Another Opinion

Unions: A Road Less Travelled?

2012-01-23T20:01:00.000-05:00

After many years as conservative leaning Democrat (and a brief stint as what passes as a moderate Republican)I am a happy Independent these days like the majority of Americans. I remain a center leaning community and political advocate (now entering my 37th year). I am still a member of the writer’s union, though we get little to no recognition from the "big dogs" in the Labor movement. My goals remain bringing about a better quality of government, irrespective of (or perhaps in spite of) political party as well as a more vibrant and safer community. I believe Labor is not so strong as not to need friends on both sides of the aisles, and especially in the middle where the average American household lives. I can not believe, with the dramatic decline of organized workers in the private sector, that some unions will not accept friends where they can find them.

From what I’ve seen in my 37 plus years of political experience, our unions are treated like cash cows while getting little bang for their collective buck. I find it hard to believe that rank and file members are content to be in anyone’s back pocket. That’s not our way. I’ve personally witnessed individual union leaders decide who was and wasn’t getting their endorsements without putting the matter before the members. I’ve repeatedly seen Democrat candidates openly make fun of unions or those with no unions background (or sometimes, not even using a union “bug” on their campaing material) get endorsements (and money) just because of the letter behind their name while GOP candidates who were stewards or active union members were rejected. That’s wrong in my opinion. I see unions as being a pro-active force that supports each other and what’s in the best interest of working men and women, not being a patsy of some political party, which, in turn, is controlled by the same corporate interests as the other party. Both times I ran, while receiving few endorsements, I did have the support of conservative and moderate union rank and files volunteers, and that meant more to me than any endorsement.

There’s much Labor can do to regain its former strength and status. First, support pro-union candidates regardless of political party (and that includes Indies). Labor needs allies on both sides of the aisles, locally, state, and nationally. If the Democratic Party knew it had to work for the support of workers, it might not be so willing to take them for granted the way it has done over the years (and other groups as well). Meanwhile, if the Republican Party knew working class American’s votes were up for grabs, they might be a little less eager to unilaterally back big business. Second, look at building support among white collar workers. What growth in Labor there has been in the private sector has been primarily among white collar employees. This doesn’t necessarily have to be in the form of traditional locals. It can be employer or industry specific employee associations which focus on job security and availability of insurance or other benefits. Labor must adapt.

Third, look at the illegal and legal immigration issue as an opportunity to expand unions globally. Not every immigrant wants to live here. Some just want to earn some money; send a little home; and ultimately leave. For those individuals, they represent an untapped source. Why not bring them in; train them; teach them English; and in the process, educate them about the benefits of unionism? Unions can help get temporary work permits for them, thus relieving them of the “illegal” status while creating a work clearinghouse to help them get legitimate jobs. When they return home, they’ll take this knowledge with them and, hopefully, start organizing locally (which has the added benefit of cutting back on the reason for illegal immigration in the first place while improving the quality of life and building a stable middle class back home). For those intent of staying, unions can help secure green cards and employment by acting a job clearinghouse while, again, offering English language and organizing classes. They can secure sponsership while they work to become legal US citizens. It’s a win-win scenario for everyone.

Lastly, America is the only industrialized nation which doesn’t have its own unique labor oriented political party. With the largest segment of voters now registered as Independent and the irreversible disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country, now would be an excellent time for Labor to come together and form such a political party.

It is said that the twin sister of crisis is opportunity. It's time for Labor to step up to opportunities this economy presents; to think outside of the box and take charge of its future by take the road less travelled.

Obama Cuts Military

2012-01-08T20:50:00.000-05:00

Today, as we are faced with more dangerous enemies than at any time in our history, President Obama has decided to cut back our military forces. China, our philosophical adversary and economic Pied Piper to whom we now dance, is on an all out march to increase its military presence throughout the Pacific, with apparent intentions to expand that presence to the Indian Ocean (they currently a new aircraft carrier undergoing sea trials which apparently caught Western---and US intelligence agencies off guard). Iran, with its unstable president, is flexing its miniscule muscle in the Gulf of Hormuz in an attempt to threaten Western oil flow while it works feverously to develop nuclear weapons to "create a world without Israel or America". They’ve come quite a way with their missile system, thanks in part to the Chinese. North Korea remains as threatening as ever, especially with the untried wet-behind-the-ears Kim Joug-un as leader. For some time this bankrupt but nuclear Stalinist nation has been itching for a fight. Let's not forget Pakistan, another nuclear nation verging on going rouge. Afghanistan and Iraq could easily slide down the path to Islamic extremism.

Terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda are expanding their presence in the Pacific region and in Africa while Somali pirates continue to attack oil tankers, commercial fishing boats and civilian cruise ships, and inflicting billions in costs. In fact, despite the pro-democratic "Arab Spring", almost to a country, extremist Anti-Western parties have walked away the winners. Militant Islam is spreading rapidly throughout the world. Drugs lords are winning the war in Mexico and South America with Mexico teetering on becoming nothing more than a huge narco-terrorist state, which is increasingly spilling across US borders (The Obama Administration has already ceded three Arizona counties to them...seriously), and there is talk of perhaps a partnership of convenience between the narco-terrorists and the Islamic terrorists. Illegal immigration has become rampant, not just in America, but in Europe as well with an infusion of poor, illiterate Moslems swelling to towns and cities of Europe, putting a breaking strain on their economic systems. One doesn't have to be a historian to recall the fates of the Roman and Byzantine Empires when, for economic reasons, they cut their back on their militaries.

Let's take look at the numbers. American maintains approximately 1200 bases around the world (give or take a CIA station or two). Our military budget in 2011 was $549 billion with an estimated $150 billion in foreign reserve and gold in case things get dicey (some estimates put the number as high as $692 billion). That's about 4.9% of our GDP, or 43% of what is spent on the military globally. We have just over 1.4 million active duty men and women and another 833,616 reservists. At this point in history, I dare say just about all are combat experienced. Our current naval ship strength is 285 vessels, including 47 auxiliary (supply) ships, 14 mine sweepers and 11 carriers, bringing our surface fleet to 123 ships to cover the world's oceans and 21 key naval ports and terminals. This is down from 592 ships when Ronald Reagan left office.

The Army has just over 56,000 land vehicle, along with some 200,000 logistical vehicles and over 9000 tanks, 2163 pieces of towed artillery, plus a mess of other heavy firepower designed to put a hurt on the bad guys. We have over 18,000 aircraft, not to mention 6,214 helicopters capable of flying out of 15,097 designated airports. So, with all this "bad day" military might, one would think we're strong enough. Well, not so fast.

As I pointed out above, we have half the fleet we did covering a much more hostile ocean, not to mention 12,363 miles of US coastline. Our military has already seen a 37% reduction. Now, how does that compare to other nations? Well, China has a total military force of 4,585,000 (and the Pentagon has estimated they will have a fully modern military by 2020) despite a 28% reduction in overall growth. Taiwan has 290,000 active duty personnel with an estimated 1,200,000 in reserve. Iran has 3,833,000 (compare this to Israel’s 749,550) while reducing military related expenditures by 16% (is this the result of a shift to “non-military” research?). Russia can field a force of 21,476,000 (including their reserves. Their active military strength is 1,027,000), which is still impressive given a 71% reduction. Despite its size and economic importance, Saudi Arabia has only 249,000 troops. North Korea has a force of 9,495,000, of which 1,106,000 are regular military. Compare this to its neighbor, South Korea, which has only 687,000 full time military, though their military expenditures have been increase by 14%. Germany and Japan have 250,613 and 230,300 respectively, not including their reservists. Japan has back off its military expenditures slightly, by 3%, partly as the result of recent natural disasters and its economic impact. Despite being the economic powerhouse of Europe, Germany has backed off by a mind numbing 56% (our key ally, England, has been forced to cut back its military growth by a whopping 36% while France, has cut back 37%).

We all realize that America is deep financial trouble, thanks mainly to mismanagement and incompetence by both political parties in Washington. However, to cut our military budget is invite danger. While we are more technologically sophisticated than we were just 10 years ago, we are also more at risk to cyber-attacks and systems failures. We need to accept that while large scale military engagements are a thing of the past, so too is the concept that reliance on technology can replace boots on the ground or ships at sea.

Obama Unveils Sweeping Military Cuts
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DefenseStrategy/2012/01/05/id/423099

US Navy Active Ship Levels, 1886 to Present:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940 to 2011
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

The Official Home of the US Department of Defense
http://www.defense.gov/

List of Countries by Troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Armed Forces Growth Statistics
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_arm_for_gro-military-armed-forces-growth

Military Expenditures by Country:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: This Is A Choice?

2011-12-30T19:16:00.003-05:00

I don't know about you, but frankly I am not the least happy with the Republican candidates for US President. I wouldn't let any of them take my trash to the street, and yet these individuals are supposed to be the ones to save us from Obama's "Hope and Change". Seriously, are these really the best the Republican Party has to offer? For that matter, are they the best the Conservative Movement can muster?

First off, each one is so obscenely rich as to have no real concept what working class stiffs like most us really have to do to get by. Remember Mitt Romney's off-the-cuff $10,000 dollar bet to Rick Perry? Seriously, like it's walk around pocket change. Perry said he didn't gamble and politely turned the offer down (although he has no problem with allowing illegal immigrants to attend college, and at in-state tuition rates. Sounds like a gamble to me). Cain seemed to me to offer the best choice. I mean, here's this hugely successful businessman who can speak in something other than sound bites and doesn't look like a plastic doll. Then all of a sudden these women come out of the woodwork with a sudden case of "guilt" that only by telling "their story" would sooth. Really? Who asked? Since most these trysts happened years ago, why they suddenly feel the need to go to public confessional?

Let's take Michele Bachmann...please (with apologies to Henny Youngman). Lord knows she tries, and listening to her for more than five minutes is pretty trying on my nerves. She staggers over facts that most 9th graders should know. She means well, but is that what we want in a President, someone who means well? Now I admit I like Hunstman. I don't know why. Maybe I just feel sorry for him. He can't buy attention. His stance on issues aren't bad, but he just hasn't been able to get any traction with the voters (which actually means with the media). The same can be said for Rick Santorum. Here's another guy that is struggling to get any attention whatsoever, although, now that Paul and Newt's stars are fading, he's starting to get a longer look.

Ron Paul knows the Constitution like few do (and fewer still among those in Congress). I agree with Paul's belief that American is nothing like what the Founding Fathers intended (in fact, if they could see us now, they'd pay the damn tea tax and shut up). American was supposed to be economically and socially libertarian, but the cold hard reality of the matter is that were aren't, and we aren't likely to be any time soon either. Our Founding Fathers could not have conceived of the changes that have taken place since 1790. The libertarian framework is ideal for small, mostly agrarian societies, but after 1900, those days would have to an end anyway.

However, our Founding Fathers did intend to have a small federal government with the individual states playing a much stronger role, and in that, Ron Paul is right. It's not that we need necessarily a small federal government as much as we need a more efficient federal government with more power returned to the states as originally intended. Where Paul completely loses me is on his foreign policy issues (though it is completely consistent with his libertarian views). To be brief, Paul wants to disengage from the world.

While I agree that we as Americans, need to put America's interests first, we can't simply walk away and hide in some sort of nationalistic cocoon. We do need to cut back on foreign aid and stop acting as the world's policeman. It's time for Europe to take care of Europe and for Japan to start investing in its own defenses now that Godzilla and Mothra are gone. We need to cut back or close our foreign military bases. We need to accept the fact that not everyone wants to be like Americans (not a single country, despite billions of dollars spent on nation building, has modeled their governments on ours) and that means that we need to get out of the regime-changing business. We should ensure free and fair elections and let it go at that.

As for Perry, there's really nothing else I can say about him, which is a polite as I can be. Mitt Romney is the bride no body wants to marry. Every candidate is compared to him. It's as if the Republicans are running in circle and keep coming back to the homeliest girl/boy in the room. John McCain was able to beat Mitt four years ago because he had the better record. Of course, McCain became McDud and the rest, as they say, is history imperfect. For the record, I strongly suspect Mitt would have likely been able to beat Obama.

Lastly, there is ole Newt Gingrich. Newt was the Speaker of the House during the glory days of Bill Clinton (and despite everything, he's still one of my favorite presidents). Anyone remember the "Contract with America" or the so-called "Republican Revolution"? Not much came of either. The GOP failed on both accounts, and the all powerful, finger-wagging conservative Newt got caught doing what he vilified Clinton for doing. Hypocrite. Since getting booted out of Congress, he's found employment as a lobbyist for Big Business, including the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which, in case you've forgotten, helped to put us in this economic mess). As a candidate, Newt has more baggage than a wagon train heading West. He is just as out of touch now as he was then.

All of the candidates have their flaws. The question is which, if any, can beat Obama. Personally, I don't think any can. Most candidates have one or two, and occasionally, three chinks in their armor but are otherwise pretty sound. However, it appears that none of the current crop of candidates has any armor to speak of, while the King (or President in this case) after nearly four years, still has no clothes. Politics has become more than ever the game of the super rich (the current net worth of an average member of Congress is now 2 1/2 times that of the average American while salaries of CEOs are 343 times that of a typical worker).

While it looks like Americans are again going to be forced to go to the polls holding their noses, I have to ask you: where are our real leaders America? When are we going to stop accepting mediocrity from both parties and their candidates and wake up from this illusion of choice? We need working and middle class people who understand what its like to live within a budget, cut coupons, and pull double shifts to make ends meet.

2012 Republican Candidates Bios and Issues:

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

The Net Worth of the Republican Presidential Candidates:

http://247wallst.com/2011/10/04/the-net-worth-of-the-republican-presidential-candidates/

CEOs earn 343 times more than typical workers:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm

And One More Thing...

Finally dear readers, I would like to conclude this edition of Another Opinion, and year with a sincere "thank you" for reading. I know we're not going to agree on everything (frankly, that would be scary for both of us). The purpose of AO from the beginning has been to provoke you to think with honest content. We here at AO pride ourselves on tackling touchy issues form a independent and mostly moderate perspective. Extremism, be it from either the Left or the Right, only builds walls and that's the last thing we need in this world. We desperately need real leaders who focus on issues, not party dogma. We need people willing to stand up and say "enough" without worrying about political correctness. Political correctness in the end only breeds fear of the truth and ultimately silence.

We hope you've enjoyed our occasional book reviews, and that you'll check them out. A special "thank you" to all the publishers for sending us their books as well. It's always a pleasure! We would also like to thank all those who link to AO. We sincerely appreciate it.

As long as there is a need to encourage people to think for themselves, Another Opinion will hopefully be around. May you and yours have a happy and healthy 2012. Until the next issue, remember to stand up; speak out; and always to think for yourself!

Illegal Immigrants to Vote?

2011-12-17T18:36:00.001-05:00

Every once in awhile, something comes along that leaves a political veteran like me lost for words. New Haven (Connecticut) Mayor John DeStafano said recently that he wants illegal immigrants to be able to vote in local elections. Mayor DeStafano, a Democrat, claims that illegals pay taxes, albeit indirectly, through rent and send their children to public schools, so, therefore, they should be entitled to vote. He also claims that this would lead to a more "engaged community". His spokesperson, Elizabeth Blanton, claims that her boss's proposal is "nothing new". She claimed there were several states with similar legislation, but this would only apply to New Haven. Ms. Blanton added that they believed that every adult should be able to “vote in local elections that affect their families and futures”. By implication that would include unregistered adults, open primaries, and those who’ve lost their right to vote for judicial reasons does it not? Even the governor, Dannel Malloy (D) said he was "particularly comfortable" with the suggestion.

One can't help but wonder if the good Mayor was serious or just trying to get his name in the news. No one objects to new immigrants voting. We want new immigrants to participate in the political process. That's part of being an American. In fact, we would dearly love for more people take part in the political process. Maybe we would have fewer crooks and kooks in office. But, we're not talking about new immigrants here are we? We are talking about individuals who, for one reason or another, decided to ignore our laws and tried to jump ahead of thousands who are following the rules. Why, should they be rewarded for breaking the law? The fact is they shouldn't.

First, not only should they not be allowed to vote, they should not be receiving any taxpayer assistance or services, and that includes public job assistance, unemployment, or "free" education for their children, including private translators, which by the way, costs US Taxpayers millions of dollars. As it is, every single taxpayer in the United States pays in some fashion for illegal workers, and that number is in the billions of dollars.

The reality is that there are an estimated 12 million illegals in this country. Rounding them up and shipping them home (again, on our dime) without a practical and enforceable immigration policy is a waste of our time and money. Our so-called "leaders" in Washington as well as in our state capitals and city halls, have chosen for some unfathomable reason to ignore what people like you and I have been saying for years. Perhaps they think we'll forget come election time. Maybe they think they're immune to public opinion. Frankly, I don't know.

What I do know, however, is that we must secure our border even if that means stationing US troops there with instructions to turn illegals back by force if necessary. Simultaneously, we need to erect barriers along the border. We then need to determine which illegal immigrants are here for the purpose of employment only and which ones are here to establish residence. Not all want to be here permanently. Many are simply day workers looking to send money back home to support their families. They are the easiest to deal with. For that, we need a two-prong program.

For individuals here just for the money, its' a simple matter of their employer obtaining a temporary worker permit. The permit could be in the form of a personal ID card complete with a photo, thumb print, home address, name and address of their sponsor/employer. As long as they remain employed; their ID is kept current, there should be no problem. Perhaps the United Farm Workers (UFW) could create a specific union for non-resident migrant workers. This could assist them with such things as transportation, housing and healthcare.

Because they're non-resident, a reduced employment tax could apply to cover healthcare and education for their children. However, each immigrant would be mandated to take English language classes. This would be a win-win for everybody. Farms and other businesses that depend on cheap labor would have their employees while the employer wouldn't have to worry about fines and being shut down. Union rolls would increase as would union dues. Local, state, and federal tax burdens would be reduced since taxes would be withheld. As long as their employment cards are current, they have no fear of deportation.

For those who want to stay here, a similar program could be impended. They would still have to apply for Citizenship in the usual fashion (no one should expect preferential treatment just because they were successful in breaking the law for who knows how many years). However, a program of this type would allow the illegal resident to remain in the country while awaiting a decision on their application. In addition to English languages classes, they would also take Civics classes which include American history and culture. It also provides a mechanism to legally pay taxes. It eliminates the fear of deportation and, again, employers won't have to worry about fines and/or closures. In both cases, individuals would periodically report to an agency like ICE to confirm their status. However, there should a clear and specific caveat.

Failure to comply with the two-prong program would result in serious penalties for employers (as an example, a $10,000 fine for each illegal employed and suspension of their business license for 90 days for the first offense). After that, jail time for the employer---owner(s) and whoever did the hiring up to, and closure of the business for 30 days to one year. For illegals, 30 days jail time followed by deportation. For the second offense, additional jail time and loss of opportunity to participate in the program for one year. After that, jail and suspension time would be increased. Children would be sent to the nearest legal relative either in the US or in their native country. The Constitution should be amended to require that at least one parent must be a US Citizen, thus eliminating “anchor babies”. Harsh I know, but the penalty has to be strong enough to strongly compel participation.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's a workable one, and right now, that's what we need. If you agree, I urge to send this article to your Senator, Congressman, Governor, and the media.

For more on the story, check out this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/connecticut-gop-blasts-non-citizen-voting-proposal-as-publicity-stunt/

DoD Double Speak

As long as we have a front roll seat at the theater of the absurd, here’s something else I came across I thought you might find interesting. The Department of Defense has decided to reclassify the murders at Ft. Hood Texas by Major Nadal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist (and now, apparently a patient too). Instead of referring to the event which lead to the deaths of 13 people plus wounding dozens more as a “massacre”, the DoD in its infinite bureaucratic wisdom has decided the event will be known as a case of “workplace violence”. Apparently the DoD is concerned about the opinion of terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. According to Army’s PR department, if the bad guys can claim a propaganda victory over the murder of US personnel on a US base by an Islamic extremist, it only enhances their image in the Arab World. Using this sort of logic, what would the DoD had called the Holocaust? Population Reengineering?

I suppose there’s some logic to their argument. However, to me, murder is murder regardless of who did it or their reasons. Changing our behavior or language to appease the enemy is still a victory in their eyes. The truth is that Nadal Hasan was a mentally ill man who was susceptible to the rants of another insane individual. That doesn’t excuse him, nor does it excuse the Army who ignored all the classic warning signs. The DoD would do better to emphasis the lunacy of Hasan and his actions and all those who follow similar paths of those who hijacked and distorted an otherwise peaceful religion.

Here’s the link to the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/

Republican Presidential Candidates Stance on Illegal Immigration

Lastly, if you’ve been following the Republican Presidential Candidate debates, and wondered what their positions were toward illegal immigration, check out this article from NumbersUSA. It’s a nice succinct piece outlining each candidate’s stance:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Letters to St.Obama: Kids and Illegal Immigration

2011-12-04T21:42:00.001-05:00

I suppose everyone has a wish list this time of year. Some (most) wish for stuff like toys, bikes, or the latest and greatest electronic gadgets while millions of American adults are wishing for jobs and better economy. While President Obama inherited a faltering economy thanks to the mismanagement of President Bush II, as most economists will tell you, six months in and the whole shebang is new game with a brand new deck. Obama's fiscal policies are all his and they've have proven to be disastrous for American business and the American People, but this is not a critique of Obama the Economist and his wish list. Instead, this about a wish list from kids.

Obama has been receiving thousands of letters from kids asking him to stop deporting their mothers, fathers, uncles, thirds cousins once removed. They often write about how painful it is and how alone they are. A touching as this might seem, the letters are not exactly spontaneous. So far, just fewer than 5000 letters have addressed to ole "St. Obama". The letters are part of a campaign engineered by a group by the name of National Domestic Workers Alliance under the slogan "We Belong Together" and other pro-amnesty organizations (you have to wear rose colored glasses to get the full affect).

The timing naturally enough appears to be designed to tug at America's heartstrings since it involves families and children at time of year when we traditionally think about family and friends. Other Latino organizations are getting in on the act in a hope to change public opinion about illegal immigration while Americans are feeling especially generous. Currently over 80% of the population oppose illegal immigration and want to see an immediate end to illegal border crossings. So far, President Obama as well as Congress has been successful in ignoring voters (as was President Bush and Congress previously).

What these kids are asking the President is why their relatives are being deported. While the White House promises to address their questions, what’s not being done by the either the White House or the groups sponsoring the letter writing campaign honest answers with these children. Nowhere did I find mentioned by NDWA or any other organization an open and honest discussion explaining that their relatives broke US laws. Some of the letters claimed that their families were “unfairly being broken” by the deportation or that the deportations were “upsetting” them.

Well, I’m sure that’s true. To reframe their questions for ease of answering, let’s say their relative had committed some crime, was caught and sent to jail. Would that be “unfair”? Should they be released because it was “upsetting” or took away their mother or father? Should government authorities be blamed because someone broke the law and was punished? If the same laws were violated in their native countries, their relatives would literally be sent to prison and not just deported, and the family would literally pay for their upkeep. So, who is actually being fairer to the families and children?

Another issue was raised by the letters. As a result of a parent or other relative they were living with being deported, some children are faced with being placed in foster care. According to Applied Research Center, approximately 5000 children of illegal immigrants are now in foster care at US tax payer expense. How is that the governments fault? If that same individual had been arrested on another crime, that child would have been placed in foster care as well. Are they saying that when a child is faced with the possibility of foster care when their care taker is convicted of a crime, the care taker should be released? I certainly hope not. What about taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere? As hard as it may be, the person to “blame” if blame is to be assigned is not ICE agents or the government, but as with any crime, with the individual who committed the crime in the first. It’s the same “blame the victim” mentality of the liberal Left. It’s no secret either here in the United States, Mexico, China, or anywhere else that illegal immigration is just that…illegal and subject to legal repercussions, whether that violation takes place in Canada, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, China, Vietnam, or the United States.

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll conducted on May 13, 2011, 51% of Democrats believe our border with Mexico is secured. However, 86% of Republicans and 65% of Independents do not. 61% thought that if the border was secure, we would actually have a lower of poverty in this country, while 59% believe federal aid should be cut off for so-called “sanctuary cities”. In another Rasmussen Poll dated April 26, 2010, 60% of those surveyed said that local police officers should be allowed to verify immigration status.

I’m also enclosing the result of another recent poll. The results aren’t hard to grasp. They say what Americans across the board have been saying for decades…illegal immigration must stop. Washington and in particular, the Obama Administration has been doing everything in power to “backdoor” Congress and the American People. For some undefinable reason, Washington’s arrogance seems almost boundless on this point. There has to be a reason. Perhaps it’s a backroom deal with Corporate America to provide cheap non-unionized Labor. Certainly the influx of low skill workers would have an effect on driving down wages and benefits, especially since some states are offering illegal aliens and/or their children in state tuition and taxpayer based grants (a better deal than many US citizens current get). Perhaps it’s an interparty strategy to bring as many illegals into the US as possible in the hopes that after they’re given legal status, they’ll register as Democrats. If that should occur, America could likely become a defacto mono-party dictatorship instead of the dual party dictatorship we currently have. Well, at least the pretense of having a “choice” at the polls would be dropped.

The letters are a good ploy. While they encourage discussion about illegal immigration, which I believe is a good thing, but they do so hiding behind children. The economy is our most pressing concern in this country, and illegal immigration is tied to it because of the economic impact it has on our already fragile (if not broken) taxpayer based social safety net, education, healthcare, insurance rates, crime, and jobs. The two go hand-in-hand.

Just as a time comes when every parent has set their child down and explain the reality about the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus, we as Americans need to set Obama and Congress down for a frank discussion about illegal immigration and what we will and won’t accept. That time is now.

Thousands of Immigrant Kids Ask Obama to Stop Deportations:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/30/thousands-immigrant-kids-ask-obama-to-stop-deportations/?intcmp=obinsite

To read the results of the Rasmussen Poll:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/public_opinion.html and
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/nationally_60_favor_letting_local_police_stop_and_verify_immigration_status

The Polling Report: CNN Report on Immigration:
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Black Friday/Christmas Tree Tax/Shirts or Skins?/Religious Tolerance

2011-11-25T15:54:00.002-05:00

Black Friday: The High Holiday of Capitalism

Well, here it is, Black Friday; the high holiday of Capitalism. Thanksgiving got the usual short thrift again this year, stuck as it is between the "Candyween" and
"CreditcardMas ". I guess I can't really blame anyone. After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a food oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a 7 point spread).

I guess what I object to the most is all the Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween. Now seriously, in October? There should be a law prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday. For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Halloween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).

Money Growing on (Christmas) Trees?

Speaking of Christmas, did you hear the latest about Christmas trees? Obama had originally agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax on every fresh cut Christmas tree sold. As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this new program, and its tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.

The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the USDA.

However, after much ridicule, both the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that now wasn't a really good time talk about taxing a Christmas tradition and withdrew the program until a more appropriate time (like when the public isn't paying as much attention). Now, just why the federal government is even considering a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs is beyond me. I can only assume that Hannukah bushes are exempt.

For more on the story, check out:

White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

Shirts or Skins?

America, The Land of Free and Home of the Brave right? Well, maybe not. This past May 5, 2011, the Morgan Hill United School District near San Francisco decided to promote the Hispanic heritage (May 5th is the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo). However, some students decided to wear shirts celebrating America. Now, a reasonable person would see no problem with this. However, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill ordered those students to either go home and changes shirts or turn their shirts depicting the American flag inside out. As you would expect, a ruckus ensued and the matter went to court.

The previous year there had been some taunts over articles of clothing by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. A Mexican flag was hoisted over an American flag. It was shortly taken down by "Anglo" students amid chants of "USA", but it seems that the point was made.

This year, it was decided to honor Hispanic heritage by encouaging Hispanic student to take an extra bit of pride by wearing articles of clothing while the school system modified its curriculum south of the border and even the school cafeterias got into the act with a Hispanic cuisine (if you can call school lunches "cuisine"). The school ordered the offending "Anglo" students to change out of concern that their shirts would result in possible violence while the parent's of those students argued 1st Amendment rights.

Federal District Judge James Ware agreed with the school system that the non-Hispanic students didn't have a right to wear articles of clothing reflecting America, nor by extension, reframe from participating in programs prompting Hispanic culture. The decision is being appealed.

Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a victory of outnumbered Mexican forces over a larger and better equipped Imperial French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The chief signifcance of the battle was a major moral boost to the beliggered Mexians trying to purge themselves of the French and preventing the French from extending their support of the Confedercy during the early days of the Civil War (The French, under Emperor Napoleon III was attempting to create a Latin Empire and at the same time supported a divided America. If successful, the French would be able to lay claim to much of the southwest territories. As an aside, the English and the Vatican also supported the cause of the South).

There can be no arguing that Cinco de Mayo is, albeit indirectly, tired to US history. It was certainally a victory for national freedom. However, there can equally be no argument that events in 1848 Germany or the Louisana Purchase from France or Alaska from Russia were just as important events to this country. Indeed, more so. The same came be said for over events such as the British attmept to starve the Irish off their land and the resulting Irish Famine immigration. The point is that we are a multi-culturial nation and we each have a reason to be proud of our ethnic hertitage. But, we've come to this land to "form a more perfect union" as a united people with a common language, traditions, and values. To acknowledge a certain ethnic hertitage is fine in my opinion so far as it does not do so at the exclusion of other ethnic groups. To punish students for expressing their common hertiage as Americans is wrong by any measure. Might there be taunts or even violence? Yes, it's possible. However, what's at stake here is two fold. First, that no ethnic group is above another. All must submit itself to an identity as Americans. Second is the fundimental right of self expression as guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. That one group would be offended demonstrates that more time needs to be spent on American history.

To learn more, check out these two articles:

Court Backs High Schools in Flap Over American Flag T-Shirts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/

Court backs Morgan Hill school in flag dispute

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BA2N1LU0HC.DTL

Just How Much Religious Tolerance Are We Talking About?

Finally, I just had to tell you about this one. Moslems attending Catholic University in Washington DC are miffed that there are crosses on the campus. So miffed in fact, that a lawsuit was filed. Moslem students are citing a violation of their human rights, and alleging that the university will not allow them to form a student association, provide rooms without Christian symbols or provide Halal meals. They allege that they are forced to prayed amid Christian crosses, icons, and pictures.

The university said it had no objection to the forming of a Moslem student association, acknowledging that there is a Jewish student association on campus, and it has been as accommodating as possible, but does not offer specially prepared meals.

The absurdity of this is almost comical if it wasn't so illustrative of what is happening in this country. If you don't want to be around Jewish or Hindu or Christian or Moslem religious symbolism, then don't go there. While they may not have a choice in their home countries, this nation offers individuals the choice of where they can attend school. Although I am not Catholic, I opted to attend Catholic universities for my undergraduate and graduate degrees because of the quality of education I knew I would receive. If I though I would have an issue with priests or nuns (or the required religious curriculum) I would have opted for another school, but I was open to learning about another faith and getting a top tier education to boot.

My suggestion to these students is either suck it up and get on with their education from an outstanding university or go elsewhere. I'm sure the same accommodations already afforded them wouldn't be afforded non-Moslem students in their home countries. Be grateful you're in America.

Here's the article:

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate "Human Rights" of Muslims?

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

Shirts or Skins?

2011-11-25T15:46:00.004-05:00

Shirts or Skins?

America, The Land of Free and Home of the Brave right? Well, maybe not. This past May 5, 2011, the Morgan Hill United School District near San Francisco decided to promote the Hispanic heritage (May 5th is the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo). However, some students decided to wear shirts celebrating America. Now, a reasonable person would see no problem with this. However, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill ordered those students to either go home and changes shirts or turn their shirts depicting the American flag inside out. As you would expect, a ruckus ensued and the matter went to court.

The previous year there had been some taunts over articles of clothing by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. A Mexican flag was hoisted over an American flag. It was shortly taken down by "Anglo" students amid chants of "USA", but it seems that the point was made.

This year, it was decided to honor Hispanic heritage by encouaging Hispanic student to take an extra bit of pride by wearing articles of clothing while the school system modified its curriculum south of the border and even the school cafeterias got into the act with a Hispanic cuisine (if you can call school lunches "cuisine"). The school ordered the offending "Anglo" students to change out of concern that their shirts would result in possible violence while the parent's of those students argued 1st Amendment rights.

Federal District Judge James Ware agreed with the school system that the non-Hispanic students didn't have a right to wear articles of clothing reflecting America, nor by extension, reframe from participating in programs prompting Hispanic culture. The decision is being appealed.

Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a victory of outnumbered Mexican forces over a larger and better equipped Imperial French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The chief signifcance of the battle was a major moral boost to the beliggered Mexians trying to purge themselves of the French and preventing the French from extending their support of the Confedercy during the early days of the Civil War (The French, under Emperor Napoleon III was attempting to create a Latin Empire and at the same time supported a divided America. If successful, the French would be able to lay claim to much of the southwest territories. As an aside, the English and the Vatican also supported the cause of the South).

There can be no arguing that Cinco de Mayo is, albeit indirectly, tired to US history. It was certainally a victory for national freedom. However, there can equally be no argument that events in 1848 Germany or the Louisana Purchase from France or Alaska from Russia were just as important events to this country. Indeed, more so. The same came be said for over events such as the British attmept to starve the Irish off their land and the resulting Irish Famine immigration. The point is that we are a multi-culturial nation and we each have a reason to be proud of our ethnic hertitage. But, we've come to this land to "form a more perfect union" as a united people with a common language, traditions, and values. To acknowledge a certain ethnic hertitage is fine in my opinion so far as it does not do so at the exclusion of other ethnic groups. To punish students for expressing their common hertiage as Americans is wrong by any measure. Might there be taunts or even violence? Yes, it's possible. However, what's at stake here is two fold. First, that no ethnic group is above another. All must submit itself to an identity as Americans. Second is the fundimental right of self expression as guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. That one group would be offended demonstrates that more time needs to be spent on American history.

To learn more, check out these two articles:

Court Backs High Schools in Flap Over American Flag T-Shirts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/

Court backs Morgan Hill school in flag dispute

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BA2N1LU0HC.DTL

Just How Much Religious Tolerance Are We Talking About?

Finally, I just had to tell you about this one. Moslems attending Catholic University in Washington DC are miffed that there are crosses on the campus. So miffed in fact, that a lawsuit was filed. Moslem students are citing a violation of their human rights, and alleging that the university will not allow them to form a student association, provide rooms without Christian symbols or provide Halal meals. They allege that they are forced to prayed amid Christian crosses, icons, and pictures.

The university said it had no objection to the forming of a Moslem student association, acknowledging that there is a Jewish student association on campus, and it has been as accommodating as possible, but does not offer specially prepared meals.

The absurdity of this is almost comical if it wasn't so illustrative of what is happening in this country. If you don't want to be around Jewish or Hindu or Christian or Moslem religious symbolism, then don't go there. While they may not have a choice in their home countries, this nation offers individuals the choice of where they can attend school. Although I am not Catholic, I opted to attend Catholic universities for my undergraduate and graduate degrees because of the quality of education I knew I would receive. If I though I would have an issue with priests or nuns (or the required religious curriculum) I would have opted for another school, but I was open to learning about another faith and getting a top tier education to boot.

My suggestion to these students is either suck it up and get on with their education from an outstanding university or go elsewhere. I'm sure the same accommodations already afforded them wouldn't be afforded non-Moslem students in their home countries. Be grateful you're in America.

Here's the article:

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate "Human Rights" of Muslims?

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

Black Friday: The High Holiday of Capitalism

2011-11-25T15:41:00.001-05:00

Well, here it is, Black Friday; the high holiday of Capitalism. Thanksgiving got the usual short thrift again this year, stuck as it is between the "Candyween" and
"CreditcardMas ". I guess I can't really blame anyone. After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a food oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a 7 point spread).

I guess what I object to the most is all the Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween. Now seriously, in October? There should be a law prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday. For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Candyween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).

Money Growing on (Christmas) Trees?

Speaking of Christmas, did you hear the latest about Christmas trees? Obama had originally agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax to every fresh cut Christmas tree sold. As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this new program, and its tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.

The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the USDA.

However, after much ridicule, both the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that now wasn't a really good time talk about taxing a Christmas tradition and withdrew the program until a more appropriate time (like when the public isn't paying as much attention). Now, just why the federal government is even considering a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs is beyond me. I can only assume that Hanukah bushes are exempt.

For more on the story, check out:

White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

2011 Kentucky General Election Results

2011-11-09T20:55:00.000-05:00

I bet ya'll didn't know there was an Old Kentucky woodshed just behind the Old Kentucky Home. Well, if you had any doubts, just ask Kentucky Senate President David Williams (R). Williams and all but one of the Republican ticket each took a turn for an old fashion Southern "butt whuppin'" Tuesday night.

Williams, who was running to unseat the incumbent, but largely mediocre current governor Steve Beshear, lost handily 56% to 35% with perennial independent candidate Gatewood Galbraith bringing up the rear with an impressive 9%. Williams, known for his combative and often arrogant style, trailed throughout the campaign. Many conservatives throughout the state were largely disappointed when Williams defeated Phil Moffett in the GOP Primary. Most felt that given his prickly personality, Williams was the worse possible candidate for the statewide run.

Historically, Kentucky's Republican Party has rarely won the Governor's Mansion. The last successful candidate was Ernie Fletcher (2003-2007), who left office under a cloud of incompetence (deservedly or not, is a matter for frequent debates). Prior to Fletcher, it had been 30 years since there had been a Republican Governor, and that was the popular Louie Nunn. Absent from much of the race was any mentioned of Beshear's running mate, former Mayor-for-life, Jerry Abramson. Rumors circulated among conservative Democrats and Republicans alike that the reason for the nearly invisible Abramson was to downplay his scandal ridden latter terms and poor showing among several unions, community groups, and conservatives. William's running mate and former basketball superstar, Rich Farmer, made a few appearances on TV, but because of a pending divorce (announced shortly after the campaign began), kept it low key. A poor decision in my opinion given the popularity of Farmer in a state crazy about college basketball and its players.

The Republican down ticket took its "thumpin'" along with Williams. Todd P'Pool lost to the incumbent Jack Conway for Attorney General by a only 10% (55% to 45%). Many saw this as Conway's last chance to have any political relevance given a history of defeats for higher office. Conway managed to hang on against a powerful P'Pool. campaign. This is guy to watch for future races. As for Conway, he's been given another respite. Let's hope he uses it well.

In the race for race for Secretary of State, Republican Bill Johnson lost to Alison Lundergan Grimes. Johnson was often criticized for having a "bad temper" and being "combative". The truth, however, may be that Johnson was just getting a bit tired of having his positions misrepresented. Regardless, Alison Grimes, the daughter of former Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan, ran a great (and occasionally humorous) campaign. I expect good things from Alison. The final count was 61% to 39%.

Kentucky State Treasurer went to incumbent Todd Hollenbach, son of the locally infamous County Judge of forced busing days back in the mid-1970s. In his defense, Todd is nice guy; intelligent and committed to doing a good job. Hollenbach beat KC Crosbie, the Republican, by 49% to 47% with the Libertarian, Ken Moellman picking up the spread. Let me tell you something about KC Crosbie. She is smart as a whip. With the right campaign manager, this gal can win and win big. If the GOP powers-that-be had any common sense, they would get behind and stay behind KC. She has the potential to be the first Republican female governor (and only the second female governor behind Martha Lane Collins).

Adam Edelen won as Kentucky Auditor over John Kemper 56% to 44%. While Edelen ran a good campaign, this was more about how not to run a campaign by the Republican. Rule #1: Do a background check for baggage. You can bet your opponent will. If you have any, maybe you should bow out.

The only Republican to escape a trip to the woodshed was James Comer, who ran on something rare in politics today...the truth. Comer didn't try to pretend to be anything other than what he is, a farmer who wanted to be Kentucky's next Agriculture Commissioner. Kentuckians rewarded Comer with a 64% to 35% win over part time comedian Bob Farmer (only in Kentucky folks).

The Kentucky Republican Party needs to decide whether it wants to win elections at the state and local levels or remain a "also ran" party. With my 35+ years of experience as a candidate, campaign manager and strategist, the GOP needs to apologize to the every conservative in the state for its lackluster performance, as well as its lack of aggression, imagination, and organization.

Now, Democratic Party, this was not a mandate of Steve Beshear. He just got lucky that he ran against the one candidate disliked more than he is. For that, he needs to drive by Republican Headquarters in Frankfort, honk his horn and wave. However, this is an opportunity for Kentucky Democrats to steer this state through a middle course. We need (and we demand by the way) a common sense approach to government and that means no wild eye handouts of public money; it means cracking down on illegal immigration; it means thinking out of the economic box to create not only new jobs, but new types of jobs. We must reform education in this state. We spend more money per pupil than states with twice our population yet we always end up dead last year after year, decade after decade. That is not acceptable. We must finally end poverty in Appalachia.

No more promises folks. Get it done.

Election 2011

2011-11-02T21:15:00.002-04:00

Every since my campaign of 2004, I do two things every election cycle as a matter of principle. First, I urge my fellow Kentuckians to show up at the polls and vote. Voting is the most powerful weapon we have to protect the great nation from the bumbling and inept to the corrupt and cynical politician. Big Money and its lobbyist paymasters need us to stay home. They have enough cronies to show and get their hiring elected. Our votes carry more power than all their money combined. Don't believe me?

Did you know that in 2008, candidates nationwide spent a total of $5.3 billion dollars to get elected? Most of that came from corporate donors and PACs. In 2004, the year I ran, candidates spent $4.2 billion dollars. Obama raised an incredible $610 million dollars (by the way, how does a junior Senator with little political experience raise that much money?). Combined, John McCain and Obama raised over $1 billion dollars on their races for President (in 1952, the combined total was a miserly $16 million). That's just Presidential campaigns, so what's it cost to run for the US Senate or House?

Well, according to an article by Seth Fiegerman in MainSt News entitled "The Cost of Running for Political Office" (http://www.mainstreet.com/print/19196), the average cost to run for the Senate starts at $7.6 million dollars while the average cost to run for Congress is $840,000.00 with some seats going for much more.

Sorry, but I can't help asking myself how many school lunches or miles of road that would pave. It's an obscene amount of money to spend on an election. Personally, I would love to see serious campaign finance reform and apparently so would most Americans. Approximately 70% in fact, and in another interesting tidbit, apparently so would most Republicans by a margin of two to one over Democrats (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15283.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-29-poll_N.htm).

This brings up another issue. Are we attracting the best and brightest to public office? The answer to my mind is an obvious "no". We have serious problems. We need serious thinkers, and the average person, no matter how well educated or how intelligent has that kind of money. This means that our nation's elected offices doesn't go to those best equipped to solve our country's problems, but to the richest...Republican or Democrat. Once you meet the financial requirements, it then becomes a fight between the most telegenic and best able to regurgitate empty but catchy sound bites in the most sincere sounding way in a heavily scripted media environment (at these prices, the paymasters of both parties, who happen to be one and same, can't afford any surprises).

So, with the best that modern technology and marketing talent money can buy, elections are bought while we, the general public, are given the illusion of choice. The only possible thing that can go wrong is that people like you dear reader show up an vote, which brings me to my second point.

I absolutely abhor media endorsements. Every election cycle, the media attempts to manipulate the public's perception of candidates and the issues. I suppose that's a given, but it's the newspaper which takes it a step future with their endorsement page.

I used to think that most people didn't pay much attention to the newspaper's endorsements, but over the years (I've been a political and community activist for over 35 years and my two runs for office) my opinion changed. In both cases, the editorial board of our one and only newspaper endorsed my opponent. Now, before you start thinking "oh, this is about sour grapes", hear me out.

My first run for was Metro Council. Jeffersonians had just approved to merge county and city government, and in doing so, eliminate the local 12 member Board of Aldermen, the County Judge and three County Commissioners. This was the first election for the newly formed 26 member Metro Council and "Super" Mayor. I had been a community and political activist at the time for around 27 years; holding a number of senior non-profit board and mid-level party offices. I had been asked by my local county executive to run for office while my opponent had been recruited for the opposing party at the urging of the state party executive (I had and have a reputation for thinking for myself, which some disapprove of). At the endorsement interview, my opponent, who had no political knowledge and no recent community experience, not unexpectedly couldn't answer most of the questions; had no clue (there was a third "candidate", a "ringer" who played in a band with my opponent's brother).

Well, needless to say, I was stunned when my opponent got the nod; with the editorial board citing my opponent's 15 year old previous experience as an assistant coach. Seriously? I've managed millions of dollars professionally and on behalf of non-profits for decades. I'm a disabled veteran; served as a countywide administrator for the DAV plus a host of other positions and that was the best they had? Of course, I filed a complaint but with this being the only paper in town, their arrogance carried the day. Later, when I ran for state office, the same editorial board didn't even bother with an interview, or read my material. They made a completely uninformed decision; a deliberate attempt in both cases to mislead the public in my opinion (and in case you're wondering, I neither had or have any particular ill feelings for either opponent).

I started checking out other endorsements and came across similar results. I discovered too that statements made by candidates were either taken out of context or completely wrong. I then started questioning whether newspapers should be make endorsements at all. Yes, if you agree the corporations were covered under the First Amendment, I suppose they could, but should they? If so, why not CBS, Fox, or even ESPN? I began a campaign to get the entire interview process made public, which they did a few years ago.

However, my opinion that the media should not endorse remains steadfast. I believe voters should check out the candidates and issues themselves. The aforementioned newspaper publishes a great tool called the Voter Guide which details each candidate and their position on variety of issues. It also provides contact information and web addresses. For several years now, I've urges voters to read the Voter Guide. Check out the issues and candidates for themselves and ignore the media's attempt to manipulate voter decisions. Americans have more venues of information than ever before in history. We no longer require a Big Brother approach to elections. We're big boys and girls. We can make up our own minds thank you.

Also check out the following articles:

Care - The Role of Money in Politics

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/care/moneyinpolitics.asp

Follow the Money

http://www.followthemoney.org/

Rebels In Search of A Cause

2011-10-24T21:45:00.000-04:00

Not surprisingly, over one third of the Americans support the Occupy movement according to a Huffington Post poll, and why not? Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of a broken politicial and economic system which appears to be dominated greedy corporate bosses; the nasty one percenters. Of those surveyed, the majority were Democrats (64%), followed by Indies (22%) and Republicans (14%). But, before they start burning the likes of Murdock and Trump in effigy or reciting Sergi Nechayev's "Revolutionary Catechism ", I think the Occupy movement might want to take a step back and reevaluate for a moment.

There's no doubt that greed and corruption runs amuck on Wall Street, the banking industry and plenty of other industries. But, greed ain't doing too shabby on Main Street either. No one forced the tens of thousands of homeowners to jump into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford (granted, some were mislead by some crooked mortgage lenders), but that doesn't waive our own responsibility for knowing our personal financial situation. No one made thousand upon thousands to run up debt on credit cards they knew they couldn't afford., or for that matter, buy the latest gadgets, vacations or whatever. To be sure, I'm not letting the Lehman Brothers' or Goldman Sachs' of the world off the hook, or even Obama for bailing out the rich crooks while leaving Main Street largely high and dry.

What I am suggesting, however, is that we are responsible for keeping our own financial houses in order. No one is going to do that for us (not should they), although I'm sure some government bureaucrat somewhere is hard at work trying to figure out how government can. What I am hearing out of the Occupy movement right now is that someone else is somehow responsible for their troubles when, in fact, there is plenty of blame to go around. If we truly want to fight back against the one percent, our best weapon is using financial commonsense such as buying within our financial means. Don't incur debt unless you're able to pay it off within 90 days...tops. Second, we need to buy American every chance we get. Odds are that it's not going to be that much more than something made overseas, and the job you're helping to keep in America might just be yours. Buy local. If you can't, buy regional. If that doesn't work, buy national, and as an absolute last resort, buy globally.

With that said, the Occupy movement needs to focus. It has no leadership and no sense of direction. This is what ultimately imploded the "old" Left of the 60's and 70's. Historically, the lack of direction has lead to the failure of many a Leftist movement whereas the Right, though usually smaller in number, has tended to be better organized and focused, and, thus more successful. They need to redirect their attention back on Washington. They are the ones who make the rules that allow the one percenters to do what they doing. How about an election cycle where no one votes for incumbents just to shake things up? How about demanding that every candidate you support guarantee...in writing...to term limits. If they renege, take them to court, start a recall campaign, or protest at the offices, in their neighborhood, and in front of their home. The Occupy movement also need to take into consideration what is "greed" and what creates growth (ie: jobs). Not everyone who is wealthy is a "fascist tool" as I recently heard someone call a company CEO.

There is no doubt that our political system is broken, as is our economic system. Perhaps they're broken beyond repair. But before we tear it asunder, we need to have something to put into its place. Like them or hate them, the Tea Party came together with clear vision of what they wanted and to accomplish their goals. As a result, the Tea Party has achieved many of their objectives and is still evolving and growing. Perhaps it's time to address an entirely new tax code or increasing government restrictions based on company size (small companies = few restrictions. Large multinational companies = heavy restrictions). Maybe require all meetings with corporate lobbyists to be made public; no corporate money in public campaigns; mandatory waiting period of 5 years before an ex-government official can become a lobbyist. Unless the Occupy movement can decide what it wants to be when it grows up, they'll burn brightly before fading into yesterday's news.

If you would like to read the results of poll mentioned above, here's the link to the Huffington Post article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/occupy-wall-street-poll_n_1027109.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C106703

While you're at it, I recommend you read this article on the Occupy movement from the National Post as well:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html

Hank Got Yanked!

2011-10-11T20:39:00.000-04:00

Are you ready for some football? Well, I am and so is just about every red-blooded American, but what we got last week was some petty tit-for-tat petty politics. Country-Western performer Hank Williams Jr. had the audacity to utter an unflattering personal opinion about "the Messiah". No, I'm not talking about Buddha, Jesus, or even Mohammad. I'm talking about Barrack Obama of course (well, isn’t that what he’s called?).

It seems that ole Hank doesn't like Obama's economic policies (referring to America as the “United Socialist States of America”), particularly in this case, his policy towards Israel. Williams commented on the Fox show Fox and Friends that he thought Obama playing golf with Israel's PM, Benjamin Netanyahu was the moral equivalent to Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu. The result was ESPN pulling Hank's signature theme "Are You Ready for Some Football" from its Monday Night Football game.

Now, I'm not going to get into whether Hank should have kept his mouth shut or not or if ESPN overreacted. Hank had a first amendment right to speak his mind, and ESPN had a right to speak theirs by yanking Hank’s song. But it's no secret that Obama has adopted a highly supportive Arabic/Moslem attitude, beginning with his presidential apology tour at the start of his term. Indeed, Obama has been doing some serious arm twisting on one of our best allies and the only democracy in the region. Perhaps if some other Israeli was prime minister, Israel may have cried "onkel" by now, but "Bibi" as he is known is no ordinary Israeli, or politician for that matter.

A conservative "take no prisoners" politician, Benjamin Netanyahu has proved to be one of the strongest leaders in the region, adding a strength of character that is badly needed in a hostile and unstable region. So, just who is this guy at the heart of the controversy?

Benjamin Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the year after Israel’s creation. He attended high school in Philadelphia before returning to Israel. He served in the Sayeret Matka unit (reconnaissance and intelligence) of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). He served in War of Yom Kippur (both on the Suez and the Golan Heights) and took an active part in several hostage rescue missions, reaching the rank of Captain. Obviously, not faint of heart.

After his military service, he returned to the US to attend MIT and obtained a BA degree in architecture and later, obtained a MA degree from MIT’s Sloan School of Management as well as studied political science at Harvard University. Imagine a politician who is also a “thinker”!

He’s served on several peace delegations; UN Ambassador to Israel; and twice as Prime Minister, and these are just the high lights! Netanyahu is a member of the center right Likud political party (think moderate Republican). Like all of the Israel’s previous prime ministers, Netanyahu is committed friend of America.

On the other side of the coin, we have Barak Obama who has been “wishy washy” toward Israel at best while promoting a less the subtle pro-Arab foreign policy. He has more than once been critical of Israel’s need to security. Friendship is a two way street. Israel is not just our sole democratic friend in the region; it is the sole democratic country in the region! It provides critical stability in a part of the world where we and the West depend for our economic life blood --- oil. It is a valuable trade partner, especially in the areas of medical equipment and computer technology. Militarily, Israel provides not just a strategic base, but is the key partner in our intelligence gathering network (they had even warned the CIA of the 9/11 attacks several days before the event).

So, where does this leave us? Well, Hank got his signature song yanked from ESPN, but it is too imbedded in the American psyche to matter. ESPN is airing the National Anthem until they can find something to summon the America’s testosterone pool to the TV at 8:00 Mondays. In the end, Hank has a new song about the ballyhoo where he takes a well-earned swing at both sides entitled “I’ll keep my …”, so he’ll make out alright. Benjamin Netanyahu’s popularity has increased both here and at home. And Obama’s foreign policy looks like so much kiddie doodle. Meanwhile, me and my rowdy friends just wanna watch some football.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-hankwilliams-idUSTRE7954ZM20111010

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/defiant-hank-williams-jr-cuts-new-song-20111010

The Gale Winds of Change

2011-10-02T20:54:00.001-04:00

The gale winds of political change have begun to blow. These winds come every so often. They are born of idealism and anger and when they pass, the political landscape is altered; sometimes beyond recognition. The first of these winds was the Tea Party. Comprised mainly of older, well educated, and mostly conservative remnants of the middle class, they burst on to the scene to protest the government excess, corruption, and the revolving door of the corporate/government complex. They opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and the bank industry and the abandonment of the Middle America. Their mass movement was at first ignored by main street media. After it became apparent that the winds of change were going to be sustained, corporate media jump into action to ridicule the Tea Party as "fringe", "radical", “extremist” and full of the "crazies". The majority of Americans ignored the commercially sponsored organized propaganda from the talking heads of corporate media and pursued their own investigation and discovered a different truth.

Now, another, perhaps most telling wind has begun to blow. This wind calls itself "Occupy Wall Street", and like the Tea Party, it has spun off hundreds like itself. This wind condemns much of what the earlier tempest did---corporate greed, government ineptitude and corruption, destruction of the environment, unfair taxation, and outsourcing of jobs. But the key difference is that this storm brings with it the energy of youth. The Tea Party never contained much of the youth. The "Occupy Movement", if one is to call it that draws its strength from the younger crowd, as well as the unemployed and underemployed blue collar; the working poor; the lower middle class; as well as many others.

Thus far, the corporate media has largely ignored or under reported what's happening in places like San Francisco, Chicago, and, of course, New York City. These protests against governmental, if not societal failure are spreading like wildfire. There are literally hundreds of similar groups springing up across the nation. At its heart, are the failure of both political parties and the capitalist model of economic pillage and imposed serfdom. The "99%" of Americans, who received no government bailout; who received no loans; who received no relief from toxic mortgages and foreclosures. But corporate America did, and the American taxpayers paid for it while Washington listened to their K Street paymasters. We've seen no curbing of illegal immigration. There's been no fence built, yet we've told the federal government to build one dozens if not hundreds of times. We still have to request to hear our own language.

We are seeing the first effects of global climate change. Does it really matter if it’s man made or part of natural cycle? What no one can dispute is that something is happening. The results are the same. We must take steps to alter our societal behavior, if only to slow global warming down. Corporations have done much to stall or derail any serious efforts to create cleaner energy sources like solar or wind. On the other hand, they've given us "feel good" media about all they've done out of a sense of corporate citizenship, so why blame them? Gotta love public relations and clever folks in marketing.

So where does that leave us? We have two distinct groups basically seeking the same goals. One is the Tea Party, who tend to be older, better educated, and slightly more affluent. The other is the Occupy groups, who seem to include more college age students and blue collar individual. Together, they represent what’s left of the middle class, blue collar workers, and lower income individuals. Their object of their combined frustrations is Washington, including both political parties, and the corporate elite who run Washington. Yes, there are differences besides their demographics. The Tea Party is more conservative, though not as extremist as the media portrays. For instance, they would like to see a small federal government. The other appears to be more liberal leaning. They would like to see a more responsible though not necessarily smaller government. But there is common ground and common cause between them. I urge both groups to explore ways to combine, if not coordinate their efforts. I urge you dear reader to plug in to which ever group you feel most comfortable with and work for the change we need to save this country for our children and their children. The time is now.

Check these Out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-protests-new-york_n_989221.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C100783

http://www.thedailyactivist.com/

http://www.occupytogether.org/

http://www.teaparty.org/about.php

America: A Welcoming Country

2011-09-17T22:17:00.002-04:00

America has always been a welcoming country. We are a nation of immigrants. We came here for many reasons, but most often in search of freedom. Whether that "freedom" was one of religion; both "of" or "from", or freedom of opportunity; to pursue one's ambitions. It may be freedom of associate with or from other individuals or groups. The choice was ours. All we asked of government was to be left alone; to keep to a minimal its intrusion on our lives. Our Founding Fathers were in complete agreement.

We came here speaking many languages and of different economic strata, but mostly poor. Most had little more than the clothes on their backs. Shoes were often optional. We knew life would be a struggle, but if we scrimped and worked hard, somehow the lives of our children might be better than ours had been. Most succeeded, though not necessary in the way they had envisioned. A few failed. But their success or failure was largely of their own making and not imposed on them by accident of birth.

Despite our teeming diversity, we were all linked by one thing; to be Americans. In whatever far off land we came, it was the common dream we shared. We often freely lent a hand to the newcomer. After all, we weren't that far removed from them. We never asked nor expected government to do what neighbors do freely for neighbors. A nation of which valued the individual was also the nation which came together as one.

What has changed? Have we become jaded? Perhaps arrogant or selfish with our freedoms? Certainly we are more cynical people than our forefathers. We learned not to trust our most trusted institutions; school, church, our employer, our employees, and most of all, our government. Skepticism, it seems, doesn't have a minimum daily dosage. It is true that we believe that our nation is second to none. Perhaps in our arrogance we've tried to force feed our values to the world. Many among us believe that we are a unique people chosen by God to be the "light of the world". Our national sense of freedom compels us to believe that everyone has the right to believe as they choose, even if imposed. Yes, we are indeed selfish of our freedoms, but America has never been a selfish country. We have give more to others than any other nation in history. If anything, we are a deeply compassionate people.

Perhaps then, what changed was not us, but the nature of the immigrant. We do not see today's "unwashed masses" seeking to become "American". In the name of compassion, we've embraced multiculturalism. We've encouraged immigrants to keep their customs, costumes, cuisine, religions, and the thread that binds, language in our misplaced compassion. In doing so, we lost the evolution of "becoming". The cure for freedom was worse than the disease of freedom. Once, we engaged in the "becoming" by accepting all that others brought with them. The national act of "becoming" was called the "Great Melting Pot". What was more "American" than a hamburger; hotdog; pizza; chow mien or everyone being Irish on St. Patrick's Day or German during Oktoberfest? We freely mixed and explored each other's religions and tradition, while in the Old World, they chose slaughter instead.

What stirred this "Great Melting Pot" was a simple ingredient. It was our common language. No matter where we came from; from what social class, we succeed because we could talk with each other. We even incorporated each other's words and expressions in to our everyday vernacular. It came known as "American English". It was our very mother tongue. Today's immigrant keeps their own language. By doing so, they remain a separate people. Not truly of their homeland. Not truly American.

Our governments mistakenly deepened the divide by making it easier to remain separate by encouraging immigrants to maintain their native language by creating multi-lingual documents. Businesses picked on this too. Short term profits over long term national oblivion. Once it was necessary to learn the host nation's language to survive and interact. Even the required tests to become a US citizen can be offered the language of your choice.

When we first came to these shores, we knew America was to be our new home. We severed our old loyalties. For today's immigrant, that is not necessarily true. Many routinely travel back and forth to their homeland; send money and other items back to the homeland. Their national loyalties remain afar, and it's reinforced down through the generations. Their ties still bind. They develop no attachment to the land that now supports them. Theirs is solely economic. As a result, they never accept the validity of our culture or our laws. Someone will always to defend them. Separate but more than equal is the new political reality.

What does it mean to be an American? That's a question we each must address; individually and as a nation. I believe there can be no divided loyalties. I believe that we are Americans by choice. In the land of the free, we are free to leave anytime we want to. We welcome those who want to add their uniqueness to ours. If you expect us to adapt, you may have a long uncomfortable wait. And while you're waiting, please learn our language. It's called English. It will help you blend in. Don't expect us to learn your language unless you're willing to learn French, Italian, German, Russian, Yiddish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and every other language on this planet because that is what America represents; the best the world has to offer, and the only way we can continue to achieve is by being able to speak to each other.

Americans are a religious people. That doesn't mean we always attend a church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or a sacred grove. It does mean that we respect all religions equally. Even the right to no religion at all. If you can't accept that, you might want to stay where you're at.

There is no "honor" in "honor killings". Women contribute as much (if not more) as men. We are our equal partners in all things, so don't expect American women to bear your guilt and hide behind closed doors...or veils. And don't expect to hide behind your religion to impose your version of a second class status. We as a People respect religion, but we won't tolerate the intolerance of a caste system imposed in name of any god or social class.

Americans reserve the right to say what we want when we want about what we want. We will also write what we want about what we want. In short, it's our God-given right to freedom of expression. We'll also hang out with whomever we want too. That's called freedom of assembly. Wanna know more? Read the Bill of Rights. We realized there are certain restrictions. It's something else Americans tend to do well. We call it taking responsibility for our actions. When we don't, well, there are recourses for that too.

So, as hard as it is to believe, Americans will support your right to criticize us. But with that right, comes our right to respond in kind. And, so, with that, I will close this edition of Another Opinion. But in doing so, remember that being an American means being part of the many. Perhaps, then, it's no wonder that our defacto national motto has been "E pluribus Unum" or "Out of many, one."

The Super Committee/Death by China: A Review

2011-09-01T16:45:00.001-04:00

With its approval rating the lowest in history (around 12% at the time of this writing), Congress has put together a so-called "Super Committee". So, what's so "super" about it? Well, let's first look at why our elected representatives felt the need to create this committee; who's on it; and what it is supposed to accomplish. Finally, we'll examine the long term repercussions of having a "Super Committee", whose actual name is Joint Select Committee for Deficit Reduction.

As I said above, the approval ratings for Congress are dismal, and they've been that way for a some time. Long enough for even the arrogant thick headed politicians in Washington along with their K Street paymasters to realize that it may be an angry mob coming to Washington rather than another idealistic Mr. Smith. The latest, and so far most disastrous example of Washington's failure was the debate over the raising the debt ceiling. With the public's mood becoming darker as each day of economic chicken played out, the leaders in both parties came to the conclusion that the only way to save their worthless hides was to create a political body to deflect future blame.

It's really an interesting idea if you think about it. Under their agreement, party bosses selected three individuals from each party and both the upper and lower chambers of Congress for a total of twelve individuals (a brief biography of each member is included below). Originally called a "Super Congress", the name was quickly abandoned since it gave the "wrong" impression that a new entity was being created outside of Congressional parameters (never mind the fact that both the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional branches have long over stepped their respective boundaries decades ago). Now called a "Super Committee", these twelve individuals would meet behind closed doors to attempt to draft a deficit reduction bill.

This is a tough job, and they will certainly earn hazardous duty pay, especially when you consider their job is to find 1.5 trillion dollars to be cut over the next 10 years ( I strongly suspect that number will increase by at least half long before then). That means dealing with highly protective issues like the military, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, illegal immigration, and veterans to name just a few. If seven of the twelve members vote in favor of a specific proposal, it gets "fast tracked" through the House and Senate. The pressure on these 12 individuals will be unbearable.

The Super Committee derives its authority from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (or BCA for short). The committee will act as a select committee, meaning that once its object is meet (in this case, finding 1.5 trillion dollars) and drafting a deficit reduction bill, it will be dissolved. The bill gets the unusual benefit of a up-or-down vote in the House and Senate. No filibusters, and no amendments to the bill can be added (and for the record, I oppose adding non-relevant "pork" amendments to bills. I also support line item vetoes to help curtail this form of political pandering).

Joint and/or select committees are not unusual. Its how things get done in Congress, and while this one does have a few unusual characteristics like no filibustering and an up-or-down vote, it may prove to be the only way the federal government can accomplish its goal of finding and eliminating 1.5 trillion dollars. America is in deep financial trouble, due largely to mismanagement, a lack of leadership, and the creation of a society of special interest entitlements. There can be no failure here. Everything is at stake. If it takes a super committee or a Superman, then so be it.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-is-a-super-committee-53423/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/news/economy/debt_committee_members/index.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0811/Who-s-who-on-Congress-s-debt-super-committee/Sen.-Max-Baucus-D-of-Montana

Book Review: Death by China
Written by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry

Lenin once famously remarked that Communism would sell Western Capitalism the rope that would be used to hang them with. Well, as it turns out, that rope is made in China. How many of us have sat in dazed anger watching the news about another US plant closing while hundreds or even thousands of jobs...our jobs...were being sent to China? How many of us remember Wal-Mart's slogan about everything they sold being made in America? Nowadays, just try and find something made in America in Wal-Mart. If you're like me, you've often asked yourself how did America, and American jobs end up some 5000 miles away. I found the answer. It's in "Death by China", written by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry.

This totally engrossing book explains in everyday language how America lost its competitive edge to its ideological enemy, China. The authors detail how China has been so successful in exporting shoddy and often dangerous products like poorly made electrical tools, baby cribs, or children's toys painted with toxic lead base paint, not to mention food stuffs grown in contaminated soil and irrigated with polluted water. Exposed too is how China bypasses regulations and product inspections, often with the tacit support of inspectors; how China ignores various free trade agreements; creates a "devil's bargain" with the likes of General Electric, Caterpillar, and Microsoft, which often includes giving away proprietary technology while, at the same time, allowing a Chinese majority stake in any operation set up on Chinese soil. Often these "devil's bargains" promise access to the Chinese consumer market, does in reality the exact opposite.

Globally, China has launched a war of conquest. It's aim is nothing less than acquiring resources, be it in Africa, South America, or the Middle East, for the sole purpose of crippling the economies of the West, Japan, South Korea, India, and Southeast Asia. At the same time, China continues to manipulates its currency, while buying up US debt; in effect, making it the banker that allows this country to continue to function. Can you imagine your biggest competitor or worse enemy controlling your checkbook?

China has openly declared global war, and on America in particular. They are in this for the long haul. Their goal, as trite as it may sound to Post-Cold War ears, is world domination. This war is not one of guerilla insurgencies or vast armies. It's one of economics. It's being fought on every level in every country. It's a war we should be winning, but we've bought the rope instead.

Authors Navarro and Autry have done an exemplary job of explaining the new rules of engagement. The final chapter, "Life with China: How to Survive and Prosper in the Dragon's Century", brings it all together with their suggestions on how to level out the playing field, and start winning while there's still time. To paraphrase former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, in a global economy, everything is local. If you're concerned about your job, you need to read this book.

Backdoor Amnesty

2011-08-21T13:36:00.002-04:00

In what can only be described as "middle finger salute" to the American People, President Obama has decided once again to ignore the Will of America. While the number of Americans opposed to illegal immigration has always remained a super majority, Obama has ordered his Co-Conspirator-in-Chief, Janet Napolitano, head of the so-called Department of Homeland Security to cease deporting illegals in what can only be described as "backdoor amnesty" for the estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants now living in America (the Justice Department under Eric Holder has slowed its investigating and prosecution of illegals to crawl). No doubt that as word spreads, tens of thousands more will pour over the border in order to get in on the "good" deal.

Obama issued his presidential directive on August 18, just one day after heading off on his vacation fundraising jaunt to Martha's Vineyard. Although he has no legal authority under the Constitution to issue such a directive (all matters of immigration are the preview of Congress), it will takes months if not years for Congress to bring this matter up; draft a deal and vote it (heck, they couldn't even agree on raising the debt ceiling). I'm sure that it was on coincidence that the fiat order was issued while Congress was adjourned for campaigning...err...I mean summer break. The result is a de facto executive amnesty policy, which come over the sustained objections of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

So, why would Obama issued such an order if he knew he had no legal authority to? I think the answer is rather simple. First, with Congress out, who is going to object? The liberal leaning media? You? Please. Second, the Obama Administration has been trying unsuccessfully for the last two years to implement some form of amnesty. With his approval ratings hovering somewhere between dismissal and fat chance, Obama desperately needs the support of Hispanic voters. Hispanics, as everyone knows, is the largest minority in America and increasing (they are currently 16.3% of the population compared with the former largest minority, Black Americans, who are just over 12%). It's only through his magnanimous, though illegal actions, that Obama can hope to win their support. In addition, Hispanics are more likely than not to register as Democrats, which would give the Democratic Party a literal insurmountable lock on national elections (not to mention some states). Another beneficiary is Big Business.

Hispanics, both illegal and legal, are more willing to work for less money and few, if any, benefits. Obviously, it's advantageous for Big Business to increase the low wage workforce. Of course, the big losers are unions and the average working American. Unions lose because Hispanics have historically been less likely to challenge their employers for higher wages and benefits (they have, however, been successful with efforts to improve work conditions) or join unions. As an aside, Hispanics are now competing with and surpassing blacks for many of the same jobs. Federal programs, formerly directed primarily to blacks, are now being redirected to Hispanics is reflection of their new acquired clout.

The average American loses because not only are they competing with lower wage workers in other countries, they would be competing with lower wage workers right in their own backyard. Yes, the average American worker is better educated, skilled, and motivated, employers may need those same competitive advantages, but only fewer of them. In addition, it may still prove to be cheaper to hire two (or three) low wage workers and train them for specific task rather than hire one higher wage American worker. Politics does make strange bed fellows doesn't it?

Suggested Reading:

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1913722586?page=NewsArticle&id=24343&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Enews&utm_content=Enews+Aug+19+2011

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/public-opinion/americans-oppose-rewards-illegal-immigra.html

http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-illegal-immigration-hurts-black-america

Bilingual Ballots Anyone?

In related matter, the Obama Administration is expected to order state and local governments to start printing ballots in Spanish and other languages. The argument is that it would make voting easier and more accessible to voters. What it does in actuality is encourage individuals not to learn English and increases the likelihood of voter fraud as well as increase the financial burden of state and local governments who will bear the costs.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/08/19/chavez-bilingual-ballots-are-a-bad-idea/?subscriber=1

A Few Final Thoughts

Everyone wants to come to America. Frankly, there aren't any long lines at other embassies. America is a nation of immigrants. Immigration is what made America the greatest nation the world has yet seen. We are a country which demands honesty and fair play, from other nations; from our politicians; and from ourselves. That's why things other countries would shrug off so infuriate us (take President Clinton's trysts for example). Illegal immigration is another example.

Most Americans don't have a biased bone in their body, so let's drop the alleged "racism" once and for all. They don't care where someone is from, as long as they got here above board. America is first and foremost a nation of laws. We expect you to apply and go through the same steps are everyone else. "Cutting in line" is one of those things that sticks in our crawl. The other is not bothering to learn our language (which is English in case you didn't know) or learning our customs and traditions. We view that as a slap at our history; our national sacrifices; and us personally. Not that we care what native language is or the customs of your native country; this not there, so adapt damn it. We came here to be something greater than ourselves. We came here to be Americans. If that's why you're here, great. Welcome home. If not, don't forget to pick up a few post cards on your way out.

Reflections on the Debt Crisis

2011-08-13T20:07:00.001-04:00

There is a dark mood over America and its growing. While Congress seems pleased with itself over the passage of the debt ceiling package, those outside the bubble world of Washington's Beltway. aren't so happy. We sat and watched with white knuckles and disbelief at the asinine brinkmanship being played out on our television sets every night. A recent poll revealed much more. Only 10% of Americans are happy with Congress irrespective of political party. Think about that number for just a minute folks. That means that overwhelming majority of us believe that Congress has failed. Revolutions, civil wars, and mass strikes and riots are not uncommon when approval ratings drop below 47%.

There are two points about that number that I find most interesting. The first is that this figure is not a fluke. While the approval rating of the president tends to flux, depending on what he's recently said or done, the approval rating for Congress has remained in the dumpster for some time now. Congress is supposed to the representatives of the people. They are the modern Tribunes. So, what does it say when We the People believe our Tribunes have failed us, and continue to fail us? This leads me to the second point which I am concerned about. Given that "the mob" often take to the streets whenever the approval ratings of their representatives drops below the 50% mark for any length of time, what does that say about and to us? In order to answer both questions, I think the first place to start is to look the poll itself.

The poll was conducted by Fox News between August 9-11, 2011 comprised 904 registered voters. The poll indicated that only 10% thought Congress was doing a good job while 81% disapproved of Congress's job performance. Only one in three said the country was headed in the right direction. 71% said they were not optimistic about the country's economic future. 81% of Republicans, 74% of Independents and 46% of Democrats thought America was in economic trouble.

With respect to the debt agreement, despite the Beltway's backslapping, 52% of us disapproved of the agreement compare to 36% who approved of it. Of that, only 12% felt that the agreement would improve the economy. 50% of those polled said the agreement was "weak" while 28% though it was "terrible" according to the Fox News article. In response to related questions, 74% expressed concern that the federal government will continue to spend more than it takes in. By 3 to 1 margin, the respondents thought Americans were already over taxed. So, taken as a whole. the poll reveals what almost everyone of us already know: The economy is in trouble and we have no leadership.

To avoid the possibility of biased polling data, I decided to check out a recent CNN poll. This poll, which was taken approximately August 4, 2011 revealed that only 14% of the respondents approved of Congress's performance. The article stated that this was only the third since 1974 when CNN began doing polling that the Congressional approval rating fell below 20%. The first was in June 1979, a month before Jimmy Carter gave his infamous "malaise" speech, and the other was in March 1992 during the, again, infamous House banking scandals. The last time CNN conducted a job performance poll of Congress was in January of this year. At that time, Congress had a whooping 22% approval rating. According to Gallup, the recent 10% is the worst in history, with the previous low being 13% in December 2010, however, World Net Daily reported a 9% approval rating in July of 2008, but what's a few percentage points among friends right? The point is that the vast majority of Americans are beyond disgusted with Washington. My question, however, is this: Are Americans sick and tired of being sick and tired with the beltway Crowd, including not just Congress of either political stripe, but also of their corporate paymasters---the lobbyists---the global corporations who pull the strings?

Some 11 years after our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we've made little progress. Afghanistan is still crawling with Taliban; the US back government is ripe with corruption and incompetence, amid the changing loyalties of tribal chieftains and government bureaucrats. On the up side, we have severely crippled (but by no means killed) the effectiveness of the Taliban. Al Qaeda has been nearly destroyed, with many of its top tier leaders given a one way ticket to Allah, including bin Laden. Much of its second and third levels have been decapitated as well, but it still remains a dangerous enemy with mutations springing up in far flung places like Kenya and Yemen.

Iraq remains a very unstable nation. The nation is rife with corruption and sporadic violence aimed a destabilizing the country, while Iran waits like a hungry lion to devour its neighbor as soon as we leave, which goes all the more to emphasize our strategic and tactical blunder of invading in the first place. Following the first Gulf War, Hussein was rendered regionally impotent. Yet, he remained strong enough to keep the religious radicals in check. We've seen Moslem citizens rise up against their military backed strongmen with varying results. However, how successful they will be in the long run remains questionable. Meanwhile, the zealots wait in the shadows and pray for weaknesses. The result is an even more volatile Middle East providing the West's oil.

Globally, we've seen not just the increase in radical Islam, but also the spread of Islam through out the world, especially in Europe and the United States. We've seen the delayed reaction of the silent invasion by recent events in Oslo. We've watched a failing global economy, again, most notably in Europe and in America, especially with a credit downgrade and lack of political leadership. Riots are now rampant in London, so known for their passivity because there are no jobs and no money for the government handouts. The Ships of State have no crew, no captain, no rudder and it's out of fuel.

America too is being invaded. This invasion comes in the form of illegal immigrates in search of economic opportunities, not as political or religious refugees. They have no desire to become American Citizens, learn our language or adapt to our values or traditions. As a result, our economic infrastructure has been stretched to the point of collapse. Our Middle Class, once the industrious spine of the American economy, is nearly shattered; its jobs outsourced to our ideological enemies in the sacred name of profit while unions, once the protectors of working class America, are unable or unwilling to do anything more than provide a hollow chorus to their quiet sobs as the American Dream of a home, a decent job, and better times for their children fades from memory. Where have you gone Meany, Chavez and Mary Jones?

When will Americans take matters in their own hands and demand their country back? We are given the illusion of choice each election cycle. The truth is that there is little meaningful differences between the two leading political parties anymore. Both have the same moneyed masters. They are two sides of the same worthless plug nickel. Today, we are caught between three worlds. One bequest to us by our Founding Fathers and the other by those seeking a socialistic enlightenment for the betterment of Mankind. Perhaps the former is too idyllic and distant while the latter is too idealistic, but either are preferable to the third which seeks to enslave us to faceless corporation masters; to create a post-national world of economic serfs. That is the world we increasing live in.

Fox Poll:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/fox-news-poll-most-voters-not-hopeful-about-direction-country-majority-dislikes/

CNN Poll:
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-approval-rating-just-sank-to-a-record-breaking-low-2011-8

Gallup Poll History:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx

World Net Daily:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=69088

Murder in Oslo

2011-07-24T16:22:00.000-04:00

There are days when I have to ask myself, "what's in the water"? In Oslo, Norway, where nothing ever seems to happen, a 32 year old right wingnut by the name of Anders Behring Breivik goes on a bombing and shooting rampage. He's successful with some moderate building damage, but its his systemic hunting down and murdering of at least 90 young adults attending a politically oriented retreat sponsored by Norway's liberal Labour Party on a remote island of Utoeya that causes the most carnage. His explanation was that he was trying to spark a conservative coup or something against "cultural Marxists". He has reportedly said that his actions were largely in response to Norway's extreme open policy to immigration and the large influx of Moslems and Africans.

I guess I can understand his frustration. No one wants to see their culture, language, or religion usurped by any group, but just how does blowing up a building or shooting a bunch of kids in cold blood help his cause? Sure, it's going to bring the world's attention to his cause; the media will examine ad nauseam his childhood, his relationships, his motives, and, of course, the impact (both real and anticipated) of his actions. The media will interview the subjects of his hatred, Moslems, Africans, and other third world immigrants living in Norway and throughout Europe. Much will be made of the socialist policies of the Scandinavian countries, and the all but free social care they receive and the high tax base native (and working) Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians pay for this social safety net. I suspect too there will be some comparison to the Scandinavian socialist polices and Obama's efforts to socialize America's social safety net as well as immigration (both legal and illegal).

But, in the end, what will have been accomplished? Mr. Breivik will be tried amid the glare of cameras, and in the end, sentenced to life in prison since Norway (and the rest of Europe) doesn't believe in the death penalty. He will pay for his fifteen minutes of fame with someone else's pound of flesh. Most people, even those who agree with his cause, will attempt to distance themselves from any conservative groups, and the more liberal groups, such as the Labour Party, may even seen a slight increase in membership or donations as form of sympatric support. And parents will bury their children.

Actions like this seldom have their desired effect. Assassinations rarely alter policies. In America, Timothy McVey, who was 26 years old at the time, attempted the something similar by blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Instead of sparking a civil war or revolution, his actions only sparked revolution at the carnage. McVey's actions were triggered by outraged at the FBI's botched raids at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and Waco in 1993 where a number of innocent individuals were killed (and in some cases, murdered) by FBI and ATF agents. But, in the end, many like minded individuals distanced themselves from anti-government oriented militias and similar groups, while others simply faded into the woodwork. McVey, in many ways, did more harm to his cause than the forces he was fighting ever could. I think Mr. Breivik's action will have the same result for his cause. Cold comfort for the survivors or the families of the dead.

Illegal Immigration Issues/State of America

2011-07-09T09:57:00.005-04:00

South Carolina moved ahead with signing of one of America's toughest anti-illegal immigration bills. Modeled on Arizona's SB 1070, the bill was signed into law by South Carolina's Governor Nikki Haley. The bill, which passed the State House of Representatives by a margin of 69 to 43, requires employers to use the federal E-Verify database to confirm the legal residencies of all new employees. Employers are given a one year "grace" period to implement the program. Failure to do so results in escalating penalties cumulating their business's license being revoked.

Meanwhile, US District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. has been busy undermining Georgia's anti-illegal legislation, HB 87. The judge has suspended sections 7 and 8, allowing police officers to inquire into a suspect's legal status when stopped for "probable cause" such as suspicion of committing a criminal act, and prohibiting someone from knowingly transporting and/or harboring an illegal immigrant. However, one section of the bill will be allowed to stand.

Individuals convicted of using false identification (and I assume that includes the use of stolen social securities numbers) could face up to 15 years as a guest of Georgia's infamous penal system and a fine of $250,000 (that would be in US dollars not pesos in case you're curious). Meanwhile, sections 7 and 8 are on appeal by Georgia's Attorney General Sam Olens. Look for a slightly modified version of the two sections to be implemented.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues efforts to circumvent existing national laws and overwhelming opinion of America by declaring that illegal immigrants enrolled in a "education center", which I assume could be almost anything from a continuing adult education class to college, may not be deported. I guess the president is striving for a better educated class of illegal aliens. Some states are now awarding in-state tuition to illegal aliens who enroll in their colleges or universities, and in case you're wondering, yes, they may apply for and obtain taxpayer based grants and loans. Who says crime doesn't pay? In addition, illegal immigrants living with relatives currently serving in the US military are also currently exempt for deportation. No word from the White House on how closely they must be related.

So, what's moral of today's story? Don't come here illegally and use a stolen ID to get a job. Simply enroll in a local college and get a free education or find some relatives who came here legally and who has a cousin is serving in the military and simply move in. Better yet, do both!

Real Estate 101: Location, Location, Location

What the best places to live if you're coming here illegally? According to a Fox News story by Bob Dane, the top five "sanctuary states" in America are California, Maryland, Washington State, Illinois, and Connecticut. According to Dane, California take in 1/4 of all illegal immigrants. Native Californians pay a staggering $2438.00 in extra taxes per resident for that "honor". No wonder people and businesses are leaving California in droves and the state is bankrupt. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sacramento impose fines on businesses and individuals moving out in order to build up their coffers.

Next up is Montgomery County Maryland where residents voted in their own version of the so-called "Dream Act". Look for those local officials to start hitting up the state for more money as residents learn the true costs of their generosity. Chicago and Cook County is the biggest haven in Illinois while New Haven is the top spot in Connecticut.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/#content

State of America

Meanwhile the economy continues to tank. Recent unemployment numbers are dismal as employers hold back on hiring despite increasing profit levels and stocks of inventory. The "official" unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, which translates to over 14 million souls looking to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. That number masks an even greater number; the number of individuals who are underemployed (working part time but seeking a full time job and well as overqualified individuals employed in jobs beneath their skills and/or education), as well as those who have simply stopped looking. That "unofficial" number is just over 20% of Americans.

The previous time it took to find a job was five weeks. Now it six months. If you're over 45 years old, that number jumps to 52 weeks! For those in the their 50's (like yours truly), some economists are predicting that they may never find work again. Welcome to the new reality of the new economy. Employers added on 18,000 jobs nationally while economists called for a bare minimum of 105,000 with an ideal job growth number of 225,000. Folks, that's just not going to cut it.

The Obama Administration has tried the discredited practice of blaming the prior administration, but that's not going to work. After six months, the current condition of the economy belongs to whomever is in office. Meanwhile, Congress keeps mouthing about how they feel our pain. Really? How about giving up their salary for the average number of weeks one of their constituents is unemployed? Maybe that would help them feel our pain. Maybe forgo those gym privileges we pay for.

Globally, Europe is teetering thanks to the financial mismanagement of Greece's government. Things aren't much better in Pacific Rim with Japan trying to cope with its recent disaster and the regional bad boy, North Korea, on the edge of economic collapse and contemplating war just to keep things afloat (Pyongyang has long played military blackmail with West in order to prop up it's economy. They recently closed all universities and sent the students to the fields to work, partly for economic reasons and partly to stave off a possible student led revolt). Events in the Middle East continued to make themselves felt at the gas pumps. Finally, the looming US debt crisis. Republicans want no tax increases (especially for the rich and big business) while the Democrats are calling for tax increases on everyone except the poor. Both sides claim to speak for America and that it won't blink first. To me, the only winner here are those wealthy special interests groups and their corresponding industries like banks and oil companies. The loser? Who else but the American Taxpayers.

All this brings me to something I've been thinking about for awhile now. Is America the same democratic Republic our Founding Father created? It seems that dream died a long time ago. Today, we are a Corporate Republic, or Capitalist Democracy if you prefer. The end result is the same. We are less longer citizen and more consumer. We've become little more than economic serfs. Employees are seen as necessary liabilities. We live and die by our credit rating. Our government, irrespective of which political party currently dominates, serves as the front man for global corporations who respects no laws except the law of profit. Governments are there to maintain order and keep the people in check.

The reformers we elected are suffocated under the weight of internal party machinery; their energies and passions diffused with endless committee and subcommittee meetings, leaving no time to carry out the reforms they promised. The bulwark of worker rights, the once proudly independent unions are now treated like second class participants and the cash cow for the Democrat Party. Rather than support the best candidate to defend working men and women, union leadership limit their support largely to Democrat candidates while the rank and file look to their own economic self interests. The public's distain for the both parties, and the political process could explain, in part, the drop in union membership to a historic low; only 7.2% in the private sector and 36.2% in the public sector (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html?_r=1).

As an ardent supporter of unions (and a member), I find these numbers deplorable. We need to move beyond partisan politics. Our problems are much too serious and the stakes for you and I are much too high. We need term limits, serious campaign finance reform, and an independent union movement.

Have We Become Weiner Roasted?

2011-06-26T15:59:00.005-04:00

Ok, so now "former" Congressman Anthony Weiner has resigned. Big deal. He still walks away with a multimillion dollar pension for the years he spent in Congress. Is that right? Should someone who disgraced the office of Congress still be entitled to receive a pension package worth millions, and all funded by taxpayers?

Well, if we denied money to everyone who ever disgraced Congress, or for that matter, elected office, there would be damn few former (or even some current) representatives getting a penny, and perhaps that is would be a good thing. Taxpayers would save a boat load of money and maybe the wrongdoer wouldn't sleep so comfortably at night. Still, we need more than just another long drawn out pathetic "I'm innocent" story in the hopes of duping the public, usually followed by the well worn public apology and self imposed treatment center (I liken it to some misbehaved child's self imposed trip to the principal's office).

So, what it is with these people any way? Is it arrogance? Is it greed? Narcissism? Perhaps we should see them as victims of a increasingly hedonistic society. After all, look at many of professional athletes. They've been coddled since high school. They were often excused for bad behavior, bad grades and they've done alright. Hollywood is busting at the seams with stories of overlooked (or sometimes encouraged) bad behavior by pampered and usually mediocre actors and actresses. Their bank accounts look pretty good too. TV shows and video games resplendent with glorified "anti-hero" types. You don't even had to be an aspiring actor or athlete to have your bad behavior overlooked. You just have to be part of some media accepted misunderstood minority group whose "social values" doesn't correspond with the rest of society's. So, why not politicians? Why should they be held to higher standards of moral behavior when less is expected of the rest of society's role models?

The answer is, in my opinion, to be found in our recent past. There was a time when we could look up to certain individuals, like our pastors, teachers, judges, and yes, even to many of our elected officials. We had larger than life heroes like Audie Murphy, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G Robinson, James Cagney, Randolph Scott, Gregory Peck, and the list goes on. We could trust our teachers to actually teach our children, not seduce them. Discipline was expected in school. It wasn't a day care for young adults that it has now become. You studied. You learned. And you succeeded because of your efforts, not because you were failed up to the next grade to protect your self-esteem. Society thought it more important that you could read, write, do arithmetic at your grade level than being stupid and feeling good about it. There was nothing "cool" about poor grammar and purposefully mispronounced words; your underwear handing out, or infantile gestures.

People were expected to put in an honest day's work for a living wage. We can thank our grandparent's unions for that. They weren't afraid to strike for safe working conditions, an eight hour day or a realistic wage. But they weren't afraid to work for those concessions either. They didn't expect anyone to give them anything for free. It was called a work ethic. People didn't expect handouts. In fact, they were often ashamed to take them. Nowadays, there are many who "demand" that society support them. For some unexplained reason, they believed they are "entitled" to have others---usually taxpayers---pay their way. The same thing could be said about have children at 16 or even 14 and expecting their parents to raise their grandchildren. Back then, it was called taking personal responsibility for your actions. It was instilled at home; in the religious institutions of our choice; in school; and reinforced by society. Lying is almost common practice. Be it on your resume, to the police, to the judge, to parishioners, or to the media. The bigger the better. The longer the more coverage. The same goes with cheating.

If you messed up, you often went to prison. Prison was a place you didn't want to be, and you couldn't wait to get out. And you did your level best never to go back again. Prisoners didn't get their choice of meals. There was no "cafeteria" plan. You grew a lot of what you ate and was very grateful for anything else. There weren't any desserts. There were no televisions, radios, or stereos. There were no state of the art gyms. The only weightlifting was moving heavy rocks from spot to another. By the time you went back to your cell, all you wanted to do was sleep. Respect was something you gave the guards.

Much of that is gone today. Bad behavior is not just tolerated, but encouraged or even rewarded with multi-million dollar book deals, and countless media coverage and interviews (often paying interviews). Your "15 minutes of fame" could even land you a movie deal. It's no wonder individuals like Mr. Weiner act the way they do. Get caught; Lie about it for as long as possible; Confess and/or quit when finally you have to; Negotiate your own penalty and keep the money. It's a tired and true script for modern society, just "insert name here". We're long passed double standards, and are headlong into narcissism and greed as the society's norm; consequences be damned. It's all around us. Just turn on the TV, rent a movie, or pop in a video game. No doubt we'll be seeing the feature again. And don't forget the weiners.

Weinergate; Not So Sweet Home Alabama

2011-06-12T16:37:00.006-04:00

Weinergate. It couldn't get any better for a political junkie. The story is an old one; as old as civilization. A middle aged man seduced by power, surrounded by "yes men", believing that the rules of society simply doesn't apply to him trying to impress chicks. There have been countless examples down history, but don't think men are the only ones guilty bad behavior. Women too have been just as guilty. It always seems to be someone in a position of perceived authority, be lawyers, judges, business leaders, politicians, clergy, or teachers.

Here we have a successful New York Congressman with great future; an attractive wife (who is allegedly expecting again)and kids. Same old song with a different singer. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) at first denied the risqué pictures, sent out over his cell phone was "hacked' by some political rival. As the evidence began to amount and the lie became indefensible, Weiner fessed up and is now taking a brief leave of absence from Congress to see "counseling" and "treatment". Oh, so stupid behavior is now something clinically treatable? Only if Richard Nixon knew that following Watergate, or Bill Clinton after Monica. However, he is steadfastly clinging to his office (besmirched though it may be) in hopes of some other more interesting story comes along and bumps him from the headlines. A few reports claim that he is so far into debt, he can't quit. He needs our money. In his head, he's thinks that he can weather the storm just a little longer, it will be alright. Meanwhile, he hides.

Americans are a forgiving people. We can forgive most anything...except a lie. We've seen all before. Politicians, like clergy, community leaders, sport figures and educators are held apart from society. These are the people we look up to. They inspire us. When they mess up, it's there for all to see thanks to 24/7/365 a day media coverage from hundreds of sources. While Weiner has apologized, I wonder about the sincerity of it. The fact that he initially denied what was obvious comes as no surprise. Most of us deny the truth until we're forced to confess. That's human nature. That he's now seeking "treatment" is not surprising either. It's partial an attempt to demonstrate his remorse, and partly to buy time in the hopes that the fury will pass over and he'll be able to resume living his life as before. Perhaps more cautiously this time.

People are attracted to power. It's considered to be the ultimate aphrodisiac. Individuals with power come to believed they not above the law, but that, somehow the law and/or society's morality simply doesn't apply to them. If Weiner was sincere, he would have made his apologies and then promptly resigned. The fact that he hasn't indicates to me that he really doesn't believe he's done anything wrong. The apology was perfunctory and as soon as another story comes along, everything will be right in his world again.

The Democratic Party's leadership has condemned his actions. His fellow legislators on both sides of the aisle have condemned his behavior. Various local leaders in his home district have condemned his actions. If he is unwilling to resign voluntarily, then it will be necessary for his constituents to organize a petition to recall Wenier and schedule a special election as soon as possible that the business of government can resume.

Years ago, a number of television shows featured the loveable ole drunk as comic relief. Those days are long gone. We, as a society, no longer find alcoholic behavior funny nor are we willing to tolerate it. The same public distain of indecent sexual behavior applies too, be it a priest sexually abusing little boys; a minister having an affair or hiring hooker; a business person making sexual overtones to a fellow employee; a teacher and a student; or, as in this case, another politician on a power trip.

Our public leaders need to be reminded, and reminded often, that they have no power of office except that which we loan them. The moment they violate our trust should be the moment their term in office comes to an end.

Not So Sweet Home Alabama

Alabama just out did Arizona in passing the toughest anti-illegal bill in the country. On Thursday, the Alabama legislator passed HB 56, which mirrors Arizona's SB 1070, but goes further by requiring since it covers education as well as voting, employment, and law enforcement. Employers must now utilize E-Verify to confirm that an individual's name matches up with the social security number. Law enforcement officers may check to verify the immigration of status of a person stopped for violation or if the officer has reason to suspect that the individual is there illegally. Individuals may also be fined for knowingly providing transportation to an illegal resident. The bill will require education officials to confirm the immigration status of their students. Finally, HB 56, authored by Mickey Hammon (R), denies any "sanctuary" status by state or local agencies and as well as by individuals or organizations such as churches.

Supreme Court Upholds SB1070: Americans Win One

2011-05-28T11:49:00.005-04:00

For months now, I’ve told you in this blog that Obama’s attempt to overturn Arizona’s SB 1072 anti-illegal immigration law would fail. Well, it has. In a majority decision, the US Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 on Thursday, May 25, 2011, that the Obama Administration was on the wrong side of this issue. Arizona’s Attorney General is moving forward to appeal a lower court’s decision barring the law from taking effect. The lawsuit was filed by the US Justice Administration, and was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). You may recall that the USJA also allowed the Mexican Government to participate a party in the lawsuit; a first ever, to my knowledge, that a foreign government was allowed to participate in a lawsuit brought by the US federal government against a sovereign US state.

What the US Justice Administration didn’t seem to understand was that SB 1072 simply pulled together existing federal laws into one all encompassing bill and added additional teeth to it. Eric Holder, who heads up the US Justice Administration, alleged in their complaint, filed at the behest of the Obama Administrative, that only the federal government can establish or dictate immigration policy. While true, Arizona wasn’t seeking to “establish” its own immigration policy. It merely codified existing, but unenforced federal laws.

You see, this was an attempt to confuse the argument by the Justice Administration to convince the high court that the Arizona governor and legislature had in some way gone “rogue” the way it did the liberal media outlets in order to intimidate over states to back off their efforts to curtail illegal immigration. As it turned out, Holder and Company was successful in only pulling the robe over just three of the Justice’s eyes, namely Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Of course, while they never had a chance with the America People, but the federal government seems less concerned these days with the interests of the average American and more focused on special interest groups. The decision opens the door for other states to move forward with their own versions of SB1070. The law will go a long way in preventing businesses from hiring illegal aliens as well as curtailing attempts to hide or provide assistance to illegals in Arizona.

The law also upheld the use of E-Verify by companies. E-Verify allows a business to ensure that the social security number match the name of individual. While it doesn’t “punish” businesses that don’t use E-Verify, they do lose the ability to cite not using E-Verify as a defense when they unknowingly hire someone here illegally.

The next big fight and I mean “big” fight will likely be Obama’s second attempt to find a way toward some form of amnesty for the estimated 13 million illegals currently living in the US (you can also bet that he won’t call it “amnesty” after his last thumping). Part of that fight will, no doubt, include an amendment to make basic English (read, write, and spoken)required for all immigrants, and to make Enlgish our "offical" national language.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/high-court-sustains-ariz-employer-sanctions-law/

Best Government Money Can Buy?

2011-05-14T21:22:00.006-04:00

I’ve been meaning to write about one of the most underreported and far reaching political events since President Theodore Roosevelt’s Trust busting days at the turn of the century (no, the last century as in 19th). One of my pet peeves is the “corporatization” of the American political system. I believe business has the right to do what it does, namely to provide a product or service, and make a decent profit for the owners and/or shareholders. I also believe we, the huddled masses, have the right to collectively bargain for a decent wage. I believe too that we have the right to individually bargain for a decent wage based on the worth we add to the company.

Corporations are considered, in the eyes of the legal system, to share many of the same “rights” that ordinary individuals have. They are, however, artificially created entities (think of them as corporate “Frankensteins”). However, they have been restricted from directly contribute money to candidates. Instead, they had to rely on indirect or obscure means such as through lobbyists, PACs, etc to influence policy. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also know as the McCain-Feingold Act further restricted their influence. This law, challenged in the Supreme Court, revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie which was produced by the conservative Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.

During the oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and/or movies made or sold by corporations or unions. In short, corporations (and unions) were barred from direct contributions of campaigns. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision by 5 to 4 of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. Now, they were back in the game!

Now, you may or may not realize this, but there are currently over 24,000 lobbyists in Washington DC alone. For every $1.00 they spent on legislators, they expect to save approximately $6.00 in taxes. Nice deal if you ask me. While the court’s ruling lessens (ever so slightly) the direct influence of lobbyists, it makes corporations immensely more powerful. The precept that financial contributions are an “expression of the free speech” and are protected by the First Amendment has often espoused by Kentucky’s very own senior senator, Mitch McConnell, who also opposed provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill. I have to disagree, here’s why.

You and I are limited in terms of maximum allowable contributions under existing campaign finance laws, as well as by our income, in expressing our “free speech” while corporations like Exxon for instance are, well, let’s just say that their “free speech” is substantially more persuasive yours. Let’s take a couple other examples. What if I work for a corporation which makes contributions to certain candidates I oppose? Should they be allowed to use money; profit made off my labor to so? What about the stockholder? Should corporations use money, which could be paid out as dividends or reinvested and spend it on politicians whose policies I may or may not agreed with?

How about unions? I am a strong supporter of organized labor and any other organization which promotes the wellbeing of working men and women. However, what about unions or similar groups which automatically deduct money from members via dues, etc. and pool in order to donate to specific candidates and/or a particular political party (normally Democrat)? If I happen to dislike that candidate or party, I am, in effect, forced to make a second “contribution” to support that individual or political party of my choice. My argument here is that I don’t like the idea of money being taken from me, directly or indirectly, without my expressed consent. Call it a “sovereign individual” issue if you will. I believe in individual choice when it comes to giving money.

But again, we have the issue of “value” to even this type of “freedom of expression”. Simply put, corporations can donate far more than unions and certainly more than individuals. And again, its money derived from the efforts of its employees. I didn’t hire on to support my company’s political agenda.

In doing some research for this article, I found that I am definitely in the minority. According to a Gallup Poll conducted on January 20, 2010, 57% of Americans regard campaign contributions as a form of free speech, and agreed that the same rules applied to individuals should apply to corporations and PACs (55% to 39% with 6% having no opinion). When broken down along party lines, 62% of Democrats felt contributions were protected under the First Amendment, as did 64% of Republicans. Interestingly, Independents, who now constitute the largest voting block, were nearly split with 48% agreeing with 44% disagreeing.

Concerning contribution limits, 52% of Americans felt that we need to cap the amount money donated. Again, along party lines, 49% of Democrats agreed as did 53% of Independents while only 49% of Republicans did. Regarding individual contributions, 61% on those surveyed thought contributions by individuals should be limited while 76% felt corporations (and unions) should be capped.

The poll seems to suggest, at least to me, that Americans recognize that giving money to whoever you want to is a form of free speech and except that corporations and unions should have the same right, though with greater restrictions. To me, this expresses our sense of fair play and the realization that to in order to maintain a level playing field, donations by businesses, PACs, unions, and so forth have to be capped lower.

I have to agree with a January 21, 2011 New York Times editorial calling the decision a “blow to democracy”. With elections, at practically every level, nearly out of the reach of the average citizen-candidate, we are no longer a nation of “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Obama is already gearing up for the first ever $1 billion dollar president election. I find that obscene. We quite literally now have the best government money can buy, or to put it another way, we now have the government we deserve since the American People have largely been asleep at the wheel until recently (thank you Tea Party) while our government has been hijacked and our Constitution distorted. I believe Big Business already has far too much control in Washington, our state capitals, and even in our city halls. The time has come for a change. We need term limits and we need serious campaign finance reform.

Gall Poll Results:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx

New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html

Contributors to Barack Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Contributors to John McCain:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

What's Behind the Price of Gas?/Photos of a Dead Terrorist

2011-05-07T16:35:00.003-04:00

For most Americans, Friday brought some welcome news. This was one rememberable week. The murderer Osama bin Laden got what he deserved; hand delivered by the US Navy Seal’s Team Six (thank you gentlemen) from America. The economy showed some times of growing and adding some 244,000 new jobs. Lastly, the price of oil dropped to $97.00 a barrel; down from $113.00. This should translate to a drop of about 20 cents a gallon in the next few days (have you ever noticed how the price can go up a nickel or more during a single day but takes a week to drop?). It’s the price of oil that I’d like to talk about in this column.

Prior to this week, the big five oil companies—Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, and Conoco posted record profits…again. Americans are suffering at the pump with near five dollar a gallon prices (in some places like Hawaii, the price was already over $6.00 a gallon). How could this be? Well, the big five made $34 billion dollars in the first quarter of the 2011. Yes, you read that right. Exxon made the most with $11 billion dollars. Up 69% from the same time last year, which was a record at the time. To put it another way, that translates to roughly $82,175.00 per minute. Over the last 10 years, the oil companies have made 1 trillion dollars in profits. In just 2008 alone, they made $100 billion…in profit.

Queasy yet? If not, this should do the trick. As if this obscene profit and the price at the pumps aren’t enough, did you know that the American Taxpayer pays between $4 billion and $9 billion to these same oil companies in the form of federal tax subsidies? That’s about $36.5 billion over the past decade. Now, I don’t begrudge any business making a profit. However, I do have a problem with a $34 billion profit while I struggle with filling up my tank and at the same have to pay to support these same corporations. To me this is a classic example of not just corporate greed, but the corporate domination of the federal government, which, by the way, includes both political parties.

So, just out curiosity, I wondered how much it cost to produce one barrel of oil. Did you know that the cost to research, develop, drill, pay taxes and salaries equals $30.00 per barrel? Yelp, just $30.00. Everything else is profit. And did you know that the big five have stashed away $1 trillion in cash reserves? Apparently they are expecting a very rainy day. The money is allegedly being held for future research, investments, and offset any “down year”, which they haven’t had in about 10 years. Personally, I suspect it’s also being held to keep any “green” technology or alternative energy off the market.

In addition to profits, the oil execs are busy pumping up the prices of their own sources of revenue---stocks. Exxon has taken some of its profits and purchased $5.7 billion dollars of its own stock and anticipates buying another $5 billion dollars, while the “poor” cousin, Conoco, which earned a mere $3 billion during the first 3 months of year, bought back $1.6 billion of its stock. Why would they do that you wonder? Simple. It artificially drives of the price of the stock, which makes it stockholders even more money. These people stay up late at night thinking about these things!

So, the next time you pull in to “fill ‘er up”, just remember that your tax dollars are helping contribute to that queasiness you’re feeling. When election time rolls around wherever you live, be sure to “thank” your Congressperson or Senator at the polls.

Osama bin Laden’s Photos

As everyone on the planet now knows, Osama bin Laden is dead thanks to the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, and especially to US Navy Seal Team Six---hooyah! There’s a lot of speculation as to whether or nor he was armed; intended to surrender or not and so forth.

First off. Who cares? Bin Laden was a cold blooded murderer who thought nothing of killing innocent men, women, and children. Human life meant nothing to him. America did not need to trauma and expense to bring his likes to trial. Can you imagine the cost of providing security? Where would he be held? Would this be an American trial? After all, he masterminded murder in several countries, and let’s not forget that some of these countries don’t have the death penalty so someone like Osama would sit in prison at taxpayer expense. Personally, I can’t see holding the likes of bin Laden one day at taxpayer expense. I can’t even see paying for the food, medical care, or anything else to keep him alive in prison.

Not only would this be a security nightmare, but he would become the focal point of terrorist groups around the world. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of hostages would be taken (and murdered) to free him. How many buildings and other structures would be bombed while he was being held? Some of our European “allies” have shown time and again their willingness to deal with terrorists. I don’t think it would be a matter of which one would cave, but which one would cave first.

As for the alleged outrage of killing an “unarmed” man, are they serious? Men like bin Liden wouldn’t hesitate to kill. Remember, Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger were “unarmed” too. This was simply a matter of who shot first. Besides, what do you expect? Should our sailors have said “please”? Should they have waited until he pulled his gun or grenade? In a combat situation, you act first. Period. As for calls of “revenge”, let’s not forget that he started the fight. We ended it. What are we supposed to do? Let people like him keep on hitting us and do nothing out of concern about possible “revenge”? I don’t think any reasonable person would accept that kind of logic.

Should we have informed the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, or the Pakistani government? In normal circumstances, I would say yes. However, we needed to act on very time sensitive information pertaining to a very elusive target which required absolute perfect timing. Second, Pakistan’s military has let Osama slip through their fingers at least twice before. Third, Osama was living a very comfortable life in a military town that’s home to Pakistan’s version of West Point. Abbottabad is full of military personnel, as well as retired generals, intelligence officers, police officers, and government officials. He was living in the largest house in the area (which was also heavily fortified). Wouldn’t you have thought someone would have checked this out? The Pakistani government and/or military may not have known he was there, but it is a damning critique of their abilities.

Finally, the death photos. Should they be released? Obama says no because he’s more worried about the sensibilities of the Moslem extremists who already hate us than the widows and children of 9/11 or the American People. The liberal media is characteristically defending his decision and, naturally, the American People are opposing it. Listen, we as a people need closure. We need that visual confirmation. It’s part of human nature. The Arab people have seen worse on their local news. Arab media didn’t hesitate to show the three burned and mutilated US solders hanging from a bridge during the invasion of Iraq. They think nothing of showing innocent men and women having their heads sawed off. The photos of Saddam Hussein’s two sons were published, and video of his hanging were shown.

Obama did release the pictures of the Osama’s dead son and some of the others killed on May 2nd. So, why not allow us the closure of seeing the corpse of the man who caused so much bloodshed and sorrow?

A Global War: Deliverance from Intolerance?

2011-04-24T15:07:00.007-04:00

This week is one of the holiest for Jews and Christian. Passover, which celebrates the Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and Easter, when Christians of all denominations and sects come together to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus following his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Indeed, Easter can be said to be the crux of Christianity. Both events celebrate good over the evil; of faith in God so save the righteous. Yet, today, both religions, along with Hinduism, Buddhism, and numerous others, are under threat again. This time it’s by radical Islam, which calls for the establishment of a global Caliphate and worldwide enforcement of the extremist interpretation of Sharia law. While most religions would choose to live in peace, radical Islam has literally declared a “jihad” or “holy war” on anyone, including non-conforming Moslems that don’t accept their rule. The penalty is death. There is no “compromise”. There is no “negotiation. After all, in their eyes, how do you “negotiate” with God?

Over the past several years, dozens of churches have been destroyed. Christians have been beaten, threatened, harassed, and murdered. Just last week, Moslem troops in the African state of Ivory Coast, murdered 1000 Christians. Yes, you read that number correctly. Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists have fared little better. Who doesn’t remember the brutal assault of radical Moslem attacking Mumbai India in 2008 or the destruction of Buddhist statues, hundreds of years old in 2003? Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, not to mention Zoroastrians, Taoists, and others have often faced the same fate as Christians with beatings, murders, and the ubiquitous decapitations.

We are at war. This war has little to do with geopolitics, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It has to do with God. It’s a global religious war, and whether or not we want to accept it make little difference to do those who are waging it. Perhaps, from their perspective, it’s even better. Taking a lesson from Sun Tzu, its good strategy to talk peace or be seen as promoting peace while engaging in war. What better way to expand your influence?

What can we do? First, we have to acknowledge it. We can expect our current administration to do nothing. Washington is not just leaderless, it’s clueless. We must build a grassroots movement of interfaith to not just focus on religious tolerance, but demand it. We should encourage and support moderate or liberal/sectarian Moslems to speak up and speak out. After all, it’s ultimately their faith being hijacked. For those living in the West, we should encourage the adoption of western dress, values, and language. If they don’t “buy into” Western Culture, how they can be expected to defend it? This is, of course, the near opposite of multiculturalism which wants to be everything to everybody while undermining the essence of what it means to be an American, or German, or English, or French, or Russian. Multiculturalism is ultimately cowardice.

The West, and I include Eastern Europe and Russia as well, must come together with a zero tolerance of radicalism in their own countries. Radicals must be dealt with swiftly. Prisons are the fastest breeding ground for radical Islam. It must stop. Moderate Islam must be introduced and encouraged in the world’s prisons. India too must take the same steps to curtail the growth of extremists groups. The World must not just protest acts of atrocity, they must demand swift action. These countries, which allow churches and temples to be burned, and the murder innocents depend on the West for their economic survival. Perhaps we should flex our economic might by demanding immediate and public justice. The fact that most of these acts happen in poor and often illiterate countries, shows why education (especially of females) is so feared by radicals. Education requires empirical thought---reason and logic. That’s something radicalism can’t tolerate any more than cockroaches can tolerate the glare of light.

My hope is the realization of the meaning of both Passover and Easter, which is namely the celebration of freedom from intolerance, fear, and tyranny, be it from a Pharaoh, the Romans, religious fascism, or globalism.

Illegal Immigration: What's the Latest?

2011-04-09T19:01:00.006-04:00

As regular readers of AO know, I take a particular interest in illegal immigration. I see it as a national security as well as an economic threat to this country. In additional to the estimated 12 million illegal residents now in this country they are an untold number of individuals from nations hostile to the US. ICE agents have repeatedly found money and paraphernalia from countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and the like. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that 663 individuals from countries with know terrorist ties were arrested in 2010. It’s only a matter of time before one or more of these groups make good on their threats of killing Americans. Of course Congress, Homeland Security, and the President will condemn the act and there will be the usual investigations and condemnations, but by then it will be too late. There will be dead Americans.

The American People have, for over well over a decade, demanded loudly and repeatedly for government to solve the border crisis; not ‘band-aid” it over and not ignored it. Former president Bush promised a wall. We never got it. It was only partially funded and all but dropped. Border Patrol agents are understaffed, under funded, and often under orders not to engage. Gangs control whole sections of US territory along the border. Our own government even put up warning signs for US citizens to stay out. According to Texas Congressman John Culberson, an illegal alien crossing the border had an 84% chance of not being prosecuted.

The report went on to say that of the 447,731 illegals apprehended by US Customs last year (2010), 73, 263 (or 16.4%) were actually prosecuted. Along the Tucson area, where the majority of arrests occurred, the percentage was even worse, with only 14.5%. If you were going to commit a crime and had an 84% chance of success, with little in the way of punishment, what would you do? Congressman Culberson added that enforcement was so lax, that many of those arrested were held only a few hours and “had a chance to home for dinner”.

Of course, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claims that our southern border has never been more secured! Perhaps she’s thinking about the days of Poncho Villa or the Mexican-American War! Seriously, however, Secretary Napolitano is actually distorting the number the way politicians and bureaucrats often do. In claiming the southern border secure, Napolitano is only looking at instances of arrest and prosecution, which accounts for about 15% of the total rather than all those arrested. Furthermore, Napolitano admitted the DHS “deferred” action on 900 cases in 2010.

Did you that more people along a Mexico-Texas border town were killed in 2010 than in the war in Afghanistan? Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which just across the Rio Grande from El Paso Texas had more deaths, all related to its losing drug war with local drug cartels, than the entire country of Afghanistan. There 3,111 individuals murdered compared to 2421 civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is moving ahead with its lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070, which, as you’ll recall, did little more the codify under state statute the various laws which now exist at the federal law and added more “teeth”. The Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, alleges in his complaint, that regulating US borders is a federal matter.

The AG is right…sort of. Arizona isn’t attempting to establish foreign policy. They are simply incorporating existing federal law at the state level. Furthermore, while states may not weaken a federal law, they may strengthen a federal law, which is what Arizona has done. Arizona’s Governor, Janet Walker publicly stated that the State carefully studied the issue from every point possible, and even requested legal opinion from the US Attorney General’s office. Who will prevail? Hard to say. Certainly legal opinion rests with Arizona (and several other states that are looking at imposing similar laws). However, the Obama Administration is pushing hard to keep these illegal immigrants in American (the current running joke is that Obama is wanting to discourage the use of the name “illegal immigrants” and start calling them what they are, “undocumented Democrats”).

President Obama, speaking with Hispanic reporter, recently said that illegals had nothing to worry about if they were doing “all the right things”, which included a job, staying out of trouble, and I assume, keeping a low profile. Wouldn’t “doing all the right” mean obeying US law? Anyway, I digress. Obama was simply making it clear that his administration intended to drag its feet, delay, and otherwise impede any efforts to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, what at what cost?

Well, with the federal government’s version of proctology exam upon us, that is, Tax Day---April 15. Let’s look for a moment at what Obama’s efforts to protect illegal immigrants actually cost you and me. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the tax burden for welfare, estimated welfare care, and education exceeds $100 billion per year. That breaks down to $1000.00 per taxpayer per year (and no, you can’t claim them as a dependent). Of those who do pay into the system, for every $5.00 in services they take, they pay in an estimate $1.00. I’m no accountant, but I do know a thing or two about economics, and I can tell you those numbers don’t work for long (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation#p/u/4/H8lLU7XjcWc).

Meanwhile, while states are working to stop illegal immigrants, other states have given the green light to illegal residents. Both Washington State and New Mexico remain easy places for illegal to get a driver’s license. In both states, recent bills were passed to allow illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. One can only assume that the driver’s test was not in English either. In Maryland, the State Legislature voted to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The bill, which passed 27-20, allows illegal aliens to attempt Maryland colleges at a reduced rate, saving them (or is it Maryland taxpayers?) $10,000 per year in tuition. US residents from neighboring states, however, were not afforded the same privilege.

According to a recent article, Lana Reed, a former social service case worker, testified before the Kansas legislature’s House Judiciary Committee, that case workers were required by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services policies to ignore fraudulent documentation by immigrants, and thus, in effect, facilitate fraud against Kansas taxpayers. Finally, Utah passed three laws that, among other things, granted amnesty to “guest workers” as well as concluded an agreement between Utah and Mexico to provide businesses to migrant workers ( (HB 116 and HB 466). Funny, isn’t that a foreign policy issue? Wonder when US Attorney General Holder intends on filing a lawsuit against Utah for butting into a federal matter? (see: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23944&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#4).

Lastly, do you remember the outcry from the Left (especially the media) over the deportation of 4 year old? The child, a girl named “Emily”, whose parents are illegal aliens, refused to accept custody from DHS agents after her grandfather, who was accompanying her on a flight to New York, was detained on an immigration charge.
Spokesman Lloyd Easterling said "CBP strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families”.

Easterling added that, “In this case, Emily's parents were offered the opportunity to pick her up, but they decided to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather”. I wonder why the media didn’t report this part of the story. Just asking.

Fat Tax

2011-04-02T20:07:00.004-04:00

Granted, times are tough. People are doing whatever they can to cut back to save money. Governments across the board are cash strapped. Many municipalities and states are staring financial insolvency in the face like death at the door. We got a full court press on to cut and tax everywhere at a time when no one, literally no one, can afford it. So, I guess kudos of sorts needs to go to Arizona for a unique, though impractical, partial solution to their financial problems. Arizona legislators are looking at taxing that Whooper and fries you’re setting there eating (or maybe, it’s that pizza and beer).

Arizona is considering a $50.00 tax per year on fat people. Why only $50 bucks and not by the pound, is beyond me. I suppose the legislators don’t want to appear too greedy in grabbing their “pound of flesh” (sorry, couldn’t resist). However, according to the Arizona Health Care Containment System, individuals who are obese, smoke, or even have diabetes, could face the annual $50 charge if it was determined that they’re not following their doctor’s instructions to develop better health habits. Arizona’s legislature has been trying to come up with $500 million dollars in cuts to reduce its $1.5 billion deficit. Taxing people with unhealthy life styles is one option being considered given their cash strapped Medicaid program.

It’s no secret or great revelation that people with unhealthy lifestyles are more prone to diseases or illnesses than people who take care of themselves. Businesses penalize individuals who engage in unhealthy or unsafe behavior while those who do comply are generally rewarded with either additional benefits, or benefits at a cheaper cost. I see two issues with this move by Arizona’s legislature.

First, individuals have a right to make specific behavioral choices for themselves. In doing so, they must bear the responsibility of their actions in terms of cause and effect (bad things will lead to bad results), and their associated costs. In the private sector, businesses try to spread the costs among its participants, but more often than not, companies are requiring individuals to bear the financial costs of their habits through higher premiums, limited or even denied coverage. It’s a choice issue. Others shouldn’t bear the costs of your choices. Fair enough right? But, what about government?

Putting aside for the moment whether or not government should be in the healthcare business, the issue of whether government has the right to regulate your lifestyle choices. Two points must be understood before we can go further. One is that government does not generate money. The argument that the government is paying for it doesn’t hold. Government, at all levels, derives its income from you and me through taxes and hidden taxes known as fees. In short, government takes from us and redistributes to others, allegedly, for the betterment of society as a whole. Sometimes it’s with our consent; sometimes not. Now, secondly, individuals who engage in unhealthy behavior use more (and more expensive) health care services, and over longer periods of time. That costs us more money. This is Arizona’s argument.

However, should, in the name of eliminating these extra costs, government be able to dictate specific behavior to us? If you want to set on the couch and stuff your face while watching Oprah, that’s your business. If you want to eat foods high in transfats, that’s a personal decision right? What about smoking? You know it’s stupid. You know what you’re doing to your body. But it isn’t anybody’s business but yours right? You and you alone should be expected to bear the costs of your actions. But, what about diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, or high blood pressure? What if you are trying to get these under control but can’t? Should you be fined? At what point does government have a right to impose any type of control on your behavior? Should government mandate a minimum amount of daily exercise? Where does it stop?

Well, government does, in fact, impose controls on your behavior already. It’s called laws, and they’re enforced by the judicial system. Some of these are health related, such as drug and alcohol use and abuse, food, water, and air standards, as well as clean and safe work areas or age restrictions. Even sex is regulated! There are penalties for violating and enforcing these rules which you and I pay for as taxpayers. So, there is some legal precedence for what Arizona is considering. But, it still doesn’t address the issue that, while possibly legal, is it justified from an ethical perspective? Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should do it.

There is one more factor to consider. A disproportional number of individuals who use government services, and who lead unhealthy life styles, are the poor; the very people who could least afford to penalized any amount of money. So, does government require these individuals to see a doctor (at taxpayer cost) and enroll in some sort of modifying behavior program (again at taxpayer cost), and who'll monitor them (we can already guess who’ll be paying for it). One could argue that if they can afford a carton of cigarettes every few weeks, they can afford a $50 dollar fine once a year. But is this what we want government to do; to become our “mother”?

Since you and I are paying for the welfare of our fellow citizens who use government services in the form of taxes, we should have a say in how our money is spent. Recipients should be allowed to buy only healthy items (many states already require this). That is means no unhealthy snacks or drinks, and certainly no booze or cigarettes. Recipients should be required to perform some type of public service if they aren’t actively looking for a job or preparing for a job (like school) while they’re on the public dole. Random drug and other screenings should be required. Three strikes and no benefits for 90 days; no exceptions and no excuses. Yes, we would still have to pay for it, but the numbers (and costs) will be lower and the uncertainty of coming up for a test would serve as a deterrent. Conditions which are genetic should be exempt. If you aren’t a US citizen or in the process of becoming one, you receive no taxpayer based assistance. Of course, you can always choose to opt out altogether.

On a related note, healthy habits are generally acquired young. Schools should remove all soft drinks and unhealthy snacks from vending machines. School cafeterias should serve only healthy foods (perferably bought locally) and some sort of exercise programs should be required. Informational flyers (aimed as much for the parents as anyone) about preparing healthy meals, snacks and exercise should be sent home often. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s better than the alternative.

Libya: Too little too late?

2011-03-19T19:14:00.004-04:00

Ok, things are officially (in my opinion) getting out of hand. After weeks of doing nothing, Obama finally has decided to impose a joint “No-Fly” zone in Libya, in conjunction with several allies. This will mark the third Moslem nation that the US and its allies will be engaged in militarily. Fodder for the Moslem extremists and their propaganda machine if you ask me.

Weeks ago, the Libyan people took to the streets in opposition to strongman and kook, Muammar Gadhafi. What were first protests turned into an armed uprising. The rebels managed, with popular support and hidden arms stashes, to push the Libyan armed forces almost all the way back to Tripoli. Not able to rely on his military, Gadhafi hired mercenaries from neighboring countries (most notably Algeria. Some of his own pilots refused to bomb fellow citizens. They were shot for their humanity). Thus, with a relentless air and missile assault, the rebels started on their long retreat with Gadhafi’s mercenary forces targeting civilians, hospitals, and whatever else they could find. Obama’s only comment at the time was that “noose was tightening around Gadhafi”. Really? How about a reality check Mr. President?

So, now that the rebels have been pushed back to Benghazi and nearly wiped out as viable fighting force, and after ignoring weeks of pleas from rebels leaders, civilians, and international relief organizations, Obama has finally decided to step up to the plate and lead; or rather, follow the lead of such nations as Britain, France, and Denmark. Gadhafi requested a cease fire, but instead used the occasion to launch a bloody assault.

Although the US is now attempting to impose a “No-Fly” zone, principally over the last major rebel stronghold, Benghazi, along with our allies, the question becomes whether or not our inaction over the last few weeks has done irreparable damage to the pro-democratic resistance movement. Can the will of the people be won back to the side of rebels? Can they attract new fighters to replace those whose lives were wasted? Can they replenish their military supplies? What about basic survival for the general population, such as food, water, and medical assistance?

No doubt that if Gadhafi’s assault can be stopped (especially the indiscriminate bombings and missile strikes), international relief efforts (already stretched to the breaking point), may be able to offer some assistance. The Libyans themselves are both disappointed and angry with the US and the UN for their inaction (and who can blame them?). Weapons and military supplies can always be replaced. But will there be anyone to take up the arms and start the assault on Gadhafi anew? Can they count on Western support? Given our actions to date, you can’t fault them for having doubts.

Meanwhile, the situation in other Middle Eastern countries (think oil producers) such as Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, and Syria continues to go from bad to worse. In Yemen, military sharp shooters have been ambushing and murdering protestors. In Bahrain, neighboring Saudi Arabia has sent troops to put down protestors, who apparently also have order to shoot to kill. Syria too has dealt heavy handedly with their pro-democracy protestors. Obviously these repressive dictatorships don’t plan on going quietly into the night.

Israel remains in an uneasy situation. Three times now, arms bound for her enemies having been intercepted. One has to wonder how much is getting through. Counties like Iran are obviously using the confusing situation to re-supply their surrogate armies like Hezbollah. Iran also continues with its nuclear program despite toothless sanctions imposed by the United Nations. With a global economy still in the proverbial tank, and the US engaged in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, the pro-democracy groups couldn’t have picked a worse possible movement to lash out at their government. The cold truth is that there is little the West, and especially the US, can do to help in the short run. The “No Fly” zone should have been implemented sooner and countries like France and Britain should have acted with or without a US commitment. The “leader of the free world” has proved time and again that he has feet of clay. All this could result in pro-democratic groups being replaced in places like Tunisia and Egypt by religious extremists with the support of Iran.

I look for Gadhafi to ultimately prevail and brutally eliminate his opposition. What is the West going to do about? Impose another sanction? He’s got oil. We need him more than he needs the West. After all, he can always do business with China. The same came be expected in Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain. Their backward governments will prevail for much the same reasons, and quite possibly the same results. The instability of the region will make oil and gas nearly as valuable as food and water, but unbearably more expensive. Gone will the mobile society. Terrorist groups, using mostly the homegrown variety, will launch campaigns within Western countries to focus their attention (and resources) inward. Similar attacks will hit other longtime enemies, such as India. China and Russia may find that they aren’t as immune as they think they are. When fighting for God, political ideology counts for little.

Iran will continue to stir up trouble until it has at least three nuclear warheads and a reliable delivery system. Confident in the West’s lack of leadership and political inertia, as well as the support of a large, vocal, and potentially destructive Moslem minority, Iran will make good its threat and hit Israel. This will be the culmination of all out assault on the non-Moslem world which began in 1979 with the Iranian hostage crisis. Such madness is not concerned with retaliation which will surely come after much wringing of hands by the West. After all, in their eyes, it was ordained by Allah.

Illegal Immigration and Kentucky: HB 321 and SB 6

2011-03-05T17:30:00.006-05:00

I know this is going to be hard to believe, but the Kentucky House of Representatives actually thought out of the box for a change. On February 3rd, the House Committee on Labor and Industry passed HB 321, otherwise known as the E-Verify Bill, by a margin of 93 to 3 (the three nays were John Bell (D-23), Kelly Flood (D-75), and Mary Lou Marzian (D-34). The bill will now move to the Senate for approval (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB321.htm).

The bill’s aim is to curtail illegal immigration by eliminating its principal cause, employment. If the bill becomes law, contractors would face a five year ban from government contracts, and includes contractors who deal with local school districts. The bill’s lead sponsor is Bob Damron, a Democrat representing House District 39.

There are 14 other states that have similar legislation designed to eliminate employment of illegal immigrants while another 17 are either considering E-Verify or strengthening existing legislation. However, in rural states such as Kentucky, the main source of employment is in agriculture. Outlying counties such as Anderson, Warren, Barren, Fayette, Garrad, and Scott are the hardest hit by the costs of illegal immigration. Democrat Greg Stumbo (D-95) is considering introducing a bill that applies E-Verify to all employers in Kentucky, which would obviously make more sense (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html). Stumbo is also the Speaker of the House.

As for the Arizona like SB1070, Kentucky Senate Bill 6, which would give police and other law enforcement authorities the power to question and detain individuals suspected of being the country illegally, is going nowhere. Senate Bill 6, which was introduced by State Senator John Schickel (R-11), came under a barrage of protests lead by the liberal leaning Jobs for Justice, as well as numerous churches, Labor unions and pro-amnesty groups. While supporters of the bill were present, the media, as expected, gave primary coverage to the bill’s opponents. However, from what I was able to find out, the Anti forces, anticipating Senate Bill 6, were out in front with their organizational efforts while the supporters of the bill were lagging far behind as if they expected to be given a fair hearing. I wonder what they were thinking?

According to a poll published by Pure Politics on March 2, 2011, support for the House Bill (the E-Verify bill) was 64% while support for Senate Bill 6 was only 25% with 12% giving no response or didn’t care (http://mycn2.com/politics/immigration-cn2-poll).

Meanwhile, other states such as New Mexico are moving ahead with their own versions of the Arizona’s SB 1070 to head off the problem before it becomes more a serious issue like it has in Arizona. With a poll approval of the bill of 85%, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez signed into law SB 152 which would allow law enforcement to question and detain individuals here illegally. It would not allow law enforcement officials to stop someone solely on immigration status (http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2011/02/legislator_immigration_law_reeks_of_arizona).

In Colorado, a bill allowing law enforcement officials to report suspected illegals to prosecutors has passed its first hurtle in the Colorado State House. The bill, HB 1088, was introduced by Republican Mark Barker. The bill would also force bail bondsmen to forfeit the bond if the individual is deported. According to Barker, who originally withdrew and then reintroduced the bill, he wanted to change the language of the bill from “probable cause” to “reasonable grounds” in order to avoid possible legal challenges when determining legal status. The bill will face another vote in the House before moving on to the Senate (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/02/24/colorado-house-oks-bill-to-report-illegal-immigrants/).

So, while other states move ahead with pro-active legislation, Kentucky continues to muddle along. Nevertheless, HB 321 is a good start. Hopefully Stumbo or someone else will step up to plate and put forward some more expansive legislation to do the job that SB 6 could have done.

From the Middle East to the Midwest

In case you haven’t noticed, gas prices are skyrocketing (and welcome back to earth by the way). Oil prices on the open market are setting near record highs at $104.00 a barrel. Truly black gold. To compound matters is the most of the oil producing countries are facing internal instability, which is a politically correct way of saying the people are tired of being on the short end of the oil stick. Most of these nations are ruled by autocratic royalty, principally installed there by their former colonialist masters like Great Britain and France. Others are ruled by maniacal tyrants under such misleading names as “People’s Republic” with titles like “President” or “Great Leader” living in worlds apart from their struggling citizens.

Remember the “liberation” of Kuwait? It was better known as the First Persian Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm, though Operation Desert Shield was aimed at removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein invaded oil rich Kuwait under the pretext that it was in actuality a “disputed” province which properly belonged to the “people of Iraq”. In truth, Hussein wanted control of the oil fields and direct access of the Persian Gulf and shipping lanes. The Hitler-wannabe thought the West would do nothing due to the costs and time factor of mounting an invasion. He wasn’t concerned about his Arab neighbors. He had already cowered them (the Arab mindset seems to appreciate and respect force or at least its threat of it).

Anticipating Western (especially American) sensibilities, the royal Al-Sabah family of Kuwait promised political reform (especially for women and Christians, who would actually be allowed to practice their religion with a minimum of interference from the state authorities. Hussein, in what has to be one of the top three military blunders of all time (the other two being Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia), allowed Western troops almost six months of military buildup. Secondly, his generals planned a stagnated front war similar to the earlier war between Iraq and Iran.

Had Hussein agreed to maintain (or increase) oil production at current or lower prices, it’s doubtful there would have been any serious resistance to his occupation of Kuwait other than the usual empty rhetoric of the impotent United Nations. Given the proximity of his military forces to Saudi Arabia and the other regional oil producers, a little implied threat would have ensured their cooperation. The Kuwaiti royals would have found a comfortable exile in one of the neighboring capitals. Of course, that’s now a matter for War Colleges and historians to examine.

In the end, Hussein was militarily neutered and Kuwait was liberated. Of the new freedoms promised by the royal family, few have been implemented. Women were given the right to vote and participate in politics in 2005 by a narrow vote of 35 to 23. Freedom of religion for non-Moslems and freedom of speech are still sketchy. Such then was the first global resource war. There will be many to come, except these may pit Western nations against each other while facing another, mightier threat in the form of China and India.

Tunisia was the first to accomplish its revolution, followed by Egypt. Both countries had a minimum body count. The media seems to make big copy over 10 or 20 dead. Revolutions are bloody affairs. Those in power never willingly relinquish it. In revolutions and coups past, thousands dead were not unheard of. In a regional known for its brutal strongmen, individuals like Hosni Mubarak deserve some praise. He could have made things much worse. However, men like Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi are more typical.

Gadhafi came to power in the usual fashion, by military coup. Another Hitler admirer, he quickly allied himself to the more militant Mideastern factions. He was hosted (and protected) on numerous occasions various terrorists and terrorist organizations like Carlos “The Jackal” Ramirez who masterminded numerous terrorists operations during the 1970’s; Black September which was responsible for the Munich Massacres (which Carlos also had a hand in); Abdul Abbas, the hijacker of the Achilles Lauro; and of course, Yasser Arafat, who was head of the PLO. Gadhafi, anxious to try his hand at state supported murder, sponsored the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, resulting in the deaths of 270 individuals in 1988 and the earlier bombing of a discotheque in Berlin in 1986. Of course, all the while, he continued to drift further and further from reality and the brutality of regime only increase until it reached its present boiling point.

The Libyan dictator now faces uncertain domestic military support (he’s allegedly ordered the murder of some bomber pilots who refused to attack civilian populations). As a result, he has hired Algerian mercenary pilots and gunmen to kill his own people and destroy oil production. If he can’t have it, no one will I suppose.

So, what will be the outcome? Well, first, there’s no doubt that this psychopath’s days in power are limited. Pressure is on for the US or other nation to provide military support in the form of equipment and/or tactical intelligence. At present, the situation is at a stalemate with rebel forces controlling the Eastern part of the country where most of the oil wells are located. Even if Gadhafi survives, his reign will remain highly unstable. It will only be a matter of time before there is either another better organized attempt or Gadhafi is assassinated. Meanwhile, the pro-democracy revolution continues to spread across the Middle East into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain. It’s only a matter of time before it makes its way to Saudi Arabia and Iran. The more unstable the region becomes, the more you can expect to pay at the pump. Oil executives don’t need much of an excuse to bump up prices (and profits).

With the increased instability in the Middle East, as well as the dwindling supplies (most oil producing nations have either reached or passed oil producing peak capacity. The US passed theirs in the 1970’s), coupled with the developing super-nations like China and India, as well as lesser third world countries, we can only expect demand to dramatically increase as we also must cope with climate change. We, and I mean America, has to get serious about finding alternatives to oil and gas. We will never totally replace either, but we can, and must, lessen our dependence on petroleum derived energy through solar, wind, hybrid, water, and nuclear power. Until that day comes, you better get used to the idea of $5.00 and higher prices at the pump.

Arizona Fights Back!

2011-02-19T19:49:00.004-05:00

As most everyone knows by now, Obama’s Attorney General filed suit against the State of Arizona for passing SB1070; a law utilizing current federal statutes pertaining to illegal immigration and put into a format whereby these same pre-existing federal laws could be enforced at the state level. Under federal law, a State may not enact any law which is contrary to the federal law; however, they may enact a similar or more stringent law, which is what Arizona did with SB1070.

Well, here’s another little piece of trivia for you. Because the Federal government lacks a coherent policy, the majority of the costs to enforce these federal laws falls to the States, which are already cash strapped. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has taken the unusual step of countersuing the federal government for the costs incurred by Arizona’s taxpayers (like her or hate her, you have to admit that she has moxie). Just how much are we talking about here? How about $125 million. Now, granted, the Federal government reimbursed Arizona $10 million it paid upfront, but the state’s taxpayers got stuck with the rest of bill for jailing and maintaining illegals who regularly slip across the border due to the lack of federal action. You have to remember too that this is just one State along a largely unprotected border. Governor Brewer states in her countersuit that they are willing to forgive the cost in exchange for a comprehensive and enforceable policy. Frankly, I think they have a better chance of getting the money.

Why are States being forced to absorb these costs? In my opinion, it’s to overwhelm them in both terms of numbers (there are approximately 12 million illegals living in the US at the moment) and to force them to drop their opposition to illegal immigration in favor of providing other government services. By dumping the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants onto the States, local and state governments are faced with the choice of spending dwindling tax dollars on protecting their citizens or maintaining basic services. If our Border States sudden drop the issue of enforcing immigration laws, Obama can declare the problem resolved and on to the subject of amnesty.

Speaking of amnesty, the folks in Washington are at it again. It seems like Obama wants to see those same 12 million illegal aliens put on the fast track to US citizenship, which would naturally in automatic voting rights. The result would be almost certainly a mass registration for the political party which acted as their partner in crime to circumvent our national sovereignty laws, and thus, create a defacto mono-political system in this country and chart a permanent course toward the far Left. Of course, we can’t put all the blame on the Democrats. There are some Republicans who would like to grant amnesty as well.

Their motive seems to be creating a huge pool of cheap labor. This, in turn, would drive down employment costs since this new pool of labor would be willing to work for less, and would likely waive any health or retirement benefit packages. In order to maintain compatibility, other employees would have to be willing to do likewise. This same group would also be less willing to join unions out of fear of losing their newly found jobs. Besides, amnesty will only encourage more to illegally cross the border, and the problem perpetuates itself as it did under President George II.

Crime and Punishment Delayed

Jose Oswaldo Reyes Alfaro, who is here illegally from El Salvador is finally going to be allowed a stay in the US. Alfaro was officially deported by the US State Department 10 years, but apparently decided it was only a “suggestion”, has been charged with murdering three people in Virginia on February 11, 2011.

Alfaro is believed to have brutally killed 37 year old William Ashcroft and 56 year old Brenda Ashcroft in his first attack. Later that same evening, he allegedly murdered 48 Julio Cesar Ullio. Also injured were a 77 year old woman; a 15 year old girl; and a 34 year old woman.

ICE Agents Shot Outside of Mexico City

Two of our nation’s law enforcement officers were apparently set up just 100 miles outside of Mexico City on February 16. The two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were ambushed in what is believed to be a drug cartel reprisal for US assisted intelligence provided to the Mexican government. The officers were traveling north on Highway 57 when they stopped at what they thought was a military checkpoint when they came under fire. One officer was killed and the other was severely wounded. Both officers were in a well known vehicle, a blue Suburban, used by the US Consulate’s office and were not armed in accordance to Mexican law. In short, the bad guys saw them coming…literally…unarmed, unescorted and in a well marked vehicle.

Justice Denied

Finally, in a case of inconceivable stupidity, an Arizona rancher has been order to pay $90,000 to illegal immigrates trespassing and trashing his property. Yelp, you read that right.

The US Ninth Court of Appeals has ordered Roger Barnett to pay $90,000 to 16 individuals illegally crossing across the Mexican-Arizonian border onto Mr. Barnett’s ranch. Mr. Barnett held the 16 illegals at gun point until the sheriff could arrive. So, what’s wrong with protecting your property? Ah, my friends read on.

Mr. Barnett was charged with holding the illegal interlopers at gun point “too long”. Seriously. Under Arizona law, you are allowed to “draw” on someone until such time as it is determined that the danger had passed. The men in the group allegedly asked to leave (apparently late for work) and be allowed to continue on their way. The women mostly cried. When the sheriff arrived, Mr. Barnett had already holstered his weapon, however, apparently the group of illegals were miffed that they were stopped. They then retained a public defender who sued Mr. Barnett.

Now, I want you to think about that for a moment. Barnett was protecting his property from, as far as he knew, drug dealers or smugglers, on his property; trashing his property; and then because they…the criminals were upset about being stopped, got a taxpayer paid lawyer and sued the guy protecting his property! What the…?

We have the right to protect ourselves, our family, and our property. We have the moral obligation to assist, if possible, in the prevention of a crime and to contact the appropriate authorities. All of this Mr. Barnett did. Folks, this is so wrong on so many levels.

Reflections of Revolution

2011-02-05T14:10:00.005-05:00

Like many around the world, I’ve been watching with morbid fascinating (a lot like watching a car wreck in slow motion) the unfolding events in Tunisia and Egypt. Smaller, mostly unreported sympathetic protests have erupted in Jordan and Yemen. Attempts in Syria were unsuccessful to do the omnipresent security forces, including undercover security personnel who photographic and otherwise identify organizers and ringleaders for arrest (which often accompanies beating or worse).

A minority of the protestors in Egypt have supposedly “threaten” or harass mainstream media reporters like ABC’s Brian Hartman and CNN’s Anderson Cooper with physical violence, and even beheading while Fox’s Greg Palkot and his producer, Olaf Wiig were severely beaten and hospitalized. This is a violent and volatile situation and a press badge isn’t a free pass. Revolutions aren’t delicate affairs. But hot heads aside, do the majority of protestor really “hate” Americans and America? Why do they try to desperately to emulate American, or at least Western, pop culture? In my opinion, few Egyptian protestors “hate” America or Americans, but they are offended by both how their movement toward democracy may be portrayed to the world by a media as just another ratings “event” brought to you by some commerical sponsor as well as efforts by the US government to control or otherwise manipulate their democracy movement in order to create a government favorable to US foreign policy (read pro-corporate) and away from a new government favorable to the Egyptian people.

Historically, the US government has assisted in the manipulation and sometimes overthrow of a popularly elected government simply because it didn’t jive with US interests, often at the behest of corporate interests. As any student of history should know, this has occurred in Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Cuba, and through South and Central America, not to mention Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Not that the US is unique in this. Most nations have at one time or another engaged in the destabilization of other counties, most notably for economic gain (take Great Britain and France for example).

At the time of this writing, Obama, as well as other Western leaders, are encouraging Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to end his 30 year rule and step down. Mubarak is the latest in a long line of strongmen to rule Egypt, starting with Gamel Nasser and Anwar El Sadat. But step down to what? To surrender power to whom? For the first time in his rule, Mubarak has appointed a “Vice President”, and not just any politician. He’s Omar Suleiman, and is the considered one of the most powerful non-figurehead man in world. He is the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate with strong connections to the military and security forces, which of course, includes the police. The other choice is Mohamed El-Baradei, an election reform advocate and Nobel Prize winner, who has been absent from Egypt and more importantly, from the daily affairs of Egyptians. That, of course, leaves the radical Moslem cadre, Islamic Brotherhood who would plunge Egypt backwards to an Iranian style of government, and that’s not good for anyone. Naturally, someone else could appear on the scene.

I can’t help wondering what would have happened during; let’s say, the socially turbulent late 1960’s under the Presidencies of either LBJ or Richard Nixon, had other Western leaders encouraged stepping down and the creation of a new government? It’s just something about how American and other Western leaders think nothing about telling other governments what to do, but would be wholly indigent if they did the same. So, I guess, in a way, I can understand the protestors who are upset at being treated like a “junior” nation and not being respected for the country it is.

I also can’t help wondering how our next American Revolution will play out. I’ve written several times about my opinion of America’s future (which obviously would affect countries on both sides of the coasts given the global interconnectedness of the world’s economies). We watched with amazement the cyber-revolution in both Tunisia and Egyptian organize, mobilize, and dissimulate events in real time through blogs, Twitter, Ipods, cell phones, and a host of other electronic media. Egypt attempted to do the unthinkable by disconnecting from the World Wide Web during the early weeks of the revolution. Media monitors around the world watched in disbelief as Egypt “vanished” from the electronic landscape in a desperate, but failed, attempt to control protestor communications and the world’s access to events. Egypt has numerous internet providers; however, all are ultimately centrally controlled. Therefore it was relatively simple for the government to literally “pull the plug”; something which would be nearly impossible to do in the US and most other developed nations (I suspect that if the pro-democracy movement prevails, we will see Egypt decentralize its Internet grid.

Both revolts were sparked by rising food, fuel, housing, and clothing costs. Although both governments subsidize these products through high taxes, it’s simply wasn’t enough. There’s a huge disconnect between the relatively small segment of wealthy and the tens of millions poor. Both nations faced a declining middle class, and with it, fewer family oriented sustainable jobs. You can’t survive for long on with full time debt brought on by higher costs, higher taxes and part time wages. Other Middle Eastern nations are creaking under the strain, such as Jordan, the Sudan, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco. Now, there are shortages of oil, and medical supplies, which will, naturally, translate to higher prices.

Unfortunately their reality is very similar to ours. We are facing rapidly rising costs for basics, coupled with outrageous (and largely unjustified) gas prices. Our real estate markets, and indeed, financial sector has been shown to be largely a built on a house of cards; debt backed by unsupportable economic IOUs. We have a national debt that alone can have no other outcome but economic collapse. Our single largest debt holder, China, is also our chief economic competitor and philosophical enemy. With not just the addition of Obamacare, but the crippling increase in cost brought on supporting the 13 million or so illegal immigrants and their dependents added on top of the pending massive baby boomer retirements, even the most conservative analyst predicts the ultimate collapse of our health care system and other national safety nets measures such as Social Security, and unemployment. And this is just at the federal level!

Americans are already taxed at, and in many cases, passed the breaking point. They are feed up with the petty bickering and ineptness of both major political parties who are either unwilling or unable to deal with serious issues without their narrow minded ideology getting in the way. We are seeing the rise of third parties such as the Tea Party, which seem to baffle the party oriented mainstream media, as well a record levels of voters registering as independents (which, if classified as a “party”, but be the largest in America). Americans are tired of playing “rich uncle” to world; of propping up corrupt and incompetent governments; of bailing out every despot who comes along (and for the matter, every greedy mismanaged corporation); of being with world’s policeman. It’s time for Americans to look inward and deal with our own problems.

No sooner than the GOP gave the Obama and Democrats a spanking over failed domestic policies, and amid promises of having “learned their lesson” after the failures of Bush II, the Republicans have launched right back into their tired and worn out rhetoric of old. I predict a trip to the national woodshed may be in their near future if they don’t knock it off. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing” as Bob Dylan once sang. I don’t know how our next revolution will play out, but happen it will if serious and deep changes aren’t made soon. Times are a changing…quickly.

Political Civility: Really?

2011-01-20T16:17:00.006-05:00

I suppose I really wasn’t too surprised to hear political pundits on both sides talking about “political civility” following the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords on January 8, 2011 (20 people were shot, of whom six died, including a nine year old girl). Democrats and Republicans, for one brief flickering moment, agreed that the political rhetoric needed to be turned down. What is supposed to be adult discussions has long ago morphed into schoolyard taunting with ever increasing hatefulness in tone, and sometimes action.

The problem with this temporary truce was that no longer had it been uttered, than the “if only” inserted itself into the conversation. Originally the Democrats accused the accused murderer, Jared Lee Longhner, of being a Rightwing stooge being manipulated, at least indirectly, by the “Great Rightwing Conspiracy” and its evil overlords, former Governor Sarah Palin, and conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. The Republicans and those on political Right cited examples which claimed that Longhner was actually a left-leaning wacko and it really was the fault pseudo-socialist Left (amusingly, both sides largely cited the same “evidence” such as past comments, videos, music, books he likes, and quotes from friends taken out of context to support their claims).

In that brief moment of lucidity, the Left and Right agreed that the shootings were perhaps inevitable because of the level political discourse in this country. It’s become just plain ole mean and hateful. However, both sides just couldn’t leave it at that. Nope. They took it one step further and said that if only the …insert political party’s name here… would back off; turn it down and listen to reason, everything would be better. Of course, the finger pointing (use your own imagination as to which finger was being pointed most often) began all over again.

Have we, as a society, progressed (or perhaps regressed may be more accurate) to the point where we are incapable of civil debate? There was a time and not that long ago, where both sides could engage in vigorous discussions and yet at the end of day, remain at least cordial to each other. Sure, I recognized this is politics. I’ve been in it for over 35 years. It’s a full contact sport. I’ve bloodied some noses and had mine bloodied a few times too. But even in sports, there’s such a thing as sportsmanship. Now, our so-called “leaders” talk over each other in what at times amounts to shouting matches. We have some very serious problems in this country and they’re growing to the point where hard and unpopular choices must be made.

Do we really have time for mean-spirited and petty partisanship? Personally, I don’t think so. I don’t care what platform you choose to run on. Pick a political banner and fly it high. However, once they take that oath of office their only obligation is to the American Taxpayer. Period. They are no longer a Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian. The only initials behind their name that they need to care about should be “USA”. They are public servants and hold that position at our discretion, not their party’s. And by the way, they were elected to serve all the people equally, not just one segment of it (I’m taking about racial and ethnic caucuses here, which need to be disbanded).

So, when the Democrats or Republican start with this civility rhetoric again, they need to look in the mirror first. Americans are onto their tricks and beyond being sick and tired of the usual political grandstanding. Politicians are often the last to recognize the change in political winds. Those who do, often go on to greatness. Those who don’t usually fade into oblivion at best. The winds in America have changed, and it is no longer blowing Left or Right.

The Politics of Food

There’s been several articles of late about the economics (and politics) of food. They always seem fall on the heels of recent weather related disasters such as blinding snow storms along the US East Coast, the flooding in California and Australia, and the perpetual disasters which seem to befall Africa and Southeast Asia.

The question which comes to mind first is what can “we” do? Well, there are a large number of charities out there who will be more than happy to feed your guilt and take your money (a few feature images of adorable looking ragamuffins staring blankly into camera with some overweight host calling them by name and asking what “you” will do to “save” them). Of course, the US government pours billions of dollars annually into these same countries year after year with little, if any, progress (several other advanced industrial nations also add to that total by hundreds of millions of dollars), which raises another question, why?

Well, as with most questions of this nature, the answers are often interrelated, but often have just a few common denominators. A few of these countries are situated in areas that are natural disaster magnets (such as Bangladesh for instance). Others are natural resource deficient. As a result, sizable portions of the population are migratory. They use up available resources in one area and move on, only to return later. Some groups have been very successful at this such as the Bedouins of the Middle East. Many, however, are not migratory as a result of tradition, but because of war and ethnic cleaning (which is a politically correct word for genocide). This is especially true in parts of Africa. They have unsustainable populations because of lack of birth control education and resources, cultural bias toward birth control and women (often rape is actually a rite of male passage and even openly celebrated. Condoms are made unusable), or their religion requires them to forgo birth control methods even to their own determent (notably the Roman Catholic Church).

As a result of tribal or nationalized wars and terrorist acts, once arable land, suitable for farming is decimated. Water is polluted. Diseases become rampant. Doctors are a rarity. There are simply too few doctors and medical facilities. Sanitation is often basic. Medicines are rationed. Many doctors weary of the never ending lines and perpetual lack of resources and leave. Another common feature is the populations tend to be uneducated. As a result, there are few if any jobs. What few jobs exist are back breaking and often times brutal; little more than slavery (which is still common in Asia and Africa). Why are there few schools?

Schools are often destroyed. Teachers are beaten and chased off. Some are murdered. Those few who remain, like the doctors, deal with a lack of resources, and are often subject to the whims of the ruling clique, who restrict who and what is taught. An educated populace is a dangerous thing to dictatorships, which leads to the next common feature. Many of these countries have a history of violent military juntas and corrupt governments. Some masquerade as democracies. Some are just in your face military dictatorships that came to power based on tribal loyalties under the pretense of this or that political ideology. Much of the imported food and other resources are locked away; to be used for bribery or sold outright. Very little of the populace actually receives any assistance. As long as West (and East) continues to send these industrial sized handouts, the juntas and corrupt leaders remain in power.

Today, the world faces increasing food and water shortages. Whole populations are not just shifting from one corner of a country to another or slipping borders, but crossing continents. Many are leaving Southeast Asia and moving north into China, India, and Turkey. Those in Africa are crossing into Europe. America is feeling the effects of millions of illegal immigrants coming north from South and Central America, and Mexico. The result is greater strain on the host countries, which, in long term, will collapse under the shear weight of number. What is at stake here is the survival of entire nations.

The liberals on the Left would have us open our doors and blindly accept the onslaught. All we have to do is accept a new lower quality of life amid crushing taxes and a loss of national identity. The conservative Right would have us round them up and ship them home, only to repeat the process lest some wall or mount saves us a-la-Fortress Europe of the Third Reich. Like so many of our domestic issues, we tend to think about solving global ones in terms of “Left” or “Right”; all or nothing. I think the time has come for not just Americans, but nations to take off their ideological blinders and examine issues based on existing facts as they are, not as our ideologies want them to be.

Finally, here’s a great article I came across on MSNBC by John W. Schoen which illustrates my point. Check it out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41062817/ns/business-consumer_news

What is America's Future?

2011-01-12T20:57:00.004-05:00

I just read an interesting article by Jim Angle at Fox News.com called "Baby Boomers Could Force Economic Catastrophe", and it got me to thinking. It seems that no matter what, analyists of all stripes are predicting that America is in for a major financial meltdown. It could be from an overload of our public safety net by illegal immigrants; loss of jobs through downsizing, technology, or exportation; trade deficit and devaluing of the dollar; the national debt load and over expansion of government; the financial incompentency of Wallstreet and the banking industry; a drain on resources through war and natural disasters brought on by global warming (and for all practical purposes, it does really matter if global warming is the result of Manmade pollution or part of a natural cycle or some combination. The results are the same---disaster). So, here is yet another crack in financial dyke, the Babyboomer's pending retirement (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/11/baby-boomers-could-force-economic-catastrophe#).

So, what is the end result? A dictatorship of the Left (or indirect rule by China, which is the largest holder of our national debt)? A dictatorship of the Right? A Military Junta? The establishment of the corporate oligarchy (some say we're already well on our way to this)? A theocracy? Anarchy? A broken America into two or more nations much like the Roman Empire or even the Holy Roman Empire experienced (perhaps triggered by a Civil War or revolution).

Do we remain the world's single greatest superpower? Do we become a second rate or even third world economic power? Some predict, as alluded to above, that there will be a small but extremely wealthy corporate oligarchy at the top, which will be propped up by a nationalized police force. The bulk of America will be a second tier economic class with large pockets that are no better than any third world nation, controlled by large well armed drug lords; essentially to two tier class structure within a police state.

A bleak picture to be sure. Still, I wonder if that has to be the outcome? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have a great deal of faith in my fellow Americans for the capacity in overcoming just about anything, including corporate greed, thugs, and an inept government.

After Don't Ask Don't Tell: Gay Marriage?

2011-01-01T23:33:00.004-05:00

The Conservative Right may have dug themselves into a very deep hole. As I last reported, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, which was first enacted by Democrat President Bill Clinton, has been repealed. Although technically “illegal” until the appropriate bureaucratic steps are completed, it’s now essentially legal to be openly gay in the US military (there are already 23 other countries where gays openly serve in the military. So much for that ole “first in freedom” line I suppose).

So, here’s the next quandary for the Republicans and the Conservative Right (especially for the socially Conservative). If it’s now ok to volunteer to fight, and possibly die or become disabled in the defense of this country, why isn’t ok to marry the person they love regardless of their gender? Now I can just see some finger wagging Conservative hyperventilating and accusing me of not being “pure enough” to be a Conservative and that’s ok. It’s a “relatively’ free country at the moment, but it also doesn’t change the argument.

Vice President Biden recently said that he would support a measure to make gay marriage legal, which in my opinion is no big deal. I personally couldn’t care less what Biden thinks, but it does give some indication as to which way the White House will lean on the issue. Of course, “Hollyweird” and “Left Coast” has long been a proponent of gay marriage and all things liberal. Perhaps more important that the Vice President’s opinion is Oprah’s opinion, and she is an ardent supporter of gay marriage.

On a personal level, I’ve always believed that marriage should be between a man and woman. When I ran for State Representative in 2004, the issue of allowing gay marriage was on the ballot, and I, for one, opposed it. My opponent, Denver Butler, a Democrat and perhaps more tellingly, a conservative Catholic, opposed it too. In fact, you were hard pressed to find anyone outside of Jefferson County (Louisville) who supported it (it was hard to even find someone in Jefferson County, which is perhaps the most “liberal” of Kentucky’s 120 counties, who supported it. The issue failed overwhelmingly by the way). My logic was that marriage was something that formed the nucleus of society; the very foundation of civilization itself. People got married for the purpose of creating and raising a family; passing on knowledge; adding to the workforce; it created familial units which in turn, created villages, communities, towns, and cities. All this, of course, increased the exchange of ideas and thus, systems of government and religions were created. Well, I’m sure you get my point.

However, in looking back at history, I found the gay relationships openly existed. In fact, they were generally quite common. The Sumerians had them. So did the Babylonians. The Hittites and Assyrians, both notably militaristic, had them, as did the Persians and Greeks (remember Alexander the Great?). Even the mighty Roman Empire had openly gay relationships. On the other hand, I didn’t find any evidence that the Egyptians did or for the matter, the Chinese. In fact, some ancient civilizations down right forbid it on pain of death, such as the Huns, Vandals, Mongols, Goths, Norse, Celts, and Germanic tribes.

Of particular importance was that I didn’t find mention of acceptance among the certain nomadic Semite tribes, such as the Hebrews. Their reasoning, as was the Egyptians by the way, was that the desired outcome of a sexual encounter was to produce offspring, which was seen as a form of wealth in what was an agricultural or nomadic society. It seems to me that gay relationship seemed to be more openly accepted as the complexity of a given society increased and/or became more settled.

In today’s society, relationships are not always about procreation any more. They are just as often about companionship or financial arrangements. Technology has made knowledge available to everyone equally. As we become more global, we are exposed to more cultural traditions and religions. No longer are we just Judeo-Christian society. As such, does society therefore have a right or obligation to impose what is chiefly Judeo-Christian values system onto others? There’s a tenet in the ancient nature oriented religion of Wicca which says “Do as you will, but do not harm to others”. Should an otherwise upstanding individual be denied what you and I take for granted, that is, the legal right to share our lives with whomever we chose? We’ve agreed they have the right to fight and die for the freedoms this country stands for, and yet we as a society have said that they don’t have the right to legal relationship with someone of the same gender.

Of course, there are many other issues to consider, such as the right of survivorship, insurance coverage, healthcare coverage, joint ownership of property, a tax deduction, right to adopt, etc. By repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the GOP and its Conservative allies, have opened Pandora’s Box, and perhaps it’s a box which needs to be opened. Certainly, we as a society need to reexamine what constitutes a legal as well as moral relationship and what, if any, are its boundaries.

The Gouge Gage

As just about every holiday traveler will tell you, gas prices across the country are outrageous. The AAA reported on 12/10/10 that the average price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.98. A week before, it was eight cents cheaper? So what happened in one week to see that kind of an increase? Well, oil company officials will tell you some cockamamie story about a price adjustment due to oil production on a rig in BFG being affected by the flight pattern of birds. The truth as you and I know is much simpler. It was an opportunity to gouge consumers while knowing damn good and well that the government won’t do a thing to interfere. In fact, it’s government’s job to clear the way for the oil companies by creating the illusion of “protecting” us.

Former Shell Oil Chief, John Hofmeister predicted that by 2012, the price of a gallon of gas will be $5.00. He’s not far off the mark. Already, the average price where I live is over $3.00 a gallon. People who are making at or just above minimum wage are already talking about it becoming to expensive to go to work. With bus routes being cut, what are lower income people supposed to do? I don’t see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. I see this simply as corporate greed running amuck and being all but sanctioned by the government. Perhaps the time to nationalize the oil industry is about to dawn.

A few months ago I reviewd a book by Dr. Ida Lichter entitled “Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression” which is published by Prometheus Books, New York. If you haven’t read it yet, you seriously need to. This is perhaps one of the most important books ever written about conservative Islam and its treatment of women you’ll ever read. Recently, Dr. Lichter wrote an article for the Huffington Post (12/20/10) about an often overlooked relgious group, the Bahai and the human rights violations they suffer daily in Iran. I thought you would find the article as compelling as I did.

Baha’is in Iran are Easily Forgotten

Wikileaks has revealed government and diplomatic violations of the truth while paradoxically keeping their own sources secret. In the process, editor in chief and whistleblower Julian Assange has become a hero for human rights defenders. Sadly, the intense publicity surrounding Wikileaks diverts attention from serious injustice and continuing human rights violations, some already on the back burner and badly neglected. A good example is the state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is in Iran.

The 300,000-strong Baha'i community, the largest religious minority in Iran, represents less than 1% of the population. Over the past 30 years, they have suffered torture and execution. They have been denied tertiary education and government jobs, their shops and properties are often seized, cemeteries desecrated and children harassed at school. In addition, Bahai's are facing stepped-up persecution and have been falsely blamed for organizing and inciting anti-government protests although they abstain from partisan political activity on religious principles. Charges against them include espionage, "propaganda activities against the Islamic order" and "corruption on earth," the latter a capital offence. Baha'i communities around the world insist these charges are spurious and part of a campaign to scapegoat members of the faith.

During the Shah's era, Baha'is strove for education and became successful and prominent, creating envy and suspicion, and although police sometimes protected them against Islamic extremists, they were victims of periodic outbreaks of violence.

A major source of ideological friction with Islam is the doctrine of a hierarchy of traditions that subsumes previous ones. According to Baha'is, the Prophet Mohammad was not the last prophet but one in a progressive line, and the next one is not due for a thousand years!

Women's rights are central to Baha'i teaching and in stark contrast to the discriminatory sharia laws implemented by the Islamic Republic of Iran. These rights include full support for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

There are numerous documented stories of violent arrests and incarcerations in the hundreds of prisons situated in basements of houses in Tehran.

Rozita Vasseghi is a Baha'i prisoner. In Kafkaesque fashion, a man claiming to be a 'postman' arrested her three years ago after a knock on the door, and during repeated interrogations while blindfolded, her captors threatened her with death. Throughout her ordeal, she was denied a lawyer. Following release from prison, she found a job but government authorities exerted pressure on her employers to have her fired. A few years later, she was arrested at her home, and for the next six months, found herself in solitary confinement. Her elderly mother, who was allowed visits of only five minutes, was horrified by her wasted appearance. Accused of insulting Islam, acting against national security and teaching the Baha'i religion, she is serving a five-year sentence.

Rozita's sister Rosa, suffered multiple incarcerations before escaping Iran. She was on her way home in a shared public taxi when the driver asked about her religion. Discovering she was a Baha'i, he stopped and made a phone call. A car with several people soon showed up, the women fully covered in chadors. Rosa was blindfolded and forced into the vehicle and when they reached their destination, she was thrown onto the pavement, her hands were tied and she was dragged down stairs to a room and beaten. Her captors repeatedly called her an infidel and declared her blood would be impure until she renounced her faith and converted to Islam. Over several years, she was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned.

As proponents of a religion originating from Islam, stamped by modernity, universal human rights and compatibility with many Western values, Baha'is are vulnerable targets for persecution by the Iranian theocracy. Baha'i women are doubly at risk, being female and Baha'i, and as victims of severe injustice, they deserve more outrage and support than Assange and Wikileaks.

Ida Lichter is the author of Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression, published by Prometheus Books, New York.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Care

2010-12-18T18:22:00.007-05:00

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is currently the byword of US military personnel policy, and yet something about it smack of a lie; something to be hidden or only whispered about. Perhaps it’s just me (which I wouldn’t doubt in the least), but I can’t understand all the fuss. I served in the US military during the later years of the Cold War, following America’s first military defeat in the jungles and swamps of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (our defeat was, I want to remind our readers, the result of inept American politicians and politicalized US generals and not the rank and file Solders, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. They were and remain the best and bravest).

During my tour of duty, there was two fast ways to a General Discharge (as opposed to an honorable one). One was to publicly announce that you hated officers and the other was to be gay. I knew two Navy Corpsmen who were gay while I was stationed at NS Treasure Island in San Francisco in the 1970’s. In checking out their personnel records, I discovered that both were on their third enlistments. Both had volunteered to serve with Marines in Vietnam. Both had outstanding evaluations. Both were excellent at what they did and had the ribbons and citations to prove it. Had I “ratted them out”, both these outstanding sailors would have literally been given a General Discharge and would been out of Uncle Sam’s Yacht Club within 24 hours.

Before I go any further, I should point out that I’m 100% hetro. I didn’t even like playing with the same toys growing up! The issue was what to do? Well, I did nothing, and why should I? Both men were outstanding sailors. Besides, I personally didn’t care what anyone’s sexual orientation was then or now. Who you’re attracted to is, frankly, none of either my business or for that matter, society’s. Now, if either of these gentlemen had deviated one iota from what was expected of them as either sailors or Corpsmen, you bet your “Dixie cup” I would have taken whatever steps were necessary to have them removed from this man’s Navy; not because they were gay, but because they weren’t doing their jobs and that could get people hurt or killed.

It has been my experience that today’s youth doesn’t see someone’s sexual preferences as an issue. The overwhelming majority of those who would be military age either know of or are friends with individuals who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or even transgendered. To them, it’s no big deal. So, if they are the ones who are actually serving and they aren’t bothered by it, why should the military “Brass” and politicians? I liken it to women serving onboard Naval ships. At first, everyone was complaining about how they would “be in the way” or “be a distraction” and result in injuries, pregnancies, or cause disciplinary actions. But you know what? Not much happened after all, and nowadays, not many even notice.

In doing some further research on the subject, I found that 72% of those surveyed either didn’t care or supported gays openly serving in the military. Twenty three other militaries in the world allow gays to openly serve in their militaries. Of the key group, those who were between 18 and 34 years of age, 73% favored gays being allowed to serve while 23% favored Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (the remaining 4% felt that gays shouldn’t serve at all). Augmenting this, 83% said they had gay friends.

When it came to politically ideology, there really weren’t any surprises. 46% of Conservatives supported the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, with 14% saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all. Only 41% felt that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Moderates, regardless of party registration, favored allowing gays to openly serve by 66% to 30% against with the difference not wanting gays in the military at all. Naturally, Liberals were the most open to allowing gays in the service with 86% approving. When it came to gender, women were more open than men were by 79% to 68%.

Lastly, when former military personnel were asked about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 57% of those who were enlisted favored doing away with DADT compared with 54% of officers who agree. Interestingly, 74% of those who never served supported gays openly serving.

I really don’t care and don’t really need to know about someone else’s preference, be it in the military, school, or in the business world. The bottom line regarding our Armed Forces is, at least to me, that we should be more concerned about the quality of our military and not about their sexual orientation. Our emphasis should be on the emotional stability, education, and training of our military personnel as individuals, not who they are attracted to. It’s performance not preference.

As I put the final touches on this article, I read where Don’t Ask Don’t tell has been repelled by the US Senate by a vote of 65 to 31. 8 Republicans joined with 57 Democrats to overturn the current law which came into effect under President Bill Clinton in 1993. An estimated 14,000 servicemen and women have been discharged since the law’s passage. But don’t look for the any changes soon. The president, Congress and Joint Chiefs of Staff have to certify that the change will not negatively impact any of the military branches. Then the Pentagon has 60 days to create a program for the changes to be implemented. In total, we’re looking at 6 to 9 months at least. You just gotta love bureaucracy.

For further information, please visit: (http://blog.hunch.com/?p=14704&SEMref=Google5&kw=gays%20in%20the%20military&gclid=CMPoxp725qUCFdk65Qod6CsY1w and http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt)

Playing Roulette With the Country's Future
By Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson,
Authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis

A new and updated version is due out in January. Find out more at PublicAgenda.org
There's something about playing roulette that makes everyone feel a little like the uber suave James Bond. You can picture the actor of your choice (we're not doctrinaire here), but they all make gambling seem glamorous. Not knowing exactly what will happen adds an agreeable tension to the drama. A clever screenwriter has labored long and hard to insure a satisfying outcome. Casablanca makes roulette alluring too. Remember when Rick steps in to fix the results so a dewy-eyed ingénue and her husband win enough money to escape the Nazis? It's one of the best scenes in the movie.

The problem is that things don't always work out so nicely in real life - - and rarely does anyone step in to fix a game of roulette in your favor. That's why it's so disturbing to see the country's leaders playing roulette with the country's economic future by procrastinating on tackling our massive debt and budget problems.

Basically, they're betting that the government can continue to spend more than it takes in, because people around the world will be glad to keep lending to us by buying our Treasury bonds. In the short term, it's not a bad bet. Given the world's shaky economy, the U.S. government is still a better investment than most.

And in the long run? As David Brooks so succinctly puts in, "The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts . . . the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain." 1 FDIC chair Sheila Blair, who certainly knows a thing or two about what happens when investors lose confidence, warns of danger too: "Financial markets are already sending disquieting signals," she recently wrote.

It's no secret that the most bipartisan position in Washington has been the determination of both parties to live beyond our means for decades. And outside of government, public frustration is high, but realism remains low.

On the right, the Tea Partiers furiously demand that government get dramatically smaller, slashing spending by huge amounts to balance the budget now. Some even argue that Congress should slam the brakes on borrowing overnight, by refusing to raise the government's debt ceiling. The Tea Partiers rage against the machine, but seem unprepared for any frank discussion of how the federal government really spends its money, or the human consequences of its ideas.

But even if the Tea Party's champions in Congress could get their agenda through - - and governing is considerably balkier than complaining and criticizing -- such a sudden lurch into smaller government would be wrenching. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling could be disastrous. Tens of thousands of federal and state workers would lose their jobs in the middle of the Great Recession. Schools and colleges around the country would face massive cutbacks. The global bond markets, already nervous about the debt crisis in Europe, might start dumping U.S. bonds as well. The right likes to slam big government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there are millions of human beings depending on them. You don't make major changes in these programs overnight.

The situation on the left is as just as bad. Despite careful, non-partisan assessments from multiple analysts inside and outside government detailing Social Security's shaky future funding, there is a profoundly disingenuous mantra coming from some progressives: "Don't worry. Don't touch it. There's no serious problem. The Trust Fund is good until 2037."

Yes, but Trust Fund is filled with government bonds, and Social Security will start drawing on the bonds in about five years. Those bonds guarantee that Social Security benefits are first in line when the government pays its bills - - people will get their checks. But that money has to come from somewhere, and the government's own auditors say the only way to do that is by raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing from someplace else. In other words, something else in the budget has to give.

Do progressives really believe the country will suddenly be flush enough to cover Social Security and still pay for all the other spending these very same progressives want? And by claiming there's no problem, they undercut public backing for the ideas they do support, like raising the income cap on Social Security taxes. Why would people want to raise Social Security taxes on anyone if there's no problem?

There's a reasonable discussion about how quickly to move to bring the country's spending in line with its revenues given how weak the U.S. economy is. Huge, abrupt program cuts, big sudden tax hikes, pulling the plug on infrastructure and educational spending that is crucial to having a competitive economy down the road - - these are all risky, both economically and socially. Boring old long-term planning and gradualism are probably the only sensible ways out. But there is no time to delay on starting a reality-based discussion.

A recent Public Agenda survey of Washington insiders - - people whose careers revolve around the federal government - - showed that a whopping 8 in 10 agreed that the only way to solve the country's federal budget problem is to combine spending cuts and tax increases. Why don't these people step up to the plate and say something? Largely, they're silent. Meanwhile, we have profiles in cowardice in Congress and relentless volleys of self-serving spin coming from both the left and the right.

The trouble with roulette is that the house nearly always wins, and players who don't know when to quit lose their shirts. What American needs now is leadership that understands when it's time to leave the roulette table and leave the gambling to others.

1 The New York Times
2 The Washington Post
© 2010 Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis.

Author Bios
Scott Bittle, author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Public Issues Analysis at Public Agenda and is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.

Jean Johnson, co-author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Education Insights and Director of Programs at Public Agenda, is a co-founder of PublicAgenda.org. She is the author or co-author of studies on education, families, religion, race relations, manners and civility, retirement, welfare, and health care.

For more information please visit PublicAgenda.org and follow the authors on Facebook and Twitter

Book Review

Drowning in Oil: BP and Reckless Pursuit of Profit
By Loren C. Steffy

“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” uttered by Jack Nicholson’s character Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men is one of the most famous lines in cinematic history. Author Loren C. Steffy has written the literary equivalent. His book, Drowning in Oil: BP and the Reckless Pursuit of Profit reads a like a Tom Clancy novel. It’s packed with intrigue, rich oil barons and sheiks and kings, as well as political and industrial skullduggery against a backdrop of backroom politics and corruption. In the name of profit, 18 lives were lost, countless lives and businesses impacted as well livelihoods (some generations in the making), destroyed. And did I mention the 200 million barrels of crude oil which flowed into the delicate ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and onto the bayous, and beaches as far away as Florida?

The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon was a time bomb which didn’t need to happen as Steffy deftly explains, but it did. Steffy takes the reader on an engrossing journey through the boardroom and backrooms of a very elite club to revel the reasons why the greatest man-made disaster to date happened, and who, in reality, was to blame.

The book is 259 pages of excitement. Well written and researched, Drowning in Oil hooks the reader like the best mystery novel, but the events described are all too real. An excellent book for anyone interested in political or corporate corruption, energy, the environment, current events, or just likes an engaging book. This book tops my recommendation list! Can you handle the truth?

Rubber Soul: The Pope Approves Condoms

2010-12-03T22:49:00.007-05:00

Good news everybody! The Pope has approved condoms! Wait a minute. The Pope has approved condoms? Are you kidding me? Since when does the Pontiff have a say in whether or not you use condoms? Well, if you’re Catholic, apparently he gets to decide about not just religious matters, but your sex life too. This is coming from a guy who’s not married; has no children (theoretically); and it’s questionable as to whether or not he’s ever been on a date right? We know, however, that he was a member of the Hitler Youth during WWII, so perhaps old habits are hard to die after all. Ok, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let’s look at what the Pope really said about condom use.

Pope Benedict XVI said on November 20, 2010 that the use of condoms in certain cases was permissible, such as by prostitutes with HIV. However, it was still a “sin” in the eyes of the Church. While some saw the announcement as a step closer to everyday reality regarding human sexuality, Pope Benedict really wasn’t saying anything new; just saying in a different way. The Church forbids the use of condoms as form of birth control. It is the Catholic Church’s official line that anything short of abstinence was in conflict with Church policy as a violation of “God’s laws”, even when lives were at stake, such as in the case of AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. Although similar statements have been made by Vatican officials in the past, the fact that this statement was made by the head of the 1.166 billion member Catholic Church gave it more authority.

The comment by Pope Benedict is but one in an upcoming book by German journalist Peter Seewald entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. The book came about as the result of a series of conversations with the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Seewald. The 83 year old “Panzer Cardinal” as he was formerly known, served as the hard-line doctorial watchdog for the popular John Paul II before becoming Pope in April of 2005. As youth, he served in the Hitler Youth from 1941 through 1945 (though he and his family were opponents to Nazism; believing that it counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church). Other topics covered in the book are the Pope’s opposition to ordination of women as being against the teachings of Jesus; mandatory celibacy of priests (I presume this includes child molestation too); as well as a prohibition on the teachings of Liberation Theology.

On the subject of condom use, the Pontiff said “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” (in the Italian edition, “male sex worker” is changed to “female sex worker”). On the issue of AIDS in Africa, which has been rampant for decades, the Pope rejected not just the use of condoms, but stated that the use of condoms would “increase the problem”.

There is an estimated 22.5 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV and AIDS while North Africa and the Middle East has just over 460,000. South America currently has 1.4 million people infected. Asia has an estimated 4.5 million infected. In 2009 alone, some 1.6 million people became infected (mostly in Africa), of which 370,000 were children. The disease, which thus far has no known cure, left 1.8 million dead just in 2009 alone, and 16.6 million AIDS related orphans (http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm and http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm).

On the issue of pregnancies, an estimated 38% were unwanted or unplanned. Worldwide, that’s some 80 million pregnancies and 42 million induced abortions a year. The cost of providing some form of contraceptive to the approximately 201 million worldwide at risk is believed to be around US $3.9 billion dollars per year. While a steep number, it would reduce the costs of unwanted pregnancies by $52 million dollars; prevent 1.5 maternal and child deaths annually; cut abortions by 64%; and reduce pregnancy related illnesses by 27 million lives at cost of $144 per individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy, http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj9(2)/12.pdf and http://www.populationalert.org/).

You should know that I’m not Catholic. I did attend a Catholic undergraduate and graduate school. I am very familiar with Catholic dogma, and I have many close friends who are Catholic. Now, with that said, here's my take on the Pontiff's remarks cocerning condom usage.

In 2009, treatment of AIDS costs approximate $25 billion annually worldwide (http://www.avert.org/universal-access.htm) and costs of providing some form of contraceptive to be nearing 17 billion dollars annually (http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1937516/global_contraceptives_market_is_projected_to_reach_us172_billion_by/). That’s just the dollars. The “sense” part is no less as high. It’s the cost of a human life. In poor countries with little medical treatment available, it’s a death sentence. It effects education; food production; infrastructure; and creates social and economic stability in nations which are known for their inept and corrupt governments. The costs of unwanted pregnancies be it from unplanned pregnancies or from rape, in the United States alone is some $7 billions dollars. Globally, that figure reaches an estimated $21 billion dollars. Aside from the financial costs, additional “costs” include added stress on the social infrastructure as women (mostly teenage girls with little or nor education or job skills) turn to taxpayer assistance programs (if they even exist) such as taxpayer based healthcare, resulting in increased taxes; potential increases in crimes rates; an increase of poorly educated women into low paying jobs; an increase in the overall poverty rate; increases in the number of teenage suicides; increases in the number of abortions (either clinical or self-induced, which can maim or cause unintended death).

This, in my option, is what the Pope is espousing by denying the use of contraceptives. That an institution whose leadership is made up of older unmarried males, who has no practical concept of spousal love or family has magnanimously agreed to permit the use of condoms among prostitutes of all people is absurd to the point of ignorance; perhaps even criminal. It is unconceivable that a religious leader would condemn his flock to misery, poverty and almost certain death. Yes, abstinence is the best option to avoid HIVS, AIDS, the spread of STDS, and unwanted pregnancies, but it overlooks human nature. We are sexual animals. God gave us sex, not just for procreation, but as a physical and emotional expression of connecting with another human being, be it for love or enjoyment and that, my friends, is no sin.

New Radio Show!

Hey folks, Michael Lewis, the Kentucky President of Independent (Kentuckyhttp://independentkentucky.com/) and I will be hosting our own internet radio show starting December 5, 2010 starting at 2:00 PM EST. Our show will be called “Issues First”. We will be examining some of the issues affecting average working folks like you and I from a non-partisan perspective. You can tune in at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/independent-kentucky/2010/12/05/issues-first. I hope you’ll join us, and of course, we’d love to hear from you too!

Jefferson County Republican Party: What Went Wrong?

2010-11-13T15:00:00.005-05:00

Nationally, the Republican Party (well, actually the Tea Party Republicans) nearly destroyed the Democrats in the November elections. They previously eliminated most of the remaining moderates in the Grand Ole Party and more than a few Establishment backed candidates and incumbents. In Kentucky, the GOP did pretty well too, except in Louisville. Here, the local Republican Party got their usual butt kicking, which really shouldn’t have happened this time out.

The mood in Jefferson County was strongly in favor of change away from Obama and his political misadventures. People were just as tired of His Excellency, Mayor Jerry Abramson who served three terms as Louisville Mayor and two terms as Metro Mayor. The GOP had an outstanding candidate in the person of businessman and Metro Councilman, Hal Heiner. The GOP managed to field some good, but not spectacular candidates for Metro Council, but as usual, provided no help. The same goes for a lot of the other races such as for State Representative and State Senator.

The failure began about a year ago when interim party chairman, J T Miller, resigned in order to run for Metro Council District 19, which was being vacated by Hal Heiner to run for mayor (Miller, by the way is a classy guy, won). Party bylaws (antiquated though they be) states that opposite genders must occupy the alternating seats, that is, since there was a male party chairman and as the vice chairperson was female, only a male candidate could be nominated (the vice chairperson was not elected as part as a slate, but as a stand alone candidate). Through some backroom lobbying, Shelly May, who has little political experience, was nominated over a male candidate with significantly more experience and, thus, violated the party bylaws. The nomination had the weight of a defacto appointment since discussion before the membership wasn’t allowed. Shelly seems nice enough I guess, although she’s never actually spoken to me. She’s married to the former PVA John May who was appointed by then Governor Fletcher and lost his election bid to Tony Lindauer.

After her election, it was necessary to remove the female vice chairperson and key fundraiser (as I said violation of party bylaws appeared to be in play here, though apparently not a lot of common sense was)in favor of a male vice chairperson. The Operations Director, who could have challenged her over the bylaws, had his nominal salary first cut; then eliminated; and was finally removed from office. As it turned out, it was all a big mistake, especially during an election cycle. The local GOP did not implement any of desperately needed reforms. Another insider was selected a vice chairman. It was more (actually less) of the same. There was virtually no fundraising; no vetting of candidates; no training or oversight of candidates; no recruitment of LD chairpersons, precinct captains, volunteers or poll workers. In short, the leadership failed, or to be more accurate, the usual backroom wheelers and dealers failed the party; its members; the candidates; and the voters. One bright spot from the insider’s perspective was, I suppose, that 25th Metro Councilman Doug Hawkins lost his race for reelection. Hawkins was a perennial thorn in the side of the Executive Board and only Republican west of I-65. Don’t misconstrue my comments. I’m not picking on Ms. May and no one is blaming her for the local Republican Party’s failures. She was just not adequately prepared for the job in my opinion (as well as others) and the backroom dealmakers deprived the party of the type of leadership it needed.

I think what success there was resulted from the efforts of some Southend conservatives, of which I was one. A friend of mine, Paul Holliger and I had been talking for awhile about the need to turn around the declining Southend. We’re both tired of countless politicians of both stripes promising much and delivering little. We hit upon the idea of political training seminars for Southend conservative candidates (this was to be strictly non-partisan, but other than one Indie, everyone who showed up were Republican). We recruited two former Indies and current Republicans, Ray Pierce and Ed Springston. No one knows drainage and flood issues like Ray. Ed, also a former Labor Democrat, ran for mayor as an Indie, had a pretty popular local radio show called, “My View Matters”.

The format was pretty “candidate intensive”. We focused on just about everything. We did pretty well too. Mike Nemes won the 38th House seat. Wade Hurt won his 37th State Representative seat, though through the disqualification of his opponent (Apparently Wade’s opponent, Jeff Donahue had an ineligible signature on his candidate application form. The matter went to court and Judge Fred Cowan disqualified Donahue from the race (interestingly, I didn’t learn of this until after the fact when I was amusingly told that I was accused of somehow “engineering” the disqualification. I didn’t, but I appreciated the laugh!). Although Renay Davis (whose house we used) lost, she did a spectacular job and came within 183 votes of winning her race in Metro Council District 13. Gail Powers didn’t fare so well in her race for the 44th House seat, and was disqualified, but she picked up some valuable tools for her next race. 46th House candidate Brian Simpson also lost, but put on a pretty good race.

So, there you have it. Locally, the GOP now only controls Metro Council seats east of I-65. The Jefferson County Republican Party has done better in the past. It can do better in the future, but the elitism has to go. However, I will say this, from a personal perspective; I don’t think backroom lobbying has any business in a political party that should be looking to bring out the best in its leadership; its candidates; and its elected officials. After all, isn’t that what they’re always accusing the Democrats of failing to do?

Let me conclude with one final set of predictions from this election cycle. After the appropriate period has passed, I look for a change of party chairperson. I expect the “backroomers” to try and shore up their mistakes and transfer as much of blame as possible elsewhere while retightening their control on the local party structure. They will try to keep out and/or purge any reformers, who also just so happen to be their brightest and most capable.

I think Wade Hurt will have to “double down” to keep his 37th House seat, and that means acting more openly and honestly with Southwest activists. Mike Nemus, who won a close race for the 38th House has all the promise in the world. His next race will be tough. Rumor has it that retired police captain Denver Butler Jr (son of long time 38th State Representative Denver Butler) will run in 2012. 38th State Senator Dan Seum, who’s 70 years old, will likely face an aggressive primary challenge in four years, and if he survives that, an equally hard general election (and the scuttlebutt is that if Senator Seum tries to run any more family members---Dana Seum Stephenson and David Toborowsky come to mind---the same level of challenge can be expected). Lastly, look for yours truly to be calling it as is, but then, you already knew that didn’t you?

Kentucky Election Results

2010-11-05T23:33:00.008-04:00

Well, it’s time to face the music. In the last edition I predicted the outcomes of the various races in Jefferson County. Now it’s time to see how well I did.

For the US Senate Seat being vacated by outgoing Jim Bunning (R), I predicated Rand Paul (R) would handily beat Jack Conway (D), and indeed he did! It just wasn’t a win, it was a spanking (56% to 44%). This was the first race of the night called; just 30 minutes after the polls closed! However, I fear we haven’t seen the last of Jack Conway yet.

Democrat John Yarmuth easily kept his 3rd District Congressional seat by defeating Republican Todd Lally as I predicted by 55% to 44%. Lally, who otherwise was a good candidate, simply ran a lackluster campaign and missed numerous opportunities to hang Pelosi and Obama around Yarmuth’s neck.

In the 38th State Senate, Republican Dan Seum won with 61.71% of the vote over Marty Meyer’s 39.29%. No surprise there. Meyer, who was Yarmuth's legislative aide, was outmatched from the get-go. Democrat Larry Clark beat Republican newcomer Brian Simpson for the 46th House seat 55.45% to 44.55%. But, I look for Brian Simpson to be back again, especially if Larry Clark keeps on acting like, well, Larry Clark.

In the 38th House seat, I predicted Mike Nemus (R), also a newcomer, to beat Tim Firkins (D). It was a tight race, 50.95% to 49.05% but Mike came through like the champ he is. Republican Kevin Bratcher beat Democrat Dustin Wilcher as expected with just over 68% of the vote. Political newcomer Aaron Wilson lost to Tom Burch in the 30th House race by a margin of 72.38% to 27.62%. The Republican, Julie Raque Adams won in the 32nd House race against her two opponents with 62.92% of the vote while Republican Ron Crimm beat Democrat Kimberly Greenwell in the 33rd House race 66.44% to 33.56%. Long time 28th State Representative Charlie Miller (D) had no trouble with John Brewer (R) with a 54.86% to 45.14% win. Will the preacher try a third time in 2012?

Bobbi Holsclaw (R) kept her Jefferson County Clerk position by handily defeating Democrat Jack Wood 65.38% to 34.62%. Likewise, Democrat “Colonel” John Aubrey is still the local sheriff after beating Republican Mike Roberts and Indie Don Fitzgerald with 60.85% of the total vote. With 58.3%, Tony Lindaur, the Democrat, beat Republican Corey Keollner and remains the Property Value Administrator By the way, shouldn’t the PVA, Jefferson County Sheriff, and County Clerk be non-partisan positions like the judges are?

In a nail biter, Democrat Greg Fischer won over Republican Hal Heiner by only 2% (51% to 49%). The post election map showed the old county voted overwhelmingly for Heiner while the old city voted just as overwhelmingly for Fischer. What this election clearly demonstrated was that after two terms as mayor by His Excellency, Jerry Abramson, Metro Louisville remains just as divided as it did when Abramson served three terms as Louisville Mayor and the county had a County Judge and three County Commissioners.

Greg Fischer, whom I’ve dubbed as “Abramson Lite” will continue many of the policies of his predecessor (along with keeping several of Abramson’s staff members) and the residents of the county will become angrier over the lack of representation they (rightly) believed they are getting from City Hall, especially as the city government continues to move its crime problems out of the West End and into the Southwest portions of the county in order to “revitalized” the downtown Louisville. Rumor has it that former mayor Dave Armstrong and former state Representative Ron Weston of Fairdale will be the new deputy mayors under Fischer. If so, they will be the opening blunders of the new administration.

There wasn’t much change or interest in most of the races for Metro Council (which I usually refer to the Metro Soviet given its past lockstep devotion to His Excellency, Jerry Abramson) as expected, with three exceptions. The first was Metro Council District 13 which pitted incumbent Democrat Vicki Welch against activist and Republican Renay Davis. As I wrote in the last issue, residents of Fairdale have faired pretty well under Metro government while the rest of the district has received little to nothing. Residents have seen an increase in Section 8 housing, and corresponding crime related matters despite assurances to the contrary. A hotly contested race, Ms. Welch won by a mere 219 votes (51.88% to 48.12%). I just hope the residents of District 13 haven’t lost their opportunity to turn things around.

Hal Heiner decided to vacate his Metro Council District 19 seat in order to run for Mayor. Republican and all around good guy Jerry T. Miller stepped up and convincingly defeated his Democrat challenger, Justin Chelf by 74.36% to 25.64%.

The third Metro Council race of note was in the 25th where incumbent Doug Hawkins (R) took on David Yates, the Democrat and lost 51.3% to 48.7%. As I said previously, Doug has done a lot for the residents of District 25, but he committed the cardinal mistake of underestimating his opponent. Throughout, Doug thought that his past performances, which were considerable, would carry him through. Doug failed to fundraise; to do mailers; and to walk his district. In short, he didn’t do his homework. I’ve heard good things about David Yates (I meet him once at a union endorsement forum). I think the residents of Metro 25 will do well by him, however, I don’t think they will see the kind of voice they had in Doug Hawkins.

While the Democrats took a shellacking nationally, the biggest loser of the night was the National Republican Party. How can that be with so many GOP victories across the country? Because the majority of these victories were by Tea Party candidates who just so happened to have an “R” behind their names this time. The Establishment Republicans (think Mitch McConnell) lost big in this election cycle. They lost it in the Republican Primaries along with what was left of the GOP moderates. Rand Paul and other incoming Tea Partiers have already agreed to form a Tea Party caucus. I applaud them for following through on their promises to the American People. It will be interesting to see how the two sides work together going into the next congressional session in dealing with the Democrats and Obama.

Locally, the Republican Party demonstrated for all to see just how poorly organized and led they are. While the GOP picked up two state house seats in Southwest Jefferson County, it was through no thanks to the local GOP leadership, but instead by a well organized and dedicated group of Southend conservatives (who were also active in some other Southwest campaigns). The Metro Council is now solely Republican east of I-65 and solidly Democrat west of I-65; all as it was originally intended some eight years ago when the metro government came about. The Democrats now control 17 seats on Metro Council to the Republicans 9 seats, making the GOP all but redundant.

So, how did I fare in my predictions? Pretty well I think. Of the races I weighed in on, I missed only three while I was correct on 20.

Kentucky Election Predictions

2010-10-16T15:09:00.006-04:00

As promised in our last piece, here are my predictions for the upcoming 2010 Kentucky(Jefferson County) elections. I don’t think there will be many surprises. I think the biggest “surprise” if you will, is reserved for the Grand Ole Party nationally. The recent Primary elections established the Tea Party as a viable answer to the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party, lead in part, by Kentucky’s own, US Senator Mitch McConnell.

What the Primary elections proved was the conservatives across America are tired of status quo politics. They have had enough of the usual dull fare of “elect me and I’ll change (fill in the blank)”. Who are they trying to kid? One person or even as small group of like minded individuals can’t make a hoots worth of difference in Washington, or for that matter, in most state capitals. The people get it. Politicians don’t. It takes a mass movement, and that’s what the Tea Party is all about.

Sadly, one the causalities of the Primary Elections were the loss of moderates. America has long been a country of the Center; sometimes a little to the Left and sometimes a little to the Right. The elections all but removed the Center from power in this country, especially on the Right. The result is that we’re left with two extremes, Obama’s Neo-Socialists and the Conservative Right’s Theocrats. Neither is particularly appealing to the American Public. The Tea Party offers conservatives a choice, but in the long run may result in creating a political party of conformity but unelectability at the national level or, in some cases, state and local levels. The same thing happens if the theocrats continue to dominate the GOP, which may partly explain Obama’s 2008 landslide and exodus of Republican moderates. The moderate conservatives on the Left really have nowhere to turn either, except to the Tea Party or to their increasing socialist oriented Democratic Party. Perhaps this is why so many people, mostly moderates, have chosen to leave both parties and have registered as Independents.

Americans live in the political middle. We are a practical, independent, hard-working, and privately religious people. We believe in freely offering a helping hand to those in need. We believe in fairness and accountability. Both political parties need to reexamine their political goals. The party (or perhaps independent) who captures the Center will be the one who will dominate our political system. Now, for my 2010 Jefferson County election predictions.

For the open US Senate Seat of retiring Jim Bunning (R), Republican Rand Paul has lead Democrat Jack Conway throughout despite an all out offensive by the Democrats and their Allies Conway was the first to go negative and has, for the most part, stayed, if not negative, then at least distorted. The more Conway stays negative, the better Paul seems to do. Therefore, I predict no or little change in Conway’s desperation and a Rand Paul victory.

In the 3rd District, we have incumbent John Yarmuth (D) in a race against Todd Lally. There’s much to be said for Lally. He’s got the looks and background. He’s running in a good year. Yarmuth is an unabashed liberal who has openly spoke proudly of his support for Obama and his policies. However, Lally hasn’t been nearly as aggressive as he needs to be to knock John off his perch. I think Yarmuth wins.

For 38th Kentucky State Senate, we have incumbent Republican Dan Seum against Marty Meyer, Yarmuth’s former aide. Meyer has a tough road to hoe to take out Jefferson County’s “VET Slayer”. Despite his slightly outdated moniker, Dan remains popular in his district and should beat the liberal Meyer.

Republican newcomer Brian Simpson is making big waves against incumbent Larry Clark for the 46th House Seat. Larry Clark is the quintessential entrenched “good-ole-boy” Democrat right down to his arrogant and condescending attitude. I polled a large number of his constituents and found nearly no one who could stand him. The residents of the 46th District need someone who’ll listen and that sure hasn’t been Larry Clark.

The 44th Kentucky House seat had all the possibilities of an interesting race, pitting Democrat Joni Jenkins against newcomer Gail Powers. Joni comes from a longtime Shively Democratic family while Gail is a transplanted Florida Republican activist. However, due to technicality and subsequent lawsuit filed by Democrat operatives, Gail was disqualified. Nevertheless, I fully expect to see her again. The gal has spunk.

In the 38th Kentucky House race, we have Tim Firkins, a long time Democrat operative running against Republican Mike Nemes. Mike is showing he wants this seat, however, to his credit, Tim hasn’t really made anyone in his district. In fact, he really hasn’t done much to or for his district (disclaimer: I live in the 38th and previously ran for this seat against Denver Butler). I think Nemes has a real good shot at winning this seat.

In the open 37th Kentucky House race, Wade Hurt (R) facing off against Jeff Donahue (D). The 37th has had rather poor representation of late and I think the residents are looking for some serious change. They will find in it Hurt. I expect him to handily defeat Donahue.

The 28th House has John Brewer (R) challenging incumbent Charlie Miller (D). I think Miller wins reelection. In the 29th, incumbent Kevin Bratcher (R) should beat Dustin Wilcher (D). Likewise, Tom Burch (D) should hold on to his seat against Aaron Wilson, but don’t underestimate Aaron. He’s an up and coming political player with a bright future. In the 32th, incumbent Julie Raque Adams(R) faces Matthew Linker, a Libertarian and Democrat Nellie Draus Stallings, while in the 33rd, Republican incumbent Ron Crimm is opposed by Kimberly Greenwell (D).

The 35th House race has incumbent Jim Wayne (D) is a tough race against Independent Kentucky President Michael Lewis. Democrats are working hard to get Lewis kicked off the ballot by challenging the signatures on his petition (independents have to have 100 signatures to run in a bi-partisan “keep’em out” status quo Kentucky statute). While I think Wayne keeps his seat, Lewis may be on to something here. I expect to see a lot more Indies running for office.

The 41st House has incumbent Tom Riner (D) up against Nathan Haney. I think money and name recognition is on Riner’s side this time out.

For the first time in 20 years, Louisville is getting a new mayor and we’re all giddy about it. The only question is whether it will be Democrat Greg Fischer or Republican Hal Heiner (Independent Jackie Green has dropped out and will be endorsing Fischer). Hal is a successful businessman and current Metro Councilman. Fischer too has had a lot of success in the business world. Fischer has the money while Heiner seems to have the momentum. Greg offers “Abramson Lite” to Hal “Fresh Ideas”. Louisville needs Hal Heiner, but the last Republican mayor was back in 1969. Odds favor Greg Fischer, but wouldn’t it be nice to have some “fresh air” for a real change?

Metro Council 5th District has incumbent Cheri Bryant Hamilton against Independent Donnie Morris. Cheri has done well by her district and should have no trouble winning. In the 6th District, we have Republican Candice Jaworski, Democrat David James, Independent Deonte Hollowell and write-in Ken Herndon, a Democrat in a four way race. When George Unseld died and left this seat vacant, the best candidate to step forward was far and away Ken Herndon. I think he still is.

In the 9th Metro Council race, former Alderwoman and current Metro Councilwoman Tina Ward-Pugh is being opposed by Republican Patrick Duerr. Tina is almost a fixture in the district and seems to be willing to work with those across the aisle from time to time. Tina wins, but I urge Duerr is hang in there. Remember, to win, you have to reflect the values of your district.

Metro Council 13 is a great race to watch. It pits incumbent Vicki Welch (D) against community activist and 38th Republican LD Renay Davis. Davis and Welch squared off four years ago in a tight race (disclaimer: I live in District 13 and ran for this seat in the first Metro election). Since then, drainage and attracting new businesses remain an issue while increasing crime (especially gangs and meth labs) and Section 8 houses have become serious problems. Historically, attention has focused on Fairdale to the near exclusion of the rest of the district. Vicki has put a lot of money into her district, and I think she’s doing the best she can, but I think the problems are simply to great for a “connect-the-dots” councilwomen. Renay knows the players and how the game is played. Renay Davis wins this time around.

In the 15th Metro District, we have political newcomer Jody Harral against Marianne Butler. I’ve heard little good about Butler, but I think Jody seems needs to hone his message. Butler wins, but with a little homework, Jody could win in four years. In the 17th, incumbent Glen Stuckel (R) is facing William Cohen (D). Stuckel is by far the better choice and should easily win. Jerry Miller (R) and Justin Chelf are running for Hal Heiner’s open seat in the 19th. Against, Miller is by far the better qualified candidate. The resident would do well by electing him.

The 23rd Metro Council District has incumbent James Peden (R) being opposed by Democrat John Sommers. I’ve spoken with several residents throughout the 23rd and not a word of complaint against Peden. Some describe him as the hardest working person on Metro Council. Why try to fix something that isn’t broke? Good politicians are hard to find and I expect voters to keep Peden

Property Value Administrator is one of the most important, but often overlooked positions on the ballot. This year we have candidates Corey Koellner (R) and incumbent Tony Lindauer. Tony has done a fair job. He’s a “by-the-book” administrator, which are his strength and his weakness. In good times, stability is what the people need. However, in choppy economic waters, people need an innovator. Someone able to cut costs in administration and to homeowners. I think Keollner offers that. The big challenge Keollner faces is convincing people to change horses in uncertain times, and overcoming a large money lead by Lindauer. But, sometimes, you just gotta take a leap of faith.

Another key office is County Clerk. Bobbi Holsclaw (R) is being challenged by Democrat Jack Wood. Bobbi has done an outstanding job over these many years and I look for voters to give her another four more years. Jefferson County Sheriff has incumbent Democrat John Aubrey in a three way race against Republican Mike Roberts and Independent Don Fitzgerald. Aubrey has done a good job overall, though he’s a bit too partisan for my taste. Still, I expect him to retain his job as Sheriff.

Lastly, there are a couple of seats I’d like to mention. One is “C” District Commissioner. Republican Bob Heuglin is facing Democrat Stephan Fein. For Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor we have Ray Adam, Pat Thurman, Jim Rovenski, David Kaelin, Paul Holliger (Sr), and John Colliver. Neither of these seats have any political powers nor do they pay. However, Bob Heuglin and Paul Holliger are friends of mine and could really use the job to keep them off the streets and out of trouble.

Media Endorsements; Kentucky Elections: Book Review

2010-10-11T12:02:00.004-04:00

I’m one of those people who don’t believe the media should endorse candidates. Now, before you start hyperventilating and sputtering about the 1st Amendment and all that, let me explain why.

I believe it’s the role of the media---print and electronic---is to provide a balanced story and let the public make up their own minds. The fact of the matter is that the public, on average, checks a minimum of three sources before making up their minds. In the case of print media, all that’s needed is a Voter Guide providing a brief biography of the candidate, contact information, and their answers (unedited) to key questions. If the reader has additional questions, they can (and usually will) check alternative sources, including contacting the candidates direct.

Today, most editorial boards pretend they aren’t biased. They rarely print the questions and often publishing edited answers, or answers out of context of the question in order to create a false impression (I’ve been through the interview process. I speak from experience). Then, by the magic of innuendo, they endorse the “better” candidate, who just so happens to fit their political agenda. And how often are the names and political parties or political leanings of the interviewers ever mentioned? Not much I imagine.

So, it’s really not a 1st Amendment issue with me. It’s more like a fairness issue. I just don’t like the idea of a “big brother” trying to manipulate me into voting for someone. Lastly, I urge to write your local editor and ask them to stop making candidate endorsements. All we need are the facts, not their opinions. And most importantly, check out the candidates and their position on the issues for yourself. Don’t rely on one (usually biased) source. The more informed you are the better government we’re going to get.

A Few Kentucky Election Predictions

There are several really interesting election stories happening here in Kentucky; the most important of which features Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway duking it out for outgoing Jim Bunning’s Senatorial seat. Conway’s crew has pulled out all stops to make Paul look out of touch with Kentuckians and was the first to go negative. Paul has lead in the polls from the start. The more negative Conway gets, the better Paul does. Paul appears sincere, while Conway, by contrast, comes across as a snotty spoiled rich kid. I look for Rand Paul to win.

3rd District Congressman John Yarmuth (D) is defending his seat for the Third District from Todd Lally (R). This has been a surprisingly low key race. Yarmuth is an unabashed liberal Democrat who has proudly supported Obama’s programs. Lally has some excellent credentials. The mood and tide is with him, but I haven’t seen the aggressiveness he needs to win. I think Yarmuth keeps his seat.

The race in the 46th District for State Representative between Democrat Larry Clark and newcomer Brian Simpson is shaping up to be quite a fight. Clark has been around forever, and a lot of his constituents have grown tired of his arrogant and bullying ways. Brian Simpson just might be the man to send Clark packing.

For 38th State Senate, the long serving Dan Seum (R) should have no trouble beating Marty Meyer (D), a former aide to Congressman Yarmuth

In the 38 House Seat, Democrat Tim Firkins is battling the Republican Mike Nemes. Tim has been a Democratic fixture for decades. Mike has a lot of energy and great ideas. The biggest complaint about Tim is that he’s never around. Mike Nemes might pull off the biggest upset in this election cycle. Even if he doesn’t, I look for Mike to be back in 2012.

In the 37th House race, Wade Hurt (R) and Jeff Donahue (D) are running to fill the open seat. This should be a “no-brainer” for residents looking for some actual representation for change. Wade Hurt should handily win this seat.

For the first time in 20 years, we’re going to get a new mayor! Louisville has long needed a breath of fresh air. We are sick and tired of the same worn out ideas. Our choices will be Metro Councilman Hal Heiner (R) against businessman Greg Fischer. This is going to be a tight one. Both candidates bring a lot to the table. Greg has a huge financial lead over Hal, but despite the money advantage, polls have this almost a dead heat. Given the momentum of the country, Heiner may pull this one off. If he does, he’ll be the first Republican mayor since 1969.

While I will be writing more on the other races in my article, I’d like to briefly like to mention one Metro Council race. I expect most of the incumbents to hold on to their seats with one notable exception, and that’s in my home district, Metro 13. Residents, since the merger in 2002, have lacked district wide representation. We’ve seen the number of Section 8 housing increase along the number of rental housing as homeowners move due to the increase in crime (particularly meth labs). Our only police substation was closed several years ago. Businesses have closed, and drainage remains a problem.

The current Metro Councilwoman, Vicki Aubrey Welch is a very friendly person. Her intentions are good, but I think she’s overwhelmed by the problems facing this district. The residents of District 13 need someone who knows not just how the system works, but all the players too. They need someone with the moxie to face not just the challenges, but those standing in the way of change. I have, over the past four years, heard mounting complaints about the decline of this district. That’s why I expect Renay Davis will win in November. If she doesn’t and Welch doesn’t changes her ways, she’ll be a goner in next go around.

Book Review

Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Changes Everything for American Women by Rebecca Traister

Imagine being a liberal Democrat and an arch-feminist and having to face the choice of voting for Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton? Both candidates represent aspects dear to liberals and those who embrace the modern feminism. That was the uncomfortable choice the majority of Democrat Party---liberal women had to face in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary.

The author takes us on her personal soul searching journey with help from the current crop of media power players, Katie Couric, Tina Fey, Rachel Maddow, and Amy Poehler. There are constant jabs at “Mama Grizzly” and former Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin (one almost gets the sense that a self assured and successful conservative professional woman was beyond their collective comprehension) along with some great history lessons about sexism and women’s rights, which makes the book itself worth the read.

I found the 299 page book interesting, and at times even humorous, however, the feminist theme seemed, at times, to wear a little thin for me. But, then again, perhaps that was simply the nature of not Ms. Traister’s quandary but the quandary of the Democratic Party itself; supporting American’s first bi-racial presidential candidate and a political heroine that practically every woman in America could relate to. In the end, perhaps inevitably, Obama won first prize while Hillary was offered Secretary of State as part of a not to subtle settlement to end their inter-party feud. In some ways, there was something symbolic in the playing out on a national level what couples are forced to do daily, namely deciding who will sacrifice whose career for whom and ultimately, at what price. I have to wonder though, would Obama have so graciously accepted runner-up?

America's Future

2010-09-26T00:52:00.006-04:00

It is said that every revolution carries its own seeds of destruction. In looking at America today, I wonder if those seeds from our revolution have taken root and are starting to sprout. If you were to ask someone overseas what was America’s essence, they would tell you that it was individual freedom, and indeed it was. America’s Founding Fathers embedded the concept of individual freedom in everything they wrote and said. The Constitution says that as citizens we the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and yet look at us now.

Americans are now little more than economic serfs. We have a debt and tax burden which is unsustainable. We’ve created an entire underclass, which is expanding and ever increasingly depended on the government for their survival (“entitlements” they’re call); the majority being black Americans who have been lured into trading their masters of old for new ones rather than seeking economic independence. In a society such as ours, capitalism must be ever expanding in a perpetual self-created world of obsolescence. Large multi-national corporations regard governments simply as another tool to achieve their economic ends and keep the populace in line. Employees are just another liability to be used and discarded; another cost to be cut. We’re less citizens and more captive consumers. It seems that somewhere along the line, we’ve forgotten “pursuit” and inserted the word “right”. But such “rights” come with their own chains. What the government gives with one hand, it takes a large piece of with the other.

Americans by and large are a religious lot, whether or not we attend a place of worship on a regular basis. We deeply cherish our freedom of and from religion. We have no national religion. We stand by the separation of Church and State as matter of national principle. We are one of the few countries which have freedom of speech and a relatively free and open press (the integrity of which comes into question from time to time, however, that very fact is a visual demonstration of that very freedom). While we may argue amongst ourselves over issues, we stand together in defending our right to speak our minds.

So, how to we defend that right when discussing a religion which would like nothing better than to imbed itself in government; to create a theocracy? What do we say to this growing religion which openly espouses the destruction of our government, of our Western values and our religious beliefs? We’re speaking of a religion whose sole aim is absolute global domination; elimination of all other religions; forced compliance with their religious laws; abolition of basic rights such as open and free debate, equality among sexes, religious tolerance, religious courts with the right to issue beatings and death penalties.

We are a nation of immigrants. It has been our diversity which has made us the most successful nation in the history of the world. We brought with us the best of our native countries and eagerly blended them with others. No other phrase was spoken with such feeling by our immigrant ancestors as “I am an American”. Nowadays, we’re fast becoming a nation of ethnic groups. We see people walked down the street in their native costumes. We have a population who refuses to learn our language and, in fact, demand that we learn theirs. Where, else in the world can an immigrant population demand that the host country cater to their language and customs? Politicians only see voters and the next election. Businesses only see consumers. The American People see their nation unraveling.

When asked why America is the world’s destination, the answer is the same now as it was in past: a better life. Yet, we have millions coming here illegally. America is a sovereign country governed by laws like every other country, but we find ourselves unable or unwilling to act to secure our borders. Our federal government ignores the overwhelming will of the people with greater and greater impunity on this and other issues. The end result is an ever increasing burden on an already overburden infrastructure. Those who claim that illegals “pay their way” overlook the fact that the majority who pay any kind of taxes are at the extreme low end of the economic scale and thus are unable to pay even their share of the tax based services they use. These same individuals also have very low levels of education and not only don’t know the language, but many actively refuse to learn it or allow their children to learn it. The result is the creation of yet another subclass.

Americans pride themselves on their right, as guaranteed under the Constitution, to self-protection. Perhaps it’s our national individualist streak; maybe it’s because our Founders knew government couldn’t always be trusted and therefore the citizenry had to have the means to fight back, but either way, we cherish our guns. However, there are those who believe that individual ownership of guns does more harm than good; no guns equals less violent crime. These same individuals seem to ignore Man’s propensity to violence with or without guns. Man is a natural killer. We’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. We’re very good at it. When someone knows they’re likely to get killed doing something wrong, they tend to go elsewhere.

So, how do we get out of this rabbit hole? Will we have to destroy America in order to save it? How to do reconcile religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and free speech with groups who aren’t merely trying to incite media attention, but aggressively attempting to destroy us while hiding behind our most cherish rights to do it? How to we end economic serfdom while keeping at least a measure of capitalism? We’ve reached an over saturation point in current debt and taxes. Our grandchildren are coming into the world with an estimated $42,000 tax debt tied around their neck. Of course, we must somehow break the current business-government exploitement of working America.

Unions did much to counter the corruptive power of corporations in the latter half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, however many unions became as bad as some of the companies over time. As a result, the reputation of organized labor became forever tarnished, and membership dropped (and with it, political clout). Perhaps it’s time to revisit those early unions once again and not become the cash cow of either political party this time.

No less important is whether we can remain a single united nation with both business and our elected officials promoting multi-culturalism to the point where we are losing common cause with each other. The only result, if we continue along these lines, is a defacto Balkanized country if not a divided nation.

All nations rise and fall. Perhaps now is our time. Then again, perhaps Americans will decide that it’s time to start over.

Burning of the Koran: Fuel for Thought

2010-09-10T16:54:00.003-04:00

“Where they have burned books, they will in the end burn human beings---Heinrich Heine.

As hard as it is to believe, a Pentecostal minister had proposed the burning of a religious text. The pretext was over his opposition to the ill-conceived building of a mosque at Ground Zero; near the site of where the Twin Towers stood (the mosque is to be named the “Victory Mosque”). Didn’t that go out of fad in the West during the end of the Middle Ages?

Reverend Terry Jones had planned on using the anniversary of 9/11 to create a media event by burning copies of the Koran outside his small 50 member church located in Gainesville, Florida. According to Jones, the Koran “espouses evil” because it teaches something other than “biblical truth” in accordance to Reverend Jones’ beliefs.

The minister has come under intense pressure not to follow through with “stunt” as President Obama put it, and claimed that it would put US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in additional harm’s way. US Secretary of State Robert Gates made a personal phone call to Jones and asked that the event be cancelled. Even the Pope weighed in and suggested the reverend reconsider.

After meeting with Imam Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, and praying for a sign from God, the minister agreed to postpone, for now, the fiery demise the Moslem’s holy text, in exchange for moving the Ground Zero Mosque. Reverend Jones has agreed to fly to New York with the Imam to meet with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the Islamic Center building the mosque. Jones had commented that an agreement was reached to relocate the mosque away from the site where Moslem terror-cowards hijacked two passenger planes and rammed them into the Twin Towers.

Imam Rauf said, however, that no such agreement had been reached. If fact, the imam rather defiantly said, "I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qurans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones or Imam Musri. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony." Jones stands by his claim, and said "I verified that three or four times with witnesses. I trust that man who gave me that. I believe he is a man of integrity, a man of his word, I do not believe that he lied to me. If the mosque is not moved, Jones added "then I think Islam is a very poor example of religion. I think that would be very pitiful. I do not expect that."
Word of the planned burning spread rapidly in the Moslem World with counter burnings proposed amid mass protests and chants of “Death to Christians” throughout even the most moderate of Moslem countries. So what are we to make of all this?

First, I think this was a nothing more than a publicity stunt to promote Jones and his church. Sure, his disgust over the building of the mosque at Ground Zero is probably real enough. Who isn’t ticked off at its audacity? Historically, a mosque has always been erected at or near the site major victories. Is it any wonder the Ground Zero Mosque is unofficially known as the “Victory Mosque”? Of course, the new offical name is Park51. It was changed from Cordoba House. But, having said that, Jones was successfully in getting some attention for his church and perhaps, some donations from some well meaning souls. Will he be successful in getting the mosque moved? Of course not. Nevertheless, after the book burnings of Nazi Germany, how can anyone call for the burning or for that matter, even the banning of books, especially a religious text? In the end, you only destroy paper and cardboard while the ideas contained in the books are only inflamed by the fire.

Secondly, if Reverend Jones, or someone else, stages a Koran burning now or in the future, would it put US troops in danger? I think the answer is obvious, and not only US troops, but civilians as well as Westerners in general. Remember, non-Moslems are allowed to practice their religions only as courtesy of the host nation not as right. There is no such thing as religious freedom there. Non-Moslems are afforded little legal recourse against discrimination or even attacks based on religion. Christian churches, as well as Hindu and Buddhist temples (some centuries old) had been vandalized and even destroyed with no punishment of the perpetrators. The occasional public “anti-West’ demonstrations and burning of the Christian Bible, the Jewish Torah, and well as other sacred texts are not that uncommon. So, we certainly have a double standard that the West, at least, seems to be willing to play along with.

So, what’s the solution? Obviously global religious freedom, tolerance, and sensitivity would be a good place to start, but don’t look for that to happen as long as some religions have an “all or nothing” mentality and are quietly (and not so quietly) working to bring about their version of the Armageddon. While the Islamic Center in New York has a Constitutional right to build a mosque wherever zoning ordinances permit in this country, something their own religion denies to others, their insensitively to the location barely masks an arrogance and contempt for America.

Suggested Articles:

Religious Police Destroy Temple
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/26/20050326-111002-8593r/
Moslems Attack Hindus
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15923&size=A
Muslims Deny Buddhist Majority
http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/malay-muslims-denies-thailands-buddhist-majority-6-buddhists-gunned-down-in-south-thailand-by-islamic-insurgents-for-pan-islamic-jihad/
Moslems Destroy Christian Church
http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/malay-muslims-denies-thailands-buddhist-majority-6-buddhists-gunned-down-in-south-thailand-by-islamic-insurgents-for-pan-islamic-jihad/

Obama's Religion/Ground Zero Mosque/Muslim Women Reformers

2010-08-22T14:10:00.007-04:00

Nearly 20% of Americans believe Obama is Moslem according to an August 19, 2010 Pew Research Center report. Nearly 1/3 of those polled do not believe he’s Christian. Of course, rumors like this as well as others such as his “real” place of birth and/or “fake” birth certificate have been flying around the internet since before Obama’s election nearly 2 years ago (and Obama’s well publicized poor decision to support the Mosque near Ground Zero certainly doesn’t help dispelled the rumors either). Part of it too comes from Obama failing to pick church as well as his cozying up with Moslem countries and the cooling of relations with Israel (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060401024.html). So, let me tell you where I am with this.

Obama’s mother, born Stanley Ann Dunham, was an idealistic white woman from the Kansas. Her upbringing was generally considered Christian. Religiously speaking, she didn’t belong to a particular faith. Her parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists. Of her personal faith, Obama wrote in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, “Religion for her was "just one of the many ways — and not necessarily the best way — that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives”. He added that his mother knew many Christians, but there were few fond memories of them. Obama’s step sister, Maya Seotora-Ng said of her mother that she “wasn’t what one would call an atheist, but more of an agnostic”. It was also said by Obama that his mother had a “healthy skepticism of religion as an institution”.

Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was born Kanyadhiang, Kenya, although he was raised in the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Kenya. His family was of the Luo ethnic group, which is the third largest ethnic group in Kenya. By the way, the majority of the Luo are Christians with only a minority being Moslem. It should be pointed out Obama Sr. was born into a mixed Moslem and Christian family, he was raised Catholic and later converted to Islam before declaring himself an atheist. Thus, his mother came from a Protestant Christian background and became atheist while his father came from a mixed Moslem/Christian background and also chose to become atheist.

Of his own faith, Obama said that this “My father was from Kenya and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn’t practice Islam. Truth is he wasn’t very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian. The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country. But I’ve never practiced Islam” (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/23/2007-12-23_im_no_muslim_says_barack_obama.html).

So, while some argue that since Islam traces descent from the paternal line, Obama is, therefore, by definition Moslem, I disagree. If a person self identifies with a specific faith; follows their social traditions and practices, then that’s what they are. In Obama’s case, they attended the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for about 20 years. The church embraces the so-called “Black Value System” and gained some measure of notoriety for the racist, anti-America and anti-Semitic sermons made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. which were caught on video (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obamas-church-ultra-left-and-afrocentric and http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392). I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Ground Zero Mosque—The Victory Mosque

Much has been written and said about the “Ground Zero Mosque”. Obama rather nefariously said recently that he supported the mosque and added that he was tired of discussing it as he promptly left for vacation. Public opinion is overwhelming opposed to allowing the mosque to be located so near the site of the cowardly attack on America. While Americans have no objection to the mosque in general, over 63% believe the choice of location is “insensitive” or “inappropriate”. Of course, no one truly expects Obama or any one else in Washington to listen to us. After all, Americans opposed the bailouts; Obamacare; the “Obama Apology Tour” and so much more. Obama and Company went on their merry way and did what they wanted. I suppose with the new “paternalistic” outlook coming out of Washington, they “obviously” know what’s best for us, but that’s fodder for other articles.

My opinion about the Ground Zero Mosque is this---I don’t care if the Moslem community in NYC wants to build a mosque, but I think there choice of location was intentional and insensitive. If they truly wanted to make a statement that Islam is truly a religion of peace and not all Moslems are crazy fanatics (which they aren’t) as they claim, they would have opted for a site less likely to incite so much ill feeling. I think the community would be better served if a historical museum and/or community center were erected there instead. Heck, if it was a museum/community center run by the Moslem community in honor of those murdered, that would make a true statement about Islam. Oh yeah, the mosque won’t be called the “Ground Zero Mosque”. It will be named the “Victory Mosque”. Victory for whom I wonder?

As for Obama, I really don’t care what he wants. He was elected to serve us, not the other way around. If America wants to talk this out, then he needs to join that conversation or stay on vacation. Our so-called “leaders” in Washington need to remember this simply like rule in my opinion---lead; follow; or get the hell out of the way”.

By the way, while we’re on the topic of this particular mosque, did you know that we---you and I---get to pay $16,000.00 in US tax dollars to send the mosque’s imam (spiritual leader) on a trip to the Middle East? Yelp, he’s going on a tour of Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain and it’s going to cost us $16,000.00. Who pays for your minister or rabbi to visit the Holy Land? I bet it isn’t US Taxpayers. Read more about it here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/8beb0acf4fd6d743.

Book Review

Moslem Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression by Ida Lichter

At first I was a little hesitant to review this book. Sure, I’ve seen numerous news articles about the abuse of women in Moslem counties. Yeah, I knew women in these countries lacked, in many cases, even basic human rights. Who hasn’t seen images of women covered head to toe in black burqas often walking in a group or with male members of their families. Every now and again, I would come across a story about a so-called “honor killing” in which some unfortunate women was bludgeoned to death by her father, uncles, brothers, or even sons for some seemly insignificant offense like talking with a non-family male without permission and in the presence of her family. Surely these stories weren’t accurate I thought. At best, I had always thought these were rare cases. Who treats another person like cattle, not in the 21st Century? Obviously, I was very wrong.

To say Dr. Lichter’s book was eye-opening would a gross understatement. It was riveting; shocking; horrifying; and yet, at the same time, it was inspirational. In short, it was brilliant. The book is ideally broken up by country with stories of different women and how they are engaged (often risking death) in trying to reform a social structure where women are third class citizens at best. We’re talking about physical and often disfiguring abuse; routine rape (one story talks about how domestics are considered the “property” of their employers, who are free to do whatever they wish without fear from any legal recourse) and are bought and sold with no recourse (child brides still remain commonplace), and genital mutilation. To escape this oppressive and abuse system, many women flee to the West. For those who can’t, suicide is often the preferential option

Dr. Lichter profiles women engaged fighting for the right for the basic dignity that people like me mistakenly assumed that everyone enjoyed. Many defy the prohibition of educating women (other than basic religious or domestic instruction) face not just verbal abuse and physical intimidation, but also disfiguring acid attacks. Several of the interviewees have described this extreme version of Islam as the “new fascism”, whose intent to nothing short of imposing Shari’ah Law throughout the world and establishing a global Caliphate (both England and France are currently dealing with this issue. Moslem immigrants at first asked to be exempt from national laws in favor of Shari’ah Law. Now that they are sizable minorities, their “requests” have become demands).

Muslim Women Reformers, which is 402 pages, also contains an excellent resource section in the Appendix along with a glossary to help folks with some of the terms. I want to emphasis that this book is a must for anyone interested in human rights, Islam, or issues dealing with education, health and welfare, spousal abuse, as well as for anyone interested in the growing influence of Islam. This is truly a remarkable book. Thank you Dr. Lichter.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction on Arizona’s SB1070/ Where Do We Go From Here?

2010-08-07T17:41:00.003-04:00

The US Justice Department filed suit against the State of Arizona over SB1070. Now, a US district judge, Susan Bolton, has stripped several key parts of the bill while we wait on the lawsuit to begin. That should have come as no surprise to readers of AO. I’ve been telling you for weeks to expect something like this. Bolton, a Clinton appointee, issued a temporary injunction delaying a provision that would have required immigrants to carry documentation authorizing them to be in this country legally and to seek employment. Also her injunction banned the provision keeping illegal immigrants from seeking employment (aimed primarily as day workers). It also prevents police officers from making arrests of suspected illegals for crimes which could lead to the subsequent deportment without a warrant. So, I guess that helps out the criminal gangs for the time being. Thanks Susan.

The reason for this pre-emptive strike if you will is to weaken the resolve of those who want secure borders (fat chance), and secondly, to allow additional time for the much weaker opposition, those who favor open borders, to gather strength, organized, and attempt to mount a media propaganda blitz. Indeed, the day the bill went into effect, we got an opportunity to see some of the groups who favor would support illegal immigration.

I admit to being impressed by the number of illegals immigrants who openly came out to protest with little or no fear of being arrested or even detained. Back in their home countries, illegals protesting like that would have been likely arrested and sent to one of their infamous federal prisons as “guests of the State”. It serves as a reminded to let you know just how serious this Administration is about illegal immigration.

Speaking at the American University in Washington, DC on July 1, 2010, Obama made it clear that there would be no discussion on illegal immigration enforcement with including amnesty for the estimated 20 million illegal aliens now living here. Of course, once some sort of deal if reached, if there is indeed a deal at some point, you can bet that number will dramatically increase as illegals make a “run for the border” to get in on deal. So why is Obama so adamant on amnesty for the predominately (but by no means exclusively) illegal Hispanic population now living here? Perhaps it’s his magnanimous nature (after all, he is the “messiah” right). Maybe it’s life imitating history, which leads us to our next article.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Obama has often said that the person he most admires from history is Abraham Lincoln. Since Lincoln freed the slaves, perhaps Obama sees his destiny as the second “Great Emancipator” by giving citizenship to the millions of illegals now living here. A modern Moses. Wow, that sure would be an ego trip wouldn’t it? It would definitely cement his legacy in the history books. Of course it wouldn’t hurt that, according to most estimates, the majority, 53%, of Hispanics lean politically to the Left, though only 35% of citizens of Hispanic origin have actually registered as Democrats. Of those, 67% of Hispanics, voted for Obama. Nevertheless, many pollsters believe that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens would register Democrat. If that should happen, it would add approximately 70,000 more Democrats to the rolls, and that’s just the Hispanics. America’s third largest minority are Asians, whose population is quickly rising and may overtake Blacks as the second most populous group within the next 25 years, are also heavily Democratic.

According to Gallup, approximately 61% of Asians are either registered Democrat or lean Democrat. It that trend continues it would all but cinch the hold by the liberal Left on America. The Republican Party, and indeed conservatives could be all but shut out of political power on the national or even state and local levels. Even with the added support of the Tea Party Movement, it wouldn’t be enough. America would be hurled down the road to unhindered socialism. Sure, the Right could serve as the obligatory opposition voice (and may even win the periodic token victory), but our course as nation would be all but cast in stone.

But there is a potential bright spot for the Republican Party and conservative movement, but I have to warn you, it’s a lot like that medicine your mom gave you when you were a child and didn’t feel very good. It tasted like crap, but eventually you felt better (or at least you pretended you did so she’d stop forcing that nasty stuff down your throat…blaah). So, if you’re a Republican or Conservative, hold your nose and take a deep breath; here we go.

America is changing demographically and there’s nothing you can do about it. You either adapt and or you die. It happened to the dinosaurs. It happened to the Whigs, and it will happen to you. America is conservative, not as conservative as you think. Let’s take the issue of Hispanics and Asians mentioned above as an example. 61% of Asians are Democrat or Left leaning. Only 24% are registered or lean Republican/Conservative. 83% of Blacks are Democrats or lean Left. Breaking it down further, however, reveals another story.

Despite voter registration, Asians 46% of Asians are moderates, while 31% are liberal and the remaining 21% are conservative. Among Hispanics, we have a similar picture. 38% are moderates while 34% are conservative and 23% are liberal. Contrary to their registration, Blacks are only 24% liberal, with 29% calling themselves conservative and a whopping 43% moderate.

In terms of religion, Asians are the least most religious group with Blacks being the most. 54% of Asians said religion was important compared to 70% among Hispanics and 80% among Blacks (63% of Whites said religion was important). The vast majority of Hispanics, approximately 63%, belong to the more conservative Catholic Church, which obviously causes concern for the increasingly socialistic Democratic Party. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church, along with the majority of Protestant Churches (especially, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and Baptist)are declining at an alarming rate, while Americans who identify themselves as not affiliated has dramatically increased (Wicca is now the fastest growing religion in America).

So, what’s all this mean to the conservative movement in general and the Republican Party specifically? Just this, and that’s most Americans aren’t particularly fans of either party. Americans are largely independent thinking and mostly moderate, albeit slightly right leaning. Americans have no patience with racial or religious intolerance or having someone else’s beliefs crammed down our throats. We values equality, fairness, and accountability—both for government and for corporate America. Americans are ok with diversity. Social issues like gay marriage, birth control or making abortions illegal across the board aren’t going to fly with most Americans who are more interested making their mortgage payment or paying their utility bills. We are a nation of immigrants, but we want our laws and borders respected. There are thousands waiting to come to America, but they’re following the law. Why should others be allowed to jump ahead of the line? America is a melting pot. We want newcomers to adapt to our culture and language, not the other way around. We overwhelmingly believe in God, but we don’t want someone telling us what god to believe in or how we have to worship that god.

Many of the moderates who would have appealed to a huge segment of these emerging demographics have been forced from the GOP by the single issue ultra conservatives and Religious Right. If the Republican Party recreates a moderate wing reflective of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, or even George H Bush, by focusing on issues of concern to the average American like taxes, governmental and corporate accountability, it can reclaim its place as the party of the middle class and answer the challenge of the Democratic Party and rise in independents. If not, the only Republicans your grandchildren may ever see may be in a museum.

For more information regarding the statistics quoted above, please check out these sites:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125579/asian-americans-lean-left-politically.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17404/where-hispanic-americans-stand-religion-politics.aspx

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Lawsuit Against Arizona To Move Forward

2010-07-25T17:07:00.004-04:00

As lasted reported, the Obama Administration is moving forward with its ill-conceived lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new anti-immigration law. While many, if not most of the anti-immigration advocates are opposed to the lawsuit, I’m not one of them. I can almost see the puzzled look out there on many of your faces. Why would I, a long time proponent of national sovereignty, support a lawsuit to challenge a state’s anti-immigration law? Have I taken leave of my senses?

Have faith my friends. My reasoning is perfectly sound. The federal government as many of you already know does not have a comprehensive and enforceable law to prevent and enforce illegal immigration into the country. We have laws designed for that purpose, but they are either not properly enforced or they are simply not funded or are underfunded. Laws aimed at employers are all but ignored. Naturally, during election time, you’ll hear about a minor bust, but that’s about all. Here in Kentucky, we have numerous businesses which make no secret about hiring illegals and at this point, seem to have little to fear from ICE. Racetracks, farms, restaurants, and home improvement like roofing and lawn care are particularly popular industries since the employees are considered “independent contractors” and are paid in cash. Arizona’s law, which picks up these unraveled strings, ties them together in a way that does not conflict with existing federal law, and that’s the key.

You see, the US Justice Department is planning to argue that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over matters of immigration. No argument there. The federal government should set the tone on immigration policy. The trouble is, as outlined above, is that there is no overarching policy for illegal immigration. Arizona has carefully examined existing federal laws to make sure that their law did not conflict in any way with what was already in place. Secondly, the Constitution states that whatever rights not specifically assigned to the federal government are reserved by the states. Some argue that it’s actually the other way around; whatever rights not specifically assigned to the states are reserved by the federal government. This is the concept of state versus national sovereignty (this argument over state’s rights came to head during the Civil War, but that’s another article).

However, regardless of either position, what is clear is that while states can not have any laws which conflict with the federal government, a state may enact their own laws which compliment federal laws. That is, they can have the same or similar laws but stronger penalties or enforcement for example. Again, this is what Arizona’s lawmakers were careful to do. There is nothing about Arizona’s anti-immigration law other that its enforcement is more stringent that existing federal laws with emphasis on avoiding racial or ethnic profiling through additional training by law enforcement personnel.

Therefore, by moving forward with this ill-conceived lawsuit, the federal lawsuit will, albeit unwillingly, help establish a precedent by a federal court judge (assuming an unbiased and knowledgeable judge), and that will open the door for other states to follow suit. In addition, I predict this will serve as the impetus for Congress to get off its duff and finally get serious about creating a real law with real teeth aimed at stopping this invasion of America.

Apparently too, I’m not the only who feels this way. The attorney generals of 17 states have filed briefs as “friends of the court” in support of Arizona, along taking steps to create their own versions of the Arizona law. Those states are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhoda Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Numerous counties thorough out the country have also passed laws similar to Arizona’s (Prince William County in Virginia comes to mind). Interestingly, despite’s Kentucky’s problems with illegal immigration, Kentucky’s Attorney General, Jack Conway, has not stepped up to plate and joined with the other 17 attorney generals. Jack Conway (D) is currently running for US Senate to replace outgoing Senator Jim Bunning (R). If this is any indication of how Conway will vote in Washington, I personally think we need tell “Wrong Way” Conway “no way” and send Rand Paul (R) to Washington instead, but that’s just me.

You can let either candidate know how you feel about illegal immigration by contacting their respective camps. Jack Conway may be reached at: email@jackconway.org. His phone number is (502) 632-1820. You can contact Rand Paul through his website address of: http://www.randpaul2010.com/contact/. His phone number is 1-866-232-9747. I’m sure both candidates would like to know your opinion, as would I.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration

Have you ever wondered just how much illegal immigration costs you and me as taxpayers? The good citizens of Arizona have to foot a $2.7 billion dollar tax bill to pay for illegals in that state. Kentuckians pay $326 million dollars to support their illegal aliens. In a poor, mostly rural state like Kentucky, that’s a lot of money which could go to education, roads, job programs, law enforcement, state parks, and the like. Folks in Illinois pay $4.6 billion dollars while Floridians pay $5.5 billion dollars. The people of the great state of Tennessee pay $547 million dollars while the taxpayers of the Empire State pay $1.4 billion dollars. All toll, US citizens pay a whooping $84 billion dollars in taxes to offset what illegal resident don’t pay at the local and state levels. If you factor in the costs at the federal level, that number increases to $113 billion dollars. To see what it costs you in your state click here: http://www.fairus.org/images/content/pagebuilder/113529.jpg.

Book Review: A Revisit with John Coats

You may remember I reviewed John Coats’ book, Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Not only was it entertaining, but Mr. Coats’ retelling of these timeless stories with a modern and personal take was totally engaging. What follows is a Q&A with Mr. Coats which I thought you would enjoy.

Q&A with John R. Coats, author of Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis

1. What inspired you to write a book based on the book of Genesis?

I wanted to do something different, to write a commentary on Genesis that took the conversation above the tiresomeness of the “is too,” “is not” squabble over whether the Bible is history. And I wanted to speak to both sides of that debate. The method I chose, learned some forty years ago, is not the usual extraction of a religious cum doctrinal lesson from the text, but that of mining the text for the human issues at its center, asking questions such as, “How are they like me, like us?” “If I dig around in their stories, will I see my own, something I need to see, however painful or pleasant?” “Might I understand more about me, about us, about being human?” I have a hunch that the book had been writing itself for decades, waiting for me to notice. It was Phillip Lopate, my teacher during my last semester at The Bennington Writing Seminars, who suggested that I draw from my biblical-theological background. When I’d written two essays, parts of which are in the book, he encouraged me to write a book. Three and a half years later, Original Sinners was published.

2. The book of Genesis is core to the values held by many throughout the world. What kind of relationship does your book have with an audience engrained with preconceived notions about how the original stories fit into life?

An interesting relationship for sure. It’s hard, isn’t it, to take a fresh look at something familiar, to see it with “new eyes”? The more you love it or hate it, the more difficult the task of seeing around the mindset to the thing itself. But that’s exactly what I ask readers to do—not throw away their notions about Genesis, mind you, but set them aside and consider Genesis as a narrative with human characters who do this, do that, do something else, and along the way find themselves confronted by life altering situations they neither asked for nor had anything to say about. Throughout the book, my focus is on the individuals in the stories, their behavior, character, whether they mature with time and experience, or stay the same. The inherent promise in this method of biblical interpretation is the possibility of seeing in the lives of the biblical characters not only a reflection of one’s own life, but discovering some clarifying truth. To facilitate that possibility, where there were parallels—and there were plenty—I’ve interlaced stories from my own life and the lives of people I’ve known. For instance, in Cain’s story and in Jacob’s I saw, and learned more about, my own darker impulses. As I dug deeper into the feud between Noah and his oldest son, I unraveled a four-decade old knot of resentment, and in both the young Jacob and Joseph I saw my own youthful penchant of jumping from one frying pan to next.

The pushback I expected from religious conservatives never materialized, but those who’ve read it have been excited at how the characters come alive. But I’ve been surprised and baffled by the rigid fundamentalism from the unreligious. The response shows up in a sort of syllogistic insistence that puts the same stamp onto anyone who finds value in the Bible. That’s a pretty broad sweep of humanity. I have a hunch it’s a reflection of the mostly silent rage from lives damaged by religion, and very real fears, some of which I share, about the political and financial power of the religious right.

3. After reading Original Sinners, people unfamiliar or new to the stories of Genesis might acquire an opinion far from a major consensus. Could you describe an argument that might arise from an encounter between these two perspectives?

Let’s say the reader in question is a single young woman raised in a “Bible-believing” family in a mid-sized American city. Taking a new job, she moves to a large city where she acquires a new, more cosmopolitan circle of friends. Their attitude toward religion and the Bible, while it is shocking to her, does lead her to question what she’d always assumed, to open up. She likes the freedom of it—a lot. But let it all go? Why the limited choices? One day she picks up a copy of my book and is surprised to discover that there is a tradition that offers a third choice. A few days later, she arrives at an event attended by her parents and several of her most vocal friends. She makes the introductions, and as she opens her briefcase to retrieve something, one of her friends spots the book, grabs it, and says, “You’re reading about Genesis?” Her parents, fearing their daughter had gone astray, say, “You’re reading about Genesis?”

She’s in a very tough position. The rise of religious fundamentalism with its denial of science and inherent threat to free thought and expression has spawned a pro-science, anti-Bible, and very expressive counter-movement in the “New Atheists.” The players on both sides of this game have little, if any, room for those who disagree with the “correct” position.

4. Interpretations often require one to examine a subject from a distance. What are some examples of distant views coming into focus you experienced while writing this book?

Like it or not, the Bible’s DNA is embedded in the foundations of Western civilization. It has influenced the shape of our society and the lives we live. Given that, the Bible belongs, in equal part, to everyone. Original Sinners demonstrates yet another way that the religious reader can teach the Bible, and for the reader who’s marginally religious or entirely unreligious, it demonstrates a way into the material that requires no “belief” beyond the universal constants of human experience.

5. Are you ever surprised by the types of readers you find enjoying Original Sinners?

I think my primary audience is the curious reader who is interested neither in being saved by religion nor in being saved from it, who, on seeing the word “Genesis” in the book’s title, will not assume to “know”, without further inquiry, what he or she will find between its covers. I thought the book would find an audience among readers who considered themselves “searchers,” “thinkers,” people who, at most, would likely never be more than marginally involved in religion but, nevertheless, might be curious about finding a way into the biblical material that did not require them to believe this or that. And it has. Where I’ve been surprised is hearing from conservative Christians who’ve found it useful. And there’ve been a few biblical scholars who’ve liked it, and others with advanced degrees as well as readers, men and women I know from my consulting days, others, whose lack of formal education past, say, high school has not in the least hampered their curiosity.

6. We all fall into the realm of making decisions based on our own previous life experiences. Has writing this book changed the course of actions you take in your life?

Yes. It’s a story I mentioned earlier, and that I tell in detail in the book. In outline, it goes like this: Almost forty years ago, during my final semester at the seminary, for reasons I considered more than a little suspect, the dean tried to expel me, and would have had my bishop not stopped him. The outrage cooled into a knot of resentment I’d never entirely come to terms with. Then, digging into the relationship between Noah and his oldest son, I was reminded of the relationship between Samuel and Saul, and the outrage I’d always feel for Samuel when I read the story. Digging deeper, I realized it was the same outrage. There’s more to the story, but the bottom line is that the knot is gone and I’m the wiser for it.

7. What kind of research did you have to undergo for this book? What fascinated you the most?

Lots of research, more than I’d imagined, and it was all fascinating. But then, I’m one of those odd ducks who loves spending day after day digging through obscure tomes. Still it had been decades since I’d done any kind of serious biblical studies, so I had some catching up to do. I decided to focus primarily on the Jewish scholars and, one by one, discovered the likes of James Kugel, Tamara Cohn Eskanazi, Robert Alter, Richard Elliott Friedman, Ellen Frankl, Everett Fox, and others. Their scholarship is unparalleled, they are very good writers and never suggest that I believe this or that.

However, I’d have to say that what fascinated me the most was the relationship I formed with the text, itself. I once heard a young man tell of his experience with a T’ai Chi master in Beijing, how it had taken three years of showing up most every morning, whatever the weather, before the master would regard him as a serious student. The old rabbis spoke of their experience with the Torah in the same light—Prove yourself willing to return and, in time, it will begin to reveal its secrets. That may sound strange, as if the “it” I’m referring to is a living thing, yet my experience of returning day after day for more than three years revealed a Genesis I’d never known, one that is alive with subtle meanings.

8. Do you have any projects lined up for the near future?

I now have a blog in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. I’ve been asked to post at least once a week. And I’m laying the groundwork for a book, this one on Exodus. Also, I’ve been making notes for several essays I have in mind. And I have a couple of short stories and a completed novella that I’d like to go back and polish, but that’s for another time.

9. What would you like your readers to take with them after reading this book?

A new method of interpretation, not the usual non-scholar’s method of extracting a religious cum doctrinal lesson from the text, but a way of mining the text for the human issues at its core.

Author Biography

John R. Coats holds his master's degrees from Virginia Theological Seminary and Bennington College Writing Seminars. A former Episcopal priest, he was a principal speaker and seminar leader for the More To Life training program in the United States, Great Britain, and South Africa and an independent management consultant. He lives with his wife in Houston, Texas.

For more information please visit www.JohnRCoats.com and connect with him on Facebook.

Obama Sues Arizona over SB1070

2010-07-11T20:39:00.001-04:00

President Obama has ordered the Justice Department to formally file suit against Arizona. Their allegation is that the Arizona’s new tough anti-illegal law is “unconstitutional” in that matters relating to immigration fall exclusively to the federal government. In what could be dubbed as “Showdown at the OK Corral” over the issue of illegal immigration, Arizona’s Governor Brewer may want to hang out a “Welcome to Tombstone Mr. President” as his administration bumbles into a lawsuit they really don’t want any part of.

The general rule regarding federal law versus state law is that a state law can not impede or contradict existing federal law. It does not matter if the federal law is haphazardly enforced or not. At present, the federal government does not have a single coherent law regarding illegal immigration, and certainly takes an uneven approach to its enforcement with little in the way of “teeth”. As a result, illegals have little fear at being stopped. An arrest and deportation is of only minor inconvenience, and they’re often right back in this country within a few days. Employers too have little to fear from federal government which rarely investigates and even more rarely prosecutes (lack of personnel and money). Individuals seen “running for the border” are often not stopped under existing federal law, who must be stopped in the act.

Arizona’s new law, however, provides law enforcement officials with the legal authority to stop and arrest anyone thought to be here illegally provided they have justifiable probable cause. To avoid charges of discrimination, Arizona requires all law enforcement personnel to take racial sensitivity classes, with an emphasis on avoiding racial profiling. In short, Arizona lawmakers anticipated the Justice Department’s lawsuit and took every step to ensure its law would be compliant with existing federal law.

17 other states have begun to take steps to enact similar legislation as Arizona’s. Three states, Utah, South Carolina, and Oklahoma have already taken steps to stop illegal immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html). Oklahoma has, for instance, made it a felony for transport or shelter illegal immigrants, and they’ve blocked efforts by illegal immigrates to obtain driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. A bill will be introduced in 2011 to seize the property of any business that knowingly employs illegal immigrants. A good step, but I wonder if this includes religious groups who act as if they are exempt from local, state, and federal laws when it comes to illegal immigration. They often smuggle, shelter, and find housing and jobs for illegal aliens, and at the same time, instruct them in steps they can take to circumvent existing laws concerning public assistance.

Meanwhile, Obama has ratcheted up the rhetoric about providing illegal immigrates with blanket amnesty. Obama said during a speech, which received little national press coverage, at American University on July 1 that he would seek to provide the estimate 11 million illegals with “pathway for legal status” and went on to claim that our southern border have never been more secure. Under his version, illegal immigrates would have to acknowledge that they broke the law; register; pay their taxes and possibly a fine; learn English. Geez, I wonder if that would have worked for Al Capone? (“Ah, sorry about that St. Valentine Day’s thing. I’d like to pay back taxes on my rackets in cash. Anyone want a beer?”). Obama has even hinted that he may bypass Congress and issue an executive order. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Obama has become quite adapt at doing end runs around Congress. For more, I suggest checking out: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23187&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1.

Book Review

There’s an old joke that if you remember the sixties, you probably weren’t there. That’s the basic premise behind Bernard von Bothmer’s new book, “Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush”, at least, if you’re a Republican. The sixties, as the author correctly points out, was really two eras. The first, “the good sixties”, was from the late 1950’s to the Kennedy assassination in 1963. In fact, up until Kennedy’s murder, America was still basking in the afterglow of the Eisenhower Years, with a few exceptions such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the literal brink of nuclear war (Soviet Premier Khrushchev ordered the Russian Navy to stand down due to, in large part according to Khrushchev, Kennedy’s “lack of experience”), Sputnik, the Berlin Wall, and America’s first tentative steps into Vietnam.

Von Bothmer goes to describe “the bad sixties” as 1964 to 1974 as a time of America’s quagmire in Southeast Asia, student protests, the SLA, Black Panthers, the Gray Panthers, the SDA, set-ins, campus takeovers, Chicago Police Riots during the Democratic Conventions, the murders of Dr. King and RFK, the War on Poverty, moon landings, and finally, America’s military defeat in Vietnam and Watergate. In between we had the Civil Rights, Women’s, and Gay movements. We had NOW, rock’n’roll, love-ins, the Summer of Love, Hell’s Angels, the Green Movement, drugs, and sex galore. It was an era of pushing the limits…any limits.

The book, all 232 pages of it, was interesting; though provocative may be the more operative word since von Bothmer contends there is a subtle battle raging between the Left and Right as to who will ultimately “own” the legacy of the 1960’s. According to the author, it was the Right who broke the 1960’s into essentially the “good” and “bad” years, with the obviously the Republican afterglow of Eisenhower representing the best part and the Democratic led latter years as representational of all that was bad about the era (of course, Watergate serves as a explanation point for the Democrats while Vietnam underscores the decade for the Republicans).

It has often been said that the victors write the history. Personally, I don’t believe the history of the sixties has yet to be written. The sixties was as much about conservative blue collar white kids and poor blacks marching off to a unpopular war as it was for the sons of the rich being deferred or the burning of draft cards, bras, and communes. The book makes a great effort at trying to make some sense of an incredible era in today’s political light, though it is clear that the author lays much of the blame at misrepresenting the icons of the 1960’s at the feet of the Republicans. There was much that good about the 1960’s, and much that was bad. I don’t think either side is any more right or wrong as the other. It was also a time when people believe we could do better as a society, and they tried. Oh, and by the way, I was there.

Poll Results

Our last poll asked if you thought the federal government should sue Arizona. 37% of you said they should while 63% of you did not. Actually, I think it’s a good idea. Have I lost my mind you wonder? No; at least I don’t think so. The reason is because I see this blunder by the DOJ as something of a “friendly” lawsuit. The lawsuit will show the true intent of Arizona’s law was to protect its citizens. Secondly, that it was designed to be compliant with federal law (such as it is). Third, a decision in favor of Arizona will spur on other states to enact similar legislation. And fourthly and perhaps most importantly, a defeat of the DOJ may, just may mind you, prompt Obama and Congress to do something about illegal immigration instead of sit there on Capitol Hill like a bunch of bobble heads.

Illegal Immigration: The US Government to Sue Arizona over SR1070

2010-06-27T13:27:00.004-04:00

Recently Mexico’s ambassador to the United States asked the Obama Administration to take steps to inviolate Arizona’s new tough anti-illegal immigration law, SR1070. Seriously. To put it another way, a representative of a foreign country has asked our federal government to overrule a law which was lawfully enacted by a sovereign state in order to permit its citizens to continue engage in illegal activity in another country. Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon addressed Congress in May, and ripped Arizona’s anti-illegal immigrant law (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/20/mexicos-calderon-takes-case-congress/). As a result, Obama, who has never liked Arizona’s law, has ordered the Justice Department to begin taking steps to bring a lawsuit against Arizona.

The announcement, interestingly, didn’t come from Attorney General Eric Holder, but rather from an interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with an Ecuadorian newspaper. It is expected that the Justice Department’s lawsuit will allege that Arizona overstepped its jurisdiction by enacting legislation restricting illegal immigration, which also imposes some rather stiff penalties on anyone employing illegal residents. Central to their argument will be that only the US State Department, at the direction of the US Government, has legal jurisdiction in establishing immigration policy.

Frankly, I’m looking forward to seeing this lawsuit go forward since the Justice Department will be on some rather soft legal ground. The US Government reserves the right to establish national immigration policy. Ok, that’s a given. However, states have the right to enact supplemental or supporting legislation (something akin to an addendum) to federal legislation, so long as it does not conflict with federal legislation. In this case, the federal government has, at best, an ad hoc policy when it comes to illegal immigration. Both Republican as well as Democrat administrations, dating back to Clinton and George W Bush, have been woefully lagging behind public opinion (which has been hovering around 70% for a couple of decades now) to enact a comprehensive and enforceable national policy ending illegal immigration (remember “the wall”? It remains unbuilt due mainly to a lack of funding).

Arizona’s law, however, is in compliance with existing US law (such as it is). The law, which was closely reviewed before passage just in case the feds attempted this sort of thing, is totally in compliance. In fact, the law simply adds an extra set of teeth to existing federal law and more importantly, provides the tools for enforcement; something US law lacks. As a result, I expect the Justice Department will not only loss this battle, but it will set the stage for other states to follow suit along Arizona’s lines. It may also embarrass Washington lawmakers enough to finally get off their collective duffs and do something. Hopefully, any comprehensive federal legislation will address those not just the “hard” criminals engaged in smuggling, but also the “soft” criminals such as individuals who knowingly employ illegals (housecleaners and gardeners come to mind), along businesses as well as those who aid or harbor illegals, including private charities or religious institutions. The new law would hopefully do away with the outmoded idea of “natural citizen” which would prevent children born in the US by women here illegally from becoming automatic US citizens. The new law should include steps for illegals now living here to become US citizens, including learning English, civic classes, and four years of mandatory military or public service.

In a related matter, did you know that the US Government has effectively ceded three Arizona counties to Mexico? No kidding (http://www.personalliberty.com/liberty/ceding-arizona-to-mexico/). One of the topic discussed with Mexico’s Felipe Calderon concerned the escalating drug and human trafficking problem; a problem which Mexico has all but lost. The Obama Administration has ordered the posting of signs along three counties in Southern Arizona ordering US citizens to stay out because of illegal activity. American citizens are told not venture in; camp near; or interact with anyone in the area. If they see anything, there are to get out of there immediately and call 911. Since when did the US Government decided to surrender American soil to anyone for any reason?

Drug lords in Mexico control entire states. Is it happening here? A Pinal County Deputy Sheriff was shot in May of this year by alleged drug smugglers in what was described as an “ambush”. Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu recently said in an interview that his police department, as well as the local government, have been threaten with assassination, including that of their families, by the drug lords if they should take any steps to interfere with their illegal activities. Is that next for the US? Do we need anymore reasons for an effective (and enforceable) national policy pertaining to illegal immigration? Check out ABC.15.com’s article at: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/other/mexican-drug-cartels-now-control-parts-of-arizona for more. I also recommend you take a look at this blog site as well: http://borderviolenceanalysis.typepad.com/mexicos_drug_war/2010/06/pinal-county-sheriff-mexican-drug-cartels-now-control-parts-of-arizona.html.

As if this couldn’t get any weirder, California has begun to take steps to boycott all goods to and from Arizona because of its recent law (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/). Mexico has a filed a brief as “friend of the court” asking that the Arizona’s SR1070 be overturned (and in doing so, joins the ACLU). Given its own financial crisis, I don’t see how California can justify cutting off its nose despite its two faces. So, let’s take a look at California’s illegal immigration problem for a moment.

According to the Orange County Almanac, there were 2,209,000 illegal residents living in California as of 2000. That’s 32% of all illegal aliens living in the United States (there were an estimated 7 million in the US as of 2000. That number is closer to 12 million now). Of that, 185,000 were living in Orange County. (http://www.ocalmanac.com/Immigration/im04a.htm)

Illegal immigration costs California taxpayers approximately $10.5 billion annually. $7.7 billion dollars of this go to educating the children of illegal residents. This doesn’t include the costs associated with providing special texts books, bilingual tutors, etc. $1.4. billion dollars each years goes to providing essentially “free” healthcare to illegals living in California. Another $1.4 billion dollars is spent each year for the upkeep of illegals serving time in prisons throughout California (most for drugs or violent crimes). Once again, this doesn’t include the costs of guards and associated costs (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm and http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec).

While I can only guess that the real reason for California move toward a boycott of Arizona is that misery loves company, here’s the real irony to the story. Should California actually move forward with a boycott, Arizona could request the intervention of the Justice Department due to violations of interstate commerce laws. I can just imagine the look on Attorney General Eric Holder’s face as he informs President Obama that the US Government has to come to the aid of Arizona.

Book Review

Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis
By John R. Coats

I just recently finished reading Original Sinners, a 213 page book written by John Coats. As a lifelong student of theology, the Bible can be confusing and often contradictory. Many people complain about being able to relate to the characters, removed from us by thousands of miles and thousands of years. Empires come and go. Cultures rise, evolve, and fade. But the one thing that hasn’t changed that much, and remains pretty much the same regardless of time or place is human nature. In that, we are pretty much the same. What motivated Eve, Jacob, Rebecca, or Joseph pretty much motivates us today. The other thing many people have difficulty with is the language. The Bible is very difficult to accurately translate. The words often don’t have the same meaning to us as they did for their original audience thousands of years ago.

The beauty of this book is that Mr. Coats does a masterful job of “humanizing” the characters, from Adam to Joseph (did you know, for instance, that “adam” was actually a Hebraic word for “human being” and not a person’s name? Just as Adam was, well, an “adam”, so was Eve!). At the same time, the author takes the core of the story, such as Noah and Flood, and places it in a modern context by relating his personal experiences, and in doing so, offers the reader to do the same thing. Once you understand what the biblical author was trying to say, and thanks to Mr. Coats, place it into our world, the story comes alive and becomes more relevant. I strongly recommend you check out this book.

Illegal Immigration and Mexico's Felipe Calderon; More on Obamacare

2010-06-13T20:49:00.005-04:00

This is an article a friend of mine sent me (knowing of my interest in illegal immigration). To be honest, I don’t know how accurate the overall article is. However, I do know that the general context of immigration law, both in Mexico and here in States, as outlined in the article, are correct.

MEXICO IS ANGRY!

Three cheers for Arizona

The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico do not like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.

The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona’s new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.

The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales, ”There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona” she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Wrong!

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their
own needs. Too bad those other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona.

Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps,
no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag,
no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or
his policies. These will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All
assets will be taken from you.

Sound too strict?

The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

They sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America’s Immigration Laws?

Before moving on to our next article, I have to pass this link on you. It comes from Americans for Legal Immigration (http://www.alipac.us). The link is to a transcript between CNN’s Room’s Wolf Blitzer, host of The Situation Room, and Mexico’s Felipe Calderon. The transcript is amazing, first for President Calderon’s audacity at demanding that our southern borders be open to allow the free flow of workers---legal and illegal, and secondly, his response to Wolf Blitzer’s questions regarding illegal immigrant’s into Mexico. In light of the above article, this is a must read. I’ll be looking forward to your comments! Here’s the link to the transcript:

http://www.alipac.us/article5279.html

Think the fight over “Obamacare” is over? Well, it isn’t. In fact, it’s far from over. Here’s an article which sent to me by the All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care---HR 676 and the Nurses Professional Organization here in Louisville, Kentucky. The article is written from a decidedly Democrat point of view, but the general sentiments regarding socialized medicine are generally the same as the conservative Right. It’s presented here to give you, the reader, another perspective on the argument against Obamacare.

Health Care Bill Does Not Fix Health Care SystemBy Peter Shapiro

Passage of President Obama's health care reform in late March made for
great political theater. Here was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, skillfully
maneuvering the bill through Congress after many had given it up for lost.
Here was House minority leader and Republican point man John Boehner,
reduced to ranting about 'Armageddon' and predicting the end of
civilization as we know it if the bill passed. Here were Republican
legislators egging on the mob of teabaggers who massed outside the
Capitol, hurling racist and homophobic slurs at Representatives John Lewis and Barney Frank as they went inside.

I'll admit the scene worked on my emotions. The Republicans' tactics were
ugly and cynical and I was happy to see them fail.

Now that the dust has settled, however, a hard look at the legislation
that prompted all the fuss suggests that, far from 'fixing our broken
health care system,' it merely reproduces some of its worst features.

The bill does nothing to lessen the grip of the private insurance industry
on our health care system. It won't bring exploding health care costs
under control. It does little to change the shameful disparities in access
to treatment in a society that treats medical care as a commodity to be
bought and sold, rather than as something all of us need and deserve.

What it will do is require everybody to buy health insurance, with federal
subsidies for those who can't afford the premiums on their own. The price
tag of these subsidies is $447 billion over the next ten years. That's
money that could have gone to pay directly for medical treatment but which
will, instead, wind up in the pockets of the insurance industry - one more
corporate bailout at taxpayers' expense.

To help pay for it, public hospitals that treat the uninsured will have
their federal funding slashed by $36 billion. Eight years down the road,
union health plans and other job-based health insurance will be slapped
with a 40% 'excise tax.' Protests from organized labor succeeded in
getting this tax modified somewhat, but not eliminated from the bill.

The bill does expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal health care
program for the poor. And it is supposed to make it harder for insurance
companies to deny legitimate claims or refuse to cover 'high-risk'
patients. Insurance industry lobbyists, who actually helped draft the
bill, swallowed these reforms in part because they'll get 30 million new customers out of the deal, and in part because over the years the industry has proved adept
at evading every government attempt at regulation.

Physicians for a National Health Program, which has led the fight for a
single payer system comparable to what other developed countries have,
likens the bill to morphine for a cancer patient. It lessens the pain for
a while, but it doesn't stop the cancer from spreading. Health care in the
U.S. costs twice as much as in most other countries, mainly because the
administrative costs of maintaining a private insurance system soak up
nearly one in every three dollars we spend on it. And a big chunk of that
money goes to buy politicians. The health care industry spent a record
$266.8 million last year making sure nothing got into the bill that would
seriously threaten its profits.

I've heard some interesting arguments over whether we're better or worse
off with this law on the books, but it's really beside the point. The
battle for universal, equal access to care still lies ahead, and it won't
be won until those of us who are victimized by the health care system have
more political clout than those who profit from it.

The law's shortcomings will provide ample organizing opportunities in the
fight for true reform. Here are a few:

1. Medicaid. It's financed with matching state and federal funds, and
while the federal government may have the money to pay for expanded
eligibility, most states don't. Oregon, where I live, already has a very
liberal program of health care for the poor, but the state is so strapped
for cash that it actually has to hold a lottery to determine which
eligible people get benefits. And because an underfunded Medicaid program compensates doctors so poorly, many doctors are already reluctant to take Medicaid patients. The new law promises to make it easier for poor people to get care; we
should be prepared to hold politicians' feet to the flames if it doesn't
happen.

2. Rate hikes. Since everyone will now be required to buy insurance or
pay a fine, insurers are likely to take advantage of their captive market
by jacking premiums up even more. There should be organized, angry
protests every time it happens.

3. Underinsurance. Before the law passed, a woman with 'pre-existing'
breast cancer was apt to be refused coverage. Now she can't be denied
coverage - but she may find that her new policy won't pay for the extra
round of chemotherapy or surgery she needs. Nothing in the law spells out
what benefits must be offered for insurance plans to qualify for the
government-run 'health insurance exchanges' that will be set up in 2014.
The requirement that everybody buy insurance will mean a proliferation of
cut-rate policies that are of no use when you most need them. When
policies like that go on the market, we should read the fine print and
expose them for what they are.

4. Inadequate regulation. Supporters of the new law boast that it outlaws
'rescissions,' the practice of cancelling a policy as soon as a
policyholder files a claim. But rescissions were already illegal! State
regulators simply didn't enforce the law. We need to keep a close eye on
them and demand that they do their job.

5. Employer mandates. "If you like the coverage you have, you can keep
it," says Obama. But it's really your boss's decision, not yours. The
penalties for employers who cancel their coverage are too small to
discourage them from cancelling or cutting back on increasingly costly
employee benefits. Unions can expect continued brutal fights over health
insurance at contract time. Whenever it happens, they shouldn't hesitate
to point out that health benefits shouldn't even be on the bargaining
table - the government should be picking up the tab for everybody,
regardless of where they work or how much they make. Only by advocating
for health care for all can unions win public sympathy when their own
coverage is under attack.

6. Penalizing the uninsured. A lot of people who can't afford to buy
coverage, even with federal subsidies, will get stuck with stiff fines for
remaining uninsured. They need to become organized and visible and demand
relief.

7. Discrimination. Denying coverage to immigrants is a particularly ugly
and pointless feature of the new law. Preventing sick people from going to
the doctor doesn't 'secure our borders' or discourage people from coming
here, as anti-immigrant propagandists claim. It just means more needless
and untreated illness and more pressure on overburdened hospital emergency
rooms. Full access to health care is a key component in the battle for
immigrant rights.

8. Federal deficits. As costs keep rising, subsidizing insurance premiums
will inevitably add to an already huge federal deficit. There will be
intense pressure to cut necessary social programs, including Medicare, to
pay for it. In defending those programs, we should be prepared to raise
the issue of single payer - pointing out that a universal
government-funded health care system would save the taxpayers billions and
make those cuts unnecessary.

It's common for politicians like President Obama to say they support
single payer 'on principle' but don't consider it 'realistic.' The truth
is that it's the only realistic solution. Nothing else will solve our
health care crisis. We have to keep the heat on until we get it.

Peter Shapiro is a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers
(NALC) Branch 82 in Portland, Oregon. He also co-chairs the Health Care
Committee of Portland Jobs with Justice.
This article was originally distributed by FightBack News Service at
fightbacknews.org

Poll Results

Our last poll was about the Tea Party Movement. We asked how influential the Tea Party would be in this November’s General Election. 20% of you thought it would very influential. Another 20% thought it would key, but only in close elections. But a whooping 60% said it would actually have a negative impact.

Recent elections show that the Tea Party has an impact on elections, but thus far, it seems only in the Republican primaries. Its influential has not been essential to a candidate’s victory, but it certainly has had a serious impact. The question is how will Indies and conservative Democrats vote? Will they join with the conservative in the Republican Party, and with disenchanted independents to support Tea Party backed candidates, or will the Tea Party be seen as being too conservative? Most Americans, after all, do not live at the political extreme of either party. Americans, as a whole, tend to be in the middle; some slightly to the Left and others slightly to the Right. One this for sure thought is that this fall’s elections will prove to be a critical litmus test for the Tea Party and its ability not just to sustain the movement, but to grow it.

NOTE: We were unable to add a new poll to this edition of AO due to problems with our site host, Blogger.com.

Rand Paul: The GOP’s Cup of Tea (Party)?

2010-05-30T13:56:00.006-04:00

Election night here in Kentucky was earthshaking for one main reason: Rand Paul won the Republican nomination of US Senate. Paul lead every poll almost from the start against Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, and in the end, it was Rand Paul over Trey Grayson by 59% to 35%. That’s as sound of a thumping as it gets. But what made this so earthshaking was what happened, and what did not happen.

First, no one can say that Trey isn’t a great guy. He is. Trey has worked hard as our SoS. He made a lot of improvements in the office. But, Trey is known as a being part of the Republican establishment. GOP powerbroker, Senator Mitch McConnell was his chief supporter. As for Rand Paul, he was an unknown. All that anyone really knew about him was that, aside from being an eye surgeon was that he was the son of Congressman Ron Paul (who is very popular in Kentucky because of his libertarian ideas). Rand Paul’s victory was due to his ability to able to latch on the growing anti-intrusive government sentiment here in Kentucky. People, mostly conservatives of all stripes, are sick and tired of being sick and tired of empty promises from Frankfort and Washington. Part of it was the large Tea Party movement here, which keeps growing. Part of it was the increasing numbers of independents, as well as frustrated Republicans.

Grayson’s campaign was the first to go negative. I don’t know who’s idea that was, but it was a huge mistake. Grayson’s camp tried to paint Paul as a fringe candidate with kooky ideas. It took the usual approach popular in today’s campaigns of taking comments out of context and using distorted or grayed images to create an “ugly” or unappealing image of the opposing candidate. Unfortunately, for Trey, the tactic backfired. First, voters have been complaining for sometime about how tired they were of negative campaigns. Exit polling in this case seemed to bear that out with voters saying they were turned off by Grayson’s attempts to “mislead” voters. Some commented that candidates should focus on themselves and what they intend to do if elected rather than smearing their opponent. This turned out to be a classic example of a campaign being out of touch with the voters and relying on outdated tools to get their message out.

The second factor which hurt Grayson’s efforts may have been Senator McConnell’s open endorsement. McConnell has long been the puppet master in GOP politics. However, many Republicans have been getting tired of the senior senator’s stranglehold on the party. Many see McConnell as part of the problem. The moderates (and yes, there are moderate Republicans here in Kentucky) see McConnell as a barrier to getting things done. They are tired of the partisan “politics as usual”. They are looking for someone with fresh ideas and who is willing to work with Democrats and Independents to bring real change to America. The conservative, especially with far Right variety, see the senator as failing to protect our national interests on such issues as illegal immigration, a national language, energy independence, tax reform, bail outs of automakers and banks (over the objections of the American people I should add). Tea partiers and Indies, who are part of Paul’s base, also don’t have a high opinion of McConnell.

In short, I think Trey Grayson’s loss may signify the first major crack in McConnell’s machine. Personally, I think Trey shouldn’t have run. I think his best chance for higher office was, and remains, the Governor’s Mansion, but only if he’s willing to step up and become, like his former opponent, the “non-establishment” candidate. People want solutions regardless of party label or ideology. The candidate of the future who can best articulate that will win. Politically, Americans live in the middle. Neither party is there. The party which makes the political center its home will dominate all others.

As for the Rand Paul, his most challenging opponent this fall may not be Jack Conway, but his own mouth. During a recent appearance on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show”, Paul said that he thought the federal government had no role ensuring private businesses did not discriminate on the basis of race. Page One Kentucky, a news and political website, reported that Paul made a similar comment regarding the Fair Housing Act in 2002 to a local newspaper, say, “a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination---even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based in the color of their skin”. Paul has since clarified his comments and said he does not favor repealing the Civil Rights Act. Paul said, “Let me be clear. I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws”. He added that “I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964”.

Paul went on to say, “The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans. This much is clear: The federal government has far outreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent (Democrat Jack Conway) supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it. These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

That’s a good response, but come on, Rand you’re running for the US Senate, you know the media is watching everything you do and say. You can’t be making comments like that and expect to win. You have to be taking the fight to your opponent, not spinning your past remarks.

On the issue of Social Security, Paul has said that he favors raises the eligibility age to 70. The reason is to keep the Social Security solvent, especially in light of the pending mass retirement of baby boomers over the 10 to 20 years. That’s 78 million people (Boomers are those born between 1946 and 1964). Remember too that when it was originally established, the average life expediency of a male was only 55 years of age. Therefore, to qualify for Social Security, you had to live 10 years beyond that to age 65. To bring the same idea current, you would need to raise the retirement age seven additional years to 72. But, despite the aging Boomers, surveys indicate that most have no intention of retiring. Approximately 76% say they intend to keep on working, at least part time. It should also be pointed out that most Boomers are well educated, more financially diverse, and healthier than any generation before. As a result, while there will huge number of individuals hitting that 65 mark, many will keep on trucking.

Recently, I got the opportunity to review two outstanding books, “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” by Rebecca Shambaugh, and “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” by Geoffrey Wawro. Both books are excellent. I hope you will check them out.

“Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” by Rebecca Shambaugh

Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is one of the most fascinating and influential women in America, if not the world, today. Secretary of State and former Senator, Hillary Clinton was been on the public stage for decades; first as the wife of then little known Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, then as America’s First Lady. She served admirably in that role popularized by Jackie Kennedy, but Hillary’s drive and resilience didn’t stop there. She jumped head long in numerous national issues, such as education, child care, and most notably, healthcare, where she took the rarified role of leading the charge on behalf of President Clinton.

So, who is Hillary Rodham Clinton really? How did she become the women we know today, and is there anyway we learn from her what it takes to be a leader in our modern, often cynical age? The answer is yes. Author Rebecca Shambaugh has written an engrossing book about Clinton entitled, “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton”.

Now, I’ll be honest with you. Hillary Clinton is not one of my favorite people, at least from a political perspective. But, I’ve got to admit that I admire her courage of convection, knowledge, and fortitude. All of these traits and more are wonderfully detailed in Ms. Shambaugh’s book. Each chapter introduces the reader to a specific topic (such as Chapter 2 “Overcoming and Thriving on Adversity: Be Resilient” or Chapter 7 “Making Your Words Count: Awesome Communication”) and then Ms. Shambaugh guides the reader through specific steps (called “Secrets”) on how to take the lessons outlined in the chapter and make them work for you.

The 196 page book is ideally written for anyone, regardless of gender or political leanings, who wants to learn how to improve their ability to cope under pressure, whether in the classroom, boardroom, home, or in the public arena! “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” is a “must read” for anyone interested in leadership at every level.

Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” by Geoffrey Wawro

Few topics grab my attention more than the Middle East. Civilization began there, along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, and some claim it may end there. The world’s economy is fueled by the oil produced by just a handful of countries, and yet, rather than being a stable region because of global dependence on oil, it is the world’s most volatile. The Middle East, the vortex of civilization, has in many ways become a black hole; dragging the nations ever closer to its center, and like a black hole, threatening to rip the world apart. Few nations have been able to long escape its grasp. So, how did America, and indeed, the rest of world’s industrial nations, become ensnared the shifting sands of the Middle Eastern politics?

Few books have so expertly been able to answer that question better than Geoffrey Wawro’s “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East”. Mr. Wawro, who is a Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas, as well as director the Military History Center at UNT, has been able to unravel the Byzantine world of Middle Eastern politics, woven into the cultures and religion of the people for generations, and give the reader a clear and comprehensive history.

For example, Dr. Wawo describes the blunders of the British Empire in closing years of World War I resulting from the vacuum of the collapsing Ottoman Empire and imperialist myopia which left Britain in control of areas such as the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Palestine, while the French, seeking to maintain its shrinking empire, gained control of Syria. As a result, Arab nationalist aligned themselves with Nazi Germany (and Nazi Germany’s policy of anti-Semitism didn’t hurt either). The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was often a guest in Berlin, and Arabs were invited to join in a SS division comprised solely of Moslem Arabs (that veneration of all things Nazi, not unexpectedly, still continues in some Arab nations to this day).

Dr. Wawo goes on to explain how the increasing Jewish presence in the region, especially in Palestine, thanks in large part to the backroom dealings of President Truman, as well as British and French incompetence, as well as a growing powerful Jewish lobby lead to the establishment of Israel, against a backdrop of the Cold War, religious hatred, and economics. Many a Prime Minister and President has sought to get a grip on the Middle East, only to find events as fluid as the shifting sands.

I can’t recommend this book highly enough. Anyone who wants to understand how and why were engaged in two wars in the region; why we’re drilling oil wells offshore; why we’re investing billions in alternative energy sources; why we’re under threat from terrorists; or why we’re paying nearly $3.00 for a gallon of gas needs to read this book. The threat is not just to America, but the world is real. If knowledge is power, then Geoffrey Wawro’s 551 page “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” is an excellent tool to have one’s arsenal.

Poll Results

We last asked if you thought we needed a comprehensive national policy dealing with illegal immigration. 16% of you said no, we were fine the way we are. Another 16% of you said yes, but only as part of a overall immigration policy. Yet another 16% thought we should let each state handle its own problems with illegal immigration. However, the majority of you thought that we needed a coherent national policy. Frankly, I agree. Illegal immigration shouldn’t be handled in a patchwork fashion, state by state. We need a single, comprehensive, and enforceable policy. However, in absence of a national policy (like now), I believe states have not just the right, but the obligation to take action to protect their citizenry, which is what Arizona has done. This is a situation where both parties have (again) failed the American People.

Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law: Vigilante Legislation?

2010-05-05T16:33:00.004-04:00

I’m sure everyone is by now familiar with Arizona’s recent decision to impose what is the strongest piece of legislation against illegal immigration in the US. But was Arizona’s new anti-illegal law really necessary? Does it go too far? Not far enough? And why would a state in America’s southwest, apparently enact legislation that should be the responsibility of the federal government? There has been tens of thousands of protestors, as well as supporters taking to the streets (though the media has focused primarily on the former while either ignoring or downplaying the latter). President Obama initially seemed to take a greater offense at the audacity of Arizona’s Republican Governor, Janet Brewer signing the bill than the bill itself. Opponents, including the Obama Administration, have vowed to challenge the bill at every step, including a ballot measure this November to have it rescinded. So, what led up to this firestorm?

Arizona has long been known a state for the rugged individual, perhaps characterized best by the Old West (it most popular Western mythos being Tombstone and the “Showdown at the OK Corral”). In more recent years, towns like Tucson, Phoenix, Sun City, and Flagstaff have grown from tourist stops to retirement destinations, though tourist remains a key component of the state’s budget. Its landscape is nothing short of majestic. Ever watch a Western? Chances are you saw Arizona’s magnificent Monument Valley, and who has never heard of that really big ditch known as the Grand Canyon? Industry too has flocked to Arizona over the years. But despite what should be the brightest spot in the Sunbelt, illegal immigration has acted like a dark cloud.

Because of its economic growth, Arizona seems to have been targeted by some of Mexico’s most violent druglords and gangs. Arizona is now considered the “de facto” gateway of illegal drugs into America. In 2009 alone, federal agents seized 1.2 million pounds of pot. That’s 1.5 tons per day! And that’s just pot. According to an April 27, 2010 Newsmax.com article, until recently, federal prosecutors weren’t even bothering to prosecute anyone busted with less than 500 pounds of marijuana. Federal authorities have been simply been overwhelmed with drug dealers peddling the seriously dangerous stuff such as cocaine, heroin, crack, and other vile substances.

Of course, moving drugs takes “soldiers”, and none are better than the violent gangs who’ve moved and in from Mexico. They’ve recruited well, mainly from illegal aliens and poorer sections of cities. Their presence has grown large and in some cases, they’re better equipped in firepower than local law enforcement. There are whole sections of some Arizona communities where law enforcement won’t venture without mounting a near military style invasion. As a result, many of these gangs have become incredibly more brazen to the point that Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Individuals, most often with no connection to drugs or crimes, are simply snatched off the street or out their homes and held for ransom (the average ransom price is around $15,000). In 2008, there were an estimated 370 kidnappings in Phoenix (I say “estimated” because many kidnappings are not reported). Enter large scale illegal immigration.

Over the past 10 years, Arizona has become not just the gateway of druglords, but of illegal aliens looking to cross the border. What was a trickle has now become a flood. Many come to for a better life as most every immigrant has for centuries. Some come here to take advantage of America’s generous taxpayer based public assistance programs (including use of the “natural born” loophole). Many come here on their own. Others are assisted by well meaning citizens, existing family, churches (especially the Catholic Church), and naturally, the criminal element. They are often provided with “safe houses” and given assistance in finding jobs, permanent shelter, and ways to both avoid detection and make use of various government programs. Most have no interest or intent on changing their status from illegal to legal. They’re here for the work, not to become US citizens. A few, such as those who work on farms, return home after the season is over, however, most remain.

In Arizona alone, there are 460,000 illegal immigrants. That’s larger than some US cities like St. Louis or New Orleans. Over the past three years, the Border Patrol has made 990,000 arrests. That’s almost 900 per day! Arizona has taken several steps to help discourage illegal from entering the state. In 2004, residents voted in favor of legislation banning some welfare benefits to illegals. In 2006, another law was passed denying additional taxpayer based benefits and making English the official state language. In 2007, then Governor Janet Napolitino signed into law the toughest employment legislation in America pertaining to the hiring of illegal immigrants. And, of course, all the while, Arizona has been front and center in lobbying efforts to “build the wall” along the border, as well as to increase federal funding for additional border security. Much of this has been for naught.

Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to illegal immigration, Washington, both under Bush and now Obama, has lacked the will to create and implement a coherent and enforceable policy. It was out of this frustration which Arizona has faced for decades which prompted Arizona in create and impose its own immigration policy.

The illegal immigration legislation (SP 1070) signed by Governor Janet Brewer was sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa. The bill makes it a state crime for immigrants not to carry authorization papers, requires the police “when practicable” to check the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally and allows people to sue cities and counties if the law is not being enforced. Critics claim there are too many possibilities of “abuse” and words like “Nazi” and police state” have been invoked by opponents. But the fact is that even legal immigrants are required to carry proof of residency. Police must have “probable cause” to stop and question a suspect. They can’t simply stop someone because they’re Hispanic looking. Local Hispanic businesses complain that the new law will hurt business. How? They can’t continue to hire and sell to illegal immigrants, which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

Some of the language of the bill has already been modified in order to be more specific, which hopefully will make it easier for law enforcement to enforce and prosecutors to prosecute. Meanwhile, opponents want to see the law completed removed from the books; essentially opening up the border to more of the same, which Arizona can’t afford and the citizens won’t tolerate.

So, what’s the answer? Arizonians are sick and tired of being sick and tired of Washington’s failure. They have had enough of the violence and crime. In the absence of leadership, people will take action on their own, and that’s something I don’t think anyone wants to see happen. Therefore, Governor Brewer has stepped up to the plate. Will the law stand? I think it will. In the absence of a federal policy, a state has the right to enact legislation it deems most appropriate so long as no existing federal laws are violated. However, I think the real intent of the legislation was to embarrass Washington into getting off its collective duff and finally do something.

Washington needs to look at ways to strengthen the economies of Latin America, not just focus on its “War on Drugs”, which even the most ardent supported has to admit is nothing more than holding action at best, and to stabilized national governments. Washington’s role must not be to dictate to, but partner as equals with these governments. It’s also time to take another look at the “War of Drugs”. Perhaps too it’s time pot should finally be decriminalized. But these are long term goals and may be part of a comprehensive overall immigration policy. In the short, I expect other border states to take similar steps unless something is done. So, was this a piece of “vigilante” legislation as opponents allege? Obviously the answer is no. It was born out of decades of frustration. We can only hope Washington finally gets the message.

Poll Results

We asked in our last poll is the US should ever use retaliate with nukes. The poll was prompted by President Obama’s recently START agreement with the Russians. Since then, the US has officially divulged the total number of nuclear arsenal---once a state secret. We have just over 5000 for the record.

Meanwhile, we wanted to know what you thought. 23% of you said only in response to an attack of mass destruction (WMD). Another 23% of you said only if someone has or is trying to nuke us first. The rest of you said the America had the right to respond with nukes in the event of any attack (including chemical or biological). I quite agree. America, or any other nation for that matter, has the right and moral obligation to defend its citizens “by any means necessary” (thank you Malcolm X for the quote). I don’t believe we should ever take any options off the table. It only emboldens our enemies and weakens the resolve of our friends.