public because the cost it’s going to impose on the people of these regions are so huge…. Probably larger than coal.” I guess alternative energy is a really good thing, as long as it isn’t in Bob’s neighborhood.

4. Michael Moore, average working-class nice guy. Mike is appalled at racism in the US and especially in the corporate world. Mike declared in “Stupid White Men” that he would “hire only black people” to prove he’s taking an active step towards racial equality. But of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers and production coordinators Mike hired for his movies, only three were black, a rate of only 2%.

5. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, proud liberal, pro-union and pro-environment. Nancy hates outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries yet invests heavily in corporations that do just that. Nancy hates threats to the public school system but invests heavily in Beacon Education Management, a contractor that provides services to charter schools. Nancy hates greedy corporations that are not unionized but does not hire unionized grape pickers to harvest her vineyard in Napa. Nancy also doesn’t want to be bothered with union workers at her exclusive hotels, the Auberge du Soleil in Napa and the San Ysidro Ranch in Santa Barbara.

6. Hillary Clinton, Village Queen. Hillary wanted to impose her health care system on all of us – no choice, no opt-out option. If implemented, like in Canada, and you tried to circumvent the system because, well, you didn’t want to die, you and your doctor could be prosecuted and serve time in prison. But Hillary and Bill felt that they should not have to be part of such a grand and glorious plan – they were exempt for life.

But the winner of the EERDA this year does not go to these six worthy recipients of the Democrat Party. The winner this year is Elizabeth herself. Liz is deeply concerned about the environment and global warming. Distressed about the carbon footprint she leaves she decided to take action. Not rhetorical action but real action. No, Liz didn’t put her 28,000 square foot house on the market because, no doubt, that would be an empty gesture – a Hollywood-type façade. Liz, at great personal sacrifice declared that she would give up tangerines.

Congratulations Elizabeth. Go get ‘em!! I feel the earth cooling already!

3. Save The Planet

2007-08-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

In the 1980s as AIDS became known as the plague of the gay community, that same community blamed Ronald Reagan for inaction. If he had done something sooner, far fewer people would have died.

What exactly Reagan was supposed to have done facing a then unknown and previously unseen killer, I don’t know. But clearly, according to the Left, his alleged inaction was the reason for the devastating consequences of AIDS.

Now the Left has their current crisis. It’s called Global Warming. It makes every plague in history look like mere chest colds. According to the Left, it will destroy, devastate and kill untold millions of animals, humans, eco-systems and plants. It is the greatest looming disaster in history. It has already started and it is clearly our fault. If we change our energy use, the disaster will be averted. If we don’t – we are doomed.

So, how seriously is the Left taking this issue, I mean, besides flying around the world and talking? Nothing really. Are there serious bills in Congress, introduced by the new “green sensitive” Democratic leadership dealing with this impending disaster? No. Just talk – lots of talk and lots of money going to “research.”

Well, I don’t buy into Al Gore’s argument, but let’s say that I did. Let’s say I am the Speaker and have control of the House of Representatives. What bills would I introduce to reduce our “carbon footprint.” Here are the first seven:

1, Tax Credits (not deductions) for homeowners purchasing and installing energy producing and saving systems. This would include both solar and wind energy as well as other energy saving upgrades. Currently, homeowners are reluctant to install these expensive systems because the pay back period is 10 to 20 years. Through tax credits, let say for 90% of the purchase price spread over two years, this would make these systems affordable. As more and more systems are purchased the prices would drop as more competition enters the market to meet the demand of this exploding industry. Would tax revenues to the federal government also fall? Possibly, but these are dire times and maybe the government should tighten their belt a little. Isn’t that the least they can do to save our planet and to protect our children’s future?

These tax credits will be available to all tax payers, regardless of income. So, who would be most likely to take these tax credits? The middle and upper classes. This would no doubt create a conflict on the Left as the “rich” may pay fewer taxes, but then, isn’t saving the planet the main objective here?

2. Tax Credits for fuel efficient and hybrid cars. Much like the above example, the additional cost of the hybrid cars negates the savings they create in fuel efficiency. Bridge that gap with a similar tax credit and sales would soar. Although there is currently a tax deduction in place, it exempts higher income car buyers. Since they are often the car owners most likely to commute and most likely to buy large SUVs, don’t we want to do everything possible to encourage them to buy a more green friendly car?

3. Wind Farm Expansion. Throughout suitable regions such as the plains states and coastal regions, offer generous incentives to industry and power companies to create wind farms. This would include such areas as Cape Cod, in spite of protests from Senator Ted Kennedy. Yes, they are not attractive, but they, along with solar energy, are the cleanest fuel alternatives.

4. Solar Array Expansion. With so many regions in the South and Southwest bathing in sunshine so much of the year, these areas would seem perfect candidates for massive solar array systems. Again, tax incentives or outright grants to build and tie these systems into the power grid should quickly stimulate their construction.

5. Nuclear Power Plant Expansion. This suggestion may not fully please the green crowd, but the reality is that there is little or no carbon footprint. With nuclear pebble bed reactor technology, these plants are far safer than previous designs These reactors would also pave the way for hydrogen production as an alternative and cleaner burning fuel.

6. Elimination of Car Pool Lanes on Highways. As a resident of Southern California, I know all too well about cars sitting idle on freeways burning fuel and spewing carbon dioxide while the car pool lane sits empty. From my limited knowledge of queue theory, I would suspect that opening those lanes to all traffic would greatly increase the flow of traffic and reduce the amount of fuel burned and carbon dioxide emitted. There are those that would disagree with me, but this is a rather easy theory to test. Measure the amount of fuel purchased in Los Angeles and Orange Counties over a three month period. Make a serious effort to alert the public that for a comparable three month period that all carpool lanes will be open to all traffic. Measure fuel usage and traffic flow for both periods. The data will determine the correct path.

7. Ease Building and Environmental Impact Restrictions for Construction of Energy Saving Systems. These alternative energy systems are far too important to get bogged down in the current red tape and over-regulation. Obviously, nothing should be built or operated unsafely, but streamline the bureaucracy and get these systems on-line!

Although I disagree with Gore’s hypothesis, I do agree that reducing reliance on foreign oil and seeking cleaner fuel sources is an excellent goal. But instead of just talking about it, I’m willing to back either party in stimulating real change. In fact, I’m willing to back almost any logical proposal as long as it does not include such words as “new taxes” or “new government agency.”

But what legislation has been introduced by either party under any administration? The only serious example I can recall were tax credits under the Carter administration. These credits proved to be effective and stimulated the solar energy markets. What have Clinton, Gore, Pelosi and Kennedy done? Well, I don’t recall anything other than Pelosi suggesting we make the Capitol Building “greener.” Yes, that’s a bold step forward.

It’s difficult for me to believe that such a crisis actually exists when those who profess the crisis as genuine take no real action to avert it. Noah took the crisis seriously and built an ark. Gore, on the other hand, won’t even take his own pledge and reduce the amount of energy he consumes in his own mansion. Maybe with tax credits, even he will make his mansion more energy efficient.

The left claims that President Bush’s lack of sensitivity toward this looming disaster is proof that he is in bed with the oil companies, that they, not Bush pull the strings. Based on the Left’s inaction, aren’t they too in that same bed?

If Reagan is at fault for AIDS then the looming global warming disaster is clearly on the hands of the Left. All talk and no action.

2. Thank You, Whoopi Goldberg

2007-08-20T07:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Whoopi Goldberg,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You’ve taken a huge load off of my shoulders. I was beginning to wonder if something was wrong with me. You see, I’m not able to understand the logic behind the views of most liberals. Now, I’m no genius, but I’m no idiot either. Liberalism is the political persuasion of the vast majority of college and university professors yet when I listen to liberals justifying their position on issues, I simply can’t follow their logic. With so many self-proclaimed intellectuals holding such views, I figured that something must be wrong with me that I still see the conservative approach as the most effective and rational.

But last week you changed everything for me. You were good enough to be interviewed by “The O’Reilly Factor.” During the interview, Bill told you that his staff had tried to get an opinion from Tim Robbins regarding the war in Iraq. One concern in pulling out of Iraq too early (well, at least a concern of mine and many fellow conservatives) is that Iran, seeing the weakness in Iraq, will immediately invade the country and slaughter millions of Iraqis as well as take control of their oil resources. This would be similar to what happened when the US pulled out Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered over 3 million Southeast Asians. When asked “Listen, what about Iran? If we get out of Iraq and they come down and they cause trouble what do you do?” Tim Robbins replied to the reporter, “Why don’t you enlist.”

Now Whoopi, before watching your interview, this would have puzzled me. Tim’s answer just didn’t make any sense to me. But you seemed to sum up the left for me when you said, “… when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about is how I feel about it and why. And I don’t have to justify it.”

So it’s simply how we all feel that should set policy. That would explain why logic, facts, science, and empirical data are irrelevant to liberals. Only feelings count. That also explains why whenever I ask a liberal to back-up or support his or her opinion on Iraq, or Bush, Cheney and Reagan, they are almost never able to give me any hard facts. They don’t need to in their minds, because their minds are not even part of the equation – only their feelings and their emotions are what matter.

So Whoopi, thanks for clearing this up for me. One last thing though. I mean, I hate to cloud the issue, but maybe President Bush simply felt that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Aren’t his feelings alone reason for the action? I mean, didn’t you just say that you don’t have to justify your opinions? If you don’t, why should anyone else? You have a podium, a microphone, and you get air time whenever you want. In fact, you will be the new co-host for ABCs “The View.” You will have the opportunity to influence people throughout the United States. But you still see no need to justify your opinions – how you feel is all that matters. If this is the case, why does the left continue to call Bush such terms as “stupid” and “an idiot?” If feelings and emotions should drive national policy why should anyone be attacked for their intellect or lack thereof?

Oh no – I’m confused again. Whoopi – help me!! I need you back on “The O’Reilly Factor!!”

Sincerely,

ConservativeTM

1. War Is Not The Answer?

2007-08-16T08:29:00.000-07:00

"I have learned nothing in twenty years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar." - M. Scott Peck

The bumper sticker on the car in front of me read, “War is not the answer.” Unable to interview the driver, I felt confident that “War is never the answer” would more completely reflect his views.

Self-proclaimed intellectuals and other “enlightened” individuals see no need for war. War, they say, is the response of those that look at the world in black and white. Enlightened intellectuals are able to see life in “shades of gray” and in doing so feel that war is avoidable and unnecessary.

So what are their alternate solutions to extreme conflict? Their first response is often “Negotiation.” Negotiation is the art of compromise, of finding common ground by which both parties may benefit. Negotiation is fine when determining the price of a car, but in many real-life situations, deals cannot be reached. If a child molester enters your home and takes your two children what is the compromise? Can he keep one and return the other? When Iraq invaded Kuwait would it have been acceptable for Hussein to keep part of Kuwait? Would any citizen of the US find that acceptable should we be invaded? Doubtful.

Negotiation under the threat of force is called extortion. North Korea has found it quite profitable to continue their nuclear program. As nations protest, North Korea is only too happy to negotiate. During the Clinton administration, Jimmy Carter negotiated a Neville Chamberlain-type end to their program. The agreement included giving North Korea hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. In spite of North Korea later admitting that their program was never halted, many leftists still pine for the foreign policy days of Clinton. Apparently, the illusion of negotiated settlements is preferable to the dangerous reality of the situation.

The second non-war solution offered by the intellectual and enlightened crowd is “dialogue.” Shortly after the US led allied forces began bombing Iraq in 1991, I happened to be walking across the campus of my college. A staff member had a sign posted in her office window reading “Stop the bombing! Start talking!” The view is that all issues can be resolved peaceably if we can just get all parties to sit down and talk. Again using the above examples, what can be said to change the mind of a child molester? Can we make him see the error of his ways? Considering that psychologists see child predators as “incurable” I am unaware how anyone, even someone that is enlightened, can create a dialogue to change the predators mind.

Look within our own country, how successful have the pro-abortion intellectuals been at changing the views of those who are pro-life? They can criticize the anti-abortionists as being simple minded idealists or religious zealots, but then, couldn’t those same labels be used to describe those we have waged war against in the past?

The United Nations has shown itself unwilling to use military force to resolve issues. It continues to negotiate, impose sanctions and pass resolutions. So far, neither Iran nor North Korea has yielded to such efforts and their nuclear programs continue. But still, says the left, if we talk with them just a little longer, somehow, someway the issue will be resolved.

The goals of Iran are clear – the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. The goal of Islamist extremists is the destruction of all non-believers, of all non-Muslims. Do we wait until Israel is destroyed before acting? Do we wait until New York City is nuked before doing something? Or do we join hands, sing songs, pick flowers and just hope that the problem will go away?

If the intellectual left holds the keys to the art of compromise and negotiation, why were our countries interests attacked five times during the Clinton administration by Middle Eastern countries? Why was Jimmy Carter unable to secure the release of our hostages in Iran in 1980? Both men are viewed as intellectual and enlightened. Both are viewed as being able to see both sides of an issue yet both men were unwilling to use military force when negotiation and dialogue were unsuccessful.

There is one more option from the left – to blame ourselves. Many in our country have decided that we are at fault, that we are to blame. This is as rational as a judge blaming a rape victim for her attack or Hitler blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

Is it possible, just possible, that there are issues to which there is no middle ground, issues that truly are “black and white?” Is there a gray area regarding slavery? Is it acceptable in some circumstances but not in others? Is there a gray area regarding ethnic cleansing? Would it have been acceptable for Hitler to kill only one million Jews instead of the almost six million that were slaughtered? Or are there only right and wrong sides to each of these issues? If so, and negotiations and dialogue cannot end these situations, what exactly do we do if force is not an acceptable alternative?

After being elected president in 1980 Ronald Reagan made it clear that should Iran not release our citizens he would order the military to begin bombing Tehran. The day of his inauguration, the hostages were released. In 1986, Reagan had proof that Libya was behind the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by Americans. He then authorized the bombing of the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Since that time, Gaddafi’s Libya has stayed out of the terrorism business. No amount of negotiation, appeasement or dialogue yielded such results.

Our opposition in the Middle East has been clear – anything other than force is viewed as weakness, a weakness that can be exploited. According to Bin Laden, the weak response by the US for the attacks in the 1990s emboldened the Taliban to go forward with 9-11.
To those that say “War is not the answer,” our opposition is telling us that war is the answer – any other response merely strengthens their resolve that the fight is theirs to win.