The American Scratchpad

On the Road for Rick Perry: Final Day of the First Chapter, pts 1 & 2 - The Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2012-01-06T08:56:00.000-08:00

“This election is not about me, this election’s about our children, it’s about our grandchildren . And they’re waiting, they’re waiting for us to answer if we’re going to participate, if we’re going to call. This is your country, and your country is calling.”- Gov Rick Perry

This is the tagline to a viral ad released by the campaign on Tuesday, with an implication to the way Perry works the crowds to which he speaks, and the captivating speeches he delivers. The best part: He means them, and has the record to prove his moving words. That's why we're here.
When America is on its knees, he will bring us to our feet.

The morning of Tuesday, January 3rd was the moment for which I'd had been waiting for two months, since I decided to take my passion and dedication to the fields of Iowa. That morning, as I rolled out of bed early I knew sources had indicated Governor Perry was going to give us a “surprise” visit at speaker-training, so I had an extra bounce in my step. I hoped to get a chance to meet him!

As I arrived, the media began forming against the rear wall of the hall like ants at a picnic. The media loves Rick Perry events, and no it’s not because they await a mistake – Gov. Rick Perry is compelling in front of a crowd and captivating on-screen. For as much abuse as he’s received in the media over two or three tiny moments of humanity, the media loves to be around when he speaks because there’s always something to talk about. Substance; emotion; unwavering principle; usually a veteran or two.

The Governor made his entry at about 9:15 am to a room filled to over capacity (approximately 400), sliding down the right side of the room, stopping to shake the hands of every person he could physically reach, and after a brief introduction and with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot flanking him on his right and left, Perry gave an incredibly moving speech. He compared our energy to the anticipation before Omaha beach, and was actually moved to tears while addressing the crowd because of its overwhelming size and the level of dedication we had all shown.

Politics is filled with a lot of good talkers, great salesmen, clever lawyers and shrewd (if not antithetical) businessmen. However, to this author, one who reads people for a living, I know you need only look in the eyes and watch the body language to know whether a person is genuine. Gov. Rick Perry is about as genuine a man as I’ve met. Slightly shorter than he appears on-screen, more charismatic than you’d think, more emotional than you’d expect and more articulate in a crowd than he’s ever given credit for, this man is inspiring, sharp and motivating. His reminder about the importance of the day (first leg of a long marathon), what we represent (limited government and a moral society), and who we are there for (our children) moved many to tears before he made his way down the center aisle and spent a good 10 minutes reaching every hand to the left and right that he didn’t get before.

As I observed with his wife Anita two days before, he looks you straight in the eye and for a brief moment, you’re all that matters. His expression is not the same every time, and he asks you questions. This was my first time shaking his hand and I managed to get a small snapshot of it (see video attached), but the moment was short lived for me as my friend and co-patriot Bettina Viviano moved upon our favorite Governor with a bear hug and wailing “thank you” and “we love you” into his ear. Poor Rick probably had to rub his ear after that one (I could hear it 10 feet away in a loud, crowded room full of clapping!), but it was a precious moment captured on video and featured in an ad released by his campaign only 6 hours later!

As you can see in the video attached, the clapping was both constant and ear piercing. The crowd was excited, and unified in their vision to bring America back to it's simple roots of Conservative values. The crowd stood twice during his speech, but remained on their feet for the entire 10 minute exit at the end. Just when people feel the most discouraged, a leader arises to lift them to their feet; there's no exaggeration in how this man moves an audience.

After Perry left for afternoon stumping in downtown Des Moines, me and Paulette Miniter paired with Yomi Faparusi to take to the streets with our one last push to get caucus-goers to find a home in Perry’s camp. Earlier that morning, Riley broke my heart by begging me to take him with me. “Daddy, I want to go with you. Please?! I miss you, so that means you have to take me with you!” So, after my fabulous motivational rally that morning, I headed over with Paulette to pick up Riley at the hotel, then to meet Yomi for our afternoon outreach.

Once again, the contacts we made were genuine and more enjoyable than the traditional phone bank tactic; I have found this is my niche, not just because of my familiarity with the method but because I so enjoy the conversations and locality of political discussion with people who care. The voters we descended upon were only previous caucus voters, so they were more engaged than the traditional passersby.

Riley had a blast walking the condos we were assigned. Comprised mostly of 50-60 yr old voters, these homes were very close together and made for easy block walking. Paulette and Yomi took the first few houses, and Riley watched them from the car asking questions, “what are they doing?” or “Why are they talking to that lady?” and “I want to go with them, let’s go daddy, lets GO!”

So after three or four homes, I hopped out with Paulette and we proceeded to talk with a very nice older lady who found Riley adorable as he jumped into her leaves and attacked the mounds of tree fodder that filled the corners of her gangway. She assured me “he’s ok, I don’t mind. I don’t like the leaves anyway.” As I tried asking her serious questions and probed her for the real political concerns she had, Riley kept jumping up and down and yelling “hi-ya! I’m crushing the leaves!” Not exactly the perfect environment for a conversation, but after a few homes it seemed to have a charming effect on the people we visited, and at one home a voter even expressed that she was impressed we were so dedicated to even come out with a child in tow for someone we believed in. Riley, for the record was having a blast carrying literature and killing more leaves. Most of all, it felt good that on a day I was going to be investing at least 12-13 hours working for the campaign, I could spend it with my boy.

The moment came to take Paulette and Yomi back to the hotel, and Paulette had a long trip ahead (and hour and a half) to get to her precinct assignment. I stuck behind to finish up the previous day’s report and take care of some personal business. Riley and I split a plate of $15 Sheraton Hotel nachos and a diet coke before heading out to our own precinct. The energy was high, but the anticipation was reserved.

As the sun was setting in the west, I was out the door headed east, with Little Punk in tow to Des Moines Precinct 83 to represent the man I have chosen to fight with, and fight for. The night was actually growing brighter, not dimmer as I anxiously drove to my destination. We all knew we had a tough, uphill fight ahead of us, but this was the night we had been building this organization for and it was finally SHOW TIME.

(My account of the day was continued in a second piece posting later that day)

________________________________________________________

"I wanna tell you, there has been no greater joy in my life than to be able to share with the people of Iowa and of this country that there is a model to take this country forward and it is in the great state of Texas.”- Governor Rick Perry

Part Do... or Die
In mid-December, a Progressive voter-awareness group named 'Iowans Fueled With Pride' released a Voters’ Guide before Caucus week. As a lobbying group funded by the ethanol industry, their primary focus was, reaching every one of the tens of thousands of ranchers and corn-growers across Iowa with their message: Perry hates ethanol mandates. Conservative, limited-government Conservatives have developed one vice in the last ten years – ethanol. Especially, in Iowa, the largest corn-producing state in the nation.

Rick Perry's primary Conservative challenger has quickly become Rick Santorum, who consistently was five to ten points behind Perry in the polls until more recently. Shortly after the 'Voters’ Guide' was released, the tide began to shift - significantly. Inside the guide, voters found a list of various fuel standards, fuel mandates and various federal subsidies listed and who supports them. Each policy showed a graph where the current President, Barack Obama marked yes on piece of legislation. The remaining list below showed each GOP candidate in the race and where they stand. With a few exceptions of Bachmann or Paul, every other candidate found themselves in the almost sardonic position of the same “yes” column as Obama. Rick Perry was the ONLY candidate consistently outside that column and against all government meddling in faulty fuel alternatives. This issue turned an otherwise Perry-friendly rural countryside into solid Santorum-land, considering Rick “I’ll defend my earmarks” Santorum has always been very subsidy-friendly, and fits well into the conflicted Conservatism Iowa has long been known for.

Riley and I arrived at our caucus and immediately I went into campaign mode, handing out literature and working the room, introducing myself to voters as they entered the Weeks School auditorium, and pettin' puppies and kissin' babies. I had a few really good conversations and a few really short ones. My most engaging was with a Michelle Bachmann supporter that felt more like an orphan without a home and wanted answers to very serious questions; a Democrat – stretching a too-small Ron Paul R*LOVE*ution t-shirt across his truck-driver frame began arguing with me while talking with the woman. At the first claim of Constitutionality, I hit him with the earmarks abuse that Paul is so well-known for. He said “Ron Paul never votes for them!” to which I replied, “But he inserts them in there, knowing they’ll pass – what’s the difference?” His reply showed the utter ignorance and/or foolishness of these cross-over voters that infiltrated our caucuses that night: “Well, he has to look out for his people, so that’s why he makes sure they’re in there.” Which is it?!

There was another group of younger people that had just re-registered Republican and were carrying Ron Paul signs (and surprisingly one had a Rick Santorum sticker), and sat in the front waiting for their chance to sway the GOP polls.

First, Gingrich’s representative read off her talking points sheet in a Sean Hannity crescendo. She finished in 2:39 and sat down in awkward silence.

Next, Ron Paul’s surrogate stood to read off of her talking points as well, apparently struggling to read her own handwriting. It was substantive material, but shockingly unfamiliar to her. The best moment of the Paul presentation was when she went off script and spoke about the troops and purpose of war.

Then it was my turn to make a splash. I had prepared myself with my notes and learned what I was asked to cover by the Perry campaign. Between my seat in the third row and my position in the front of the room, I decided to go my own route: I shot from the hip and spoke about leadership. It went over remarkably well, and I even got a golf-clap from the angry Paul supporter in the skin tight “LOVE” shirt when I spoke about the out of control government we allow to have a place in our lives. There was a tense moment when the one-speaker-per-candidate rule was overruled by tshirt guy, and I was challenged to back up Rick Perry's record in a quasi-debate, but for the most part the night went very well and I know my message was well received.

My precinct was in the city, and our results were as follows:
22% Gingrich 22% Paul 19% Perry 19% Santorum11% Bachmann7% Romney0% Huntsman
Needless to say, Perry had a much harder time in the farming counties than we had hoped, where ethanol is the local Friday Night Light drug of choice. As Riley and I arrived at the watch party, results began pouring in. Perry’s numbers stood at a hard-nosed and deflating ten percent like a stubborn mule until the night was over. No fanfare, no confetti; even the extensive h’orderves tasted less palatable as it was becoming quickly apparent that our candidate would not crack the top three, let alone win the Caucus.

In all honesty, winning it all – while certainly the goal of any self-respecting team – was not expected; a top three finish would have been a HUGE upset by the Perry campaign. There were many factors: ethanol interests working feverishly to get out the vote for conglomerates to protect their lifelines to federal politicking; the Family Leader organization holding its endorsement of Santorum until the last possible second; the Obama campaign flooding Iowa newspapers and magazines with ads the week leading up to the Caucus, coupled with grassroots emails encouraging Democrats to temporarily re-register as Republicans – they specifically named Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul as the alternates; Ron Paul’s campaign specifically directed volunteers to recruit independents and Democrats to support Paul. Perry had an uphill battle and he waged a good one.

When it came time for his interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News at 9pm, he was optimistic and steady. We all watched from a few feet away as he spoke with conviction, telling her “I’m not going to change who I am to get a few more votes.” As he left the room for some back-room business, I was able to get a picture with the Governor and thank him for inspiring my own Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker to do the right thing no matter what. He said, “He’s a good man, your welcome, son. Keep up the good fight!” With this he moved on down the line and made his way upstairs.

Between the somber watch party and the distraction of the cocktail bar, the 400+ supporters in the Sheraton were just a little unsure what was next. We knew the Governor was still around, and we knew he would speak at some point, but we spent most of the next two hours discussing what happened, why it happened, and what we could do about South Carolina.

I had Riley with me this entire time, and he was getting quite tired and rambunctious so I decided to take him to our hotel and come back. Right as I got back, after 11pm, I received a text from a campaign worker that Perry was back and I needed to get moving into the ballroom. As I entered, the mood was in contrast to the previous several hours; hundreds of people were smiling, gathering by the stage and the media was anxiously getting their cameras ready in front and back. Then the Governor came out onto the stage with his family.

His wife Anita, son Griffin, daughter-in-law Meredith and daughter Sydney surrounded him on the stage in casual clothes and smiles on their faces as Perry thanked his supporters for their efforts that day. He detailed his bus trip, the conversations he’d had, the 38 states that volunteers came from to invest into the Iowa Caucuses, and he read a letter he received from a young man who came from Kansas and lost a transmission along the way. The enthusiastic supporter detailed how he borrowed $2,000 to get it fixed and make it in time to work the door to door campaign. Then the Governor talked about the young veteran who had been present most of the weekend, having been injured in the line of duty in Iraq. Whenever Perry speaks about vets, he gets very emotional; it’s a Texan thing. It is real, no doubt about it.

As his speech wound down and the crowd began to remember the stressful day and disappointing opposition we had all faced that day in a crowded GOP field, he began to explain his heartfelt appreciation for us, and desire to return to Texas to rest before reengaging his campaign in South Carolina. "With the voters' decision tonight in Iowa, I've decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight's caucus, determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race."

The gut bomb those words gave each of us took the breath out of everyone, and for just a second you could wave your hand in front of anyone’s face and probably not get a wink. Was he really quitting? His plan was for every state! Did his words just reflect the frustration of a man who’s NEVER lost a single election he’s ever run in? He still has plenty of money to move forward!

As he began to leave the stage, he was sure to reach out to each of the supporters there to help him that weekend. He gave many hugs, many handshakes, a few tears – missing this time were the high-fives and thumbs-up he’s so well-known for. I had to speak with him once more. I squeezed and waited, then realigned my position in the line and then found an opening to the left. An older woman standing there with tears in her eyes, shaking her head was not appearing ready to move in on the governor so I seized the moment and politely asked her “excuse me”, and moved in front of her to the crowd line. As Governor Perry came closer to me, I knew exactly what he was feeling, but figured he could use a reminder of what kind of man we knew him to be. I remembered his often re-quoted “Bring it on! Live free or die! Victory or death!” line, and knew this was simply a man humbled by a machine working against him, because it knew he was the only one capable of changing that machine into something we, the people could actually control again.

The security detail grew stiffer and began asking people to stop asking for autographs and pictures. I moved to the very end of the line before the doorway and as the Governor came up to me, he reached out, grabbed my hand and looked me in the eye. I pulled him in toward me and said, “Ronald Reagan never quit; you sure as hell better not.” And he said, “okay son,” and turned to leave the room.

I don’t know if what I said made a hill-of-beans difference, and I know the Governor spent the night talking with his organization in South Carolina and onsite in Iowa about his “path forward.” What I do know is that an hour later, his son Griffin said “He’s not quitting, absolutely not.” By 10:14 the next morning, the Governor (who controls his own Twitter account and does not have a staffer do it for him) tweeted a picture of him on his morning run and said, “The next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State… here we come, South Carolina!!!”

Facebook and Twitter exploded within minutes and all of Rick Perry’s nationwide family of support unified behind him once again. The only question likely dogging the Governor was the money to move forward in actual primary states where massive amounts of money are needed to make an impression and "Perry" forward. In fine form, every-day people rose to the occasion. The donation referral link I’ve been assigned at RickPerry.org receives notice of one or two donations per week; within 24 hours after his encouraging tweet, I had received notification of 15 new donors. This is a Governor who has no quit in him, and his supporters reflect the leader they follow. We’re not quitting either. South Carolina is calling, and we’re answering it.

“Do not gloat over me, my enemy. Though I have fallen, I will rise.”

See you again. Soon...

Day Three for Rick Perry - The Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2012-01-03T08:54:00.000-08:00

"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm ... As you grow older you will discover that you have two hands. One for helping yourself, the other for helping others."- Audrey Hepburn

I set out on this journey to help someone I believe can help Americans help themselves, and make it exciting to be an American citizen again - truly knowing what that means. Monday, January 2, and day three of my trip started early with me joining a Facebook friend and recent arrival from Tennessee: Yomi Faparusi, a doctor and lawyer, originally from Nigeria, and fiercely dedicated to Governor Perry’s campaign. We were tasked immediately to deliver caucus kits for leaders in seven precincts; Yomi's Sequoia lumbered down the freeway as i navigated with an iPad, travelling over 300 miles through the farmlands of Iowa for an experience like none other for a city boy like myself. Several of our stops were accessible only by dirt roads. I loved it.

In keeping with past experiences, two people apologized for not inviting us in to sit down, all were extremely gracious, and three more people today thanked us for coming to them

Our long travel day took us to Gowrie, IA, where we came to see a wonderful 78 yr old woman – when she heard we were with Governor Perry’s campaign she screeched “He’s my man”. Her husband, mayor of Gowrie, had a much less enthusiastic response – he left the room permanently when we entered never coming back! He apparently was a Santorum supporter, according to his wife. “I thought Perry forgot about me!” she said. And I replied, “That’s why I’m here! We would never forget you. We need you”. She is caucusing for Perry and wearing her Perry shirt proudly.
One man, with three caucus goers in the home, loved Perry but was leaning Mitt because he hadn’t watched a debate since October. He took our materials and said he would likely caucus with Perry.

The biggest encouragement working with people is pointing out to them that we are the only campaign that has motivated enough people from around the country to actually be able to stop by their home. It works!

On the way back to HQ for the evening, we were able to stop in Perry, IA, where the Governor was capping his 44 stop bus tour before landing in Des Moines. As Yomi and I approached the amazing Hotel Patee, the buzz could be felt from a block away. The venue isn’t that large, but was packed with hundreds of supporters carrying signs, stickers and wearing Perry for President attire. Once inside, the homage to railroad life and dark wood floors warmed the environment and made a crowd that was actually quite large feel quaint and intimate. Around the corner was a small banquet room where Governors Jindal, Brownback and Perry had just finished rallying the crowd and people were still walking with a pep in their step.

The energy at Perry’s events has been infectious and the high profile endorsements – from Gov. Bobby Jindal to Steven Forbes and Sen. James Inhofe – have lent a strength and durability to the Gov. Perry’s campaign which will carry him long into this primary race. I was able to speak briefly with Gov. Jindal and at more length with Gov. Brownback, since I have a personal connection to him through one of his past colleagues. I was able to have a picture taken with each.

We finished our evening back at HQ, where we stocked up with 75 signs and participated in the late-night sign blitz! Teams of Strike Force volunteers fanned out across the metro area with 2,000 signs and placed them by as many local precincts as possible; Iowans woke up in the morning to find many local caucus locations like schools and community centers surrounded by Perry signs. Riley came along on the trip, since he was well-rested and prepared with a good two hour afternoon nap. He had an absolute blast helping us push those metal wire signs into freezing cold ground. I couldn’t keep him in the warm car, so I snapped lots of pictures and made a few memories along the way. Riley was very proud of his work, and kept saying “I’m a sign worker guy, I’m a GOOD sign worker guy!”

The long day ended around midnight as I dropped off the last volunteer at their hotel. During a brief conversation (while both puffed three cigarettes each) with Ted Royer, Perry’s speechwriter and David, his primary researcher, we felt affirmed that our efforts were having a direct effect on their internal numbers. Crawling into bed, I was excited for the day coming ahead, and I knew we had physically done as much as we could do. One of the hallmarks of this Iowa ground game has been the actual ground covered and recovered by tireless volunteers.

Five volunteer centers, two larger coordinating HQ's and 2,000 volunteer and staff workers are motivated, energized and looking forward to beginning the restoration of a sound, balanced and effective American government. I’m so proud to be a part of giving my son this opportunity to have the same life I did, because win or lose in Iowa, we're putting out energies into something that matters.

That’s what we’re here for! Onto bed…

Almost Gone With the Wind - Day Two - Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2012-01-02T08:53:00.000-08:00

“Blow, Boreas, foe to human kind! Blow, blustering, freezing, piercing wind! Blow, that thy force I may rehearse, While all my thoughts congeal to verse!” – John Bancks, Chief Justice of England, 1644

Today was field day; scores of volunteers headed into the fierce teeth of a conflicted Iowan December. 58 degree days gave way to wind chills in the low twenties within 12 hours, forcing hundreds of Texans scurrying for hotel lobbies like armadillos on a freeway.

The rest of us who came from midwest states Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, North Dakota... we just smiled and marched on.

Our assignment today was to reach out to the community going door to door, and what better day to do so than on a day of bombing temperatures and 35-40 mph winds with gusts up to 50? I didn’t bring Riley out with me today, but left him with Maria to go to the mall and Toys R’ Us, playgrounds and everything between. He had a blast, but poor Maria was worn out by the end of the day. She’s been a big help on this trip, and I’m grateful for her help allowing me to go about our business, and following me around as we dart from room to room plugging every hole and pulling together every thread we can in this patchwork of grassroots support.

The scene at Perry HQ was enthusiastic and determined. There is a comprehensive, coordinated plan for every aspect of the campaign. Perry’s staff is in one accord and excited about their prospects in Iowa and beyond, and they wear their excitement on their sleeve.

Door to door contact is what I do for a living, so this was nothing unfamilar, but still a unique experience. I absolutely LOVED the opportunity to meet people face to face, and let me tell you, the registered Caucus-goers we visited were happy as well. Three people actually thanked us for stopping by, instead of calling. Phone banks are a staple of every campaign for the last 80 years, a necessary evil if you will, but our method was something no other candidates have attempted this year; Perry alone has the large masses of volunteers hitting doors all over the state. Hundreds of them.

Two nerve centers, Sioux City, IA and Des Moines have their hundreds of canvassers heading out daily, armed with facts, passion and energy bars. And the response has been remarkably strong. Since my career in sales development makes this "old-shoe" territory for me, I took pleasure in asking voters what their biggest concerns were and getting them to tell us exactly what they needed to hear from Perry. Out of four voters we spoke to, all attending their local caucus on Tuesday, two undecided folks changed their minds right there, previously leaning toward another candidate because of misunderstanding or not knowing particular policies or records about Governor Perry. So, NET GAIN: Team Perry.

In one of the best moments of the day, Riley and I were back at HQ in the evening, walking through the atrium when Texas First Lady Anita Perry came walking by. She noticed Riley almost right away and scooped down to tell him how adorable he was. He smiled and - as usual - hammed it up a bit. But... come picture time, Riley balked, maybe from all the immediate attention (or possibly the effect from standing next to one of the most beautiful women in America) and he began to step away; the picture snapped, making it a little blurry, but it’s a keeper! She spoke with us for a few minutes and left an indelible impression. Mrs. Perry looks you straight in the eye when you’re talking with her, no hesitation or distraction in her eyes.

It is an amazing trait to be the kind of person that has so much exposure and responsibility and still have that genuineness that makes you feel like you matter. This isn’t merely good politics, this is a reality that only some people have, and i imagine most people need. The Perry family has it. It translates into effective leadership, which nurtures into a political machine, well-oiled enough to take out President Obama next November.

The evening finished with a social mixer at the Sharaton Hotel, where media and campaign staff spent time thanking the workers from the weekend and talking about Tuesday plans for Caucus. Governor Rick Perry is the only candidate who has motivated 2,000+ volunteers to come from 38 states to make a difference; the next candidate to face President Obama in 2012 must have the ability to move the masses and excite the base.

Fortunately, come hell or high water – or 50 mph winds – this is a candidate who is capable to changing the tide and has enough financial and human support to take your vision for America and turn it into political momentum in Washington, D.C.

Rick Perry is far from being gone with the wind, he's only just beginning to speak up.

A New Year - Day One - The Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2012-01-01T08:50:00.000-08:00

It's the first day of a new year and our trip.

360 miles, five potty stops and two emergency pull-offs to the side of the road later, we arrived in Clive, Iowa outside Des Moines, and it’s been an entertaining ride, to say the least. Immediately, I was invited to a New Years’ Eve bash at the Marriott hotel in West Des Moines. Ringing in the New Year with supporters just as hopeful as me – there’s only a thing or two that would make for a better start to 2012.

Des Moines has to be one of the most unique places on earth at Caucus-time. Everywhere you go, out-of-state plates, rental cars and devotees in unbuttoned shirts and loosened ties litter the shops and restaurants while minivans full of stickers representing different candidates come and go from the hotel entrance with car-fulls of people. In contrast, you can tell who the locals are by the glaze in their eyes from overexposure and the fatigue of these political olympics.

Riley and Maria, who came along to nanny, drove with me to the New Year’s Eve bash hosted by Texans for Perry, the Governor’s campaign organization for the last 11 years. Within five minutes of starting to settle in a fantastic country/rock cover band began to move the more stoic folks out of their corners like a cattle prod as the dance floor filled with Texas-Two-Step and other wannabe-variations by people never built to dance. The author is one of the latter group, so he found a way to become official photographer for two tables; a master at diversion and disguise!

Out of 300 people in the room, Riley took not so much as 15 minutes to become the show-stopper with his own camera. I couldn’t believe my eyes as the volunteers placed a hat on his head and began handing him their own cameras to take their pictures for them. Then, others began taking pictures of Riley taking pictures which was even more entertaining. I had a local hedge-fund managing fundraiser come ask me “he eventually comes out of his shell, right?” Nothing beats being the guest of a kid like this at an event.

This morning, the campaign takes a break. Most of us are attending church and resting before firing up again at 2pm. The staff will have volunteers participate in a day-opening prayer meeting and time for preparation. Training for new volunteers begins at 2 pm. I asked several people about the activity, and they said the daily training meetings have seen anywhere between 30-150, arriving for their credentials and instructions. Today’s registration is expecting hundreds more; The Governor’s volunteer base has swelled to over 1,500 and is expected to top 2,000 by Tuesday.

The enthusiasm appears even higher than I thought, and I don’t believe it’s merely Texan pride or southern hospitality making up the difference. Many have been trudging on, like me for months, and dozens have been here on the ground for weeks. Joe Hyde, host of the site http://rickperryreport.com/ has been following the Perry campaign bus for the last two weeks and has confirmed what CBS only yesterday began to confirm: Perry’s campaign stops are frequently double capacity and are by far the loudest of any candidate; CBS’ Rebecca Kaplan implied she couldn’t find a single attendee that said they were not committed or leaning toward Perry after hearing him speak.

As a surrogate speaker, I've been told I may be assigned a Des Moines precinct. If not here, then I’ll have an opportunity with Regional Coordinator Mike Thom in the Quad Cities. I should know my precinct by Monday evening. Iowa Caucus goers come from their respective neighborhoods to establishments like schools, churches and libraries where they will listen to others like me deliver short talking points about each candidate, then afterward come and ask questions to learn more about our candidates without media convolution.

The voters attending make their decision that night of whom they support and go home. I predict the evening will be full of the themes of values, federal control and burdensome regulation. The impetus to remove President Obama from office next year must be focused on restoring a faith in America like Reagan once did, and reforming the road to bankruptcy from our centralized, over-spending ways that will lead to severe taxation or institutional default to remedy. This election is about simple principles, not a Candidate’s view on 130 different policies. Governor Perry believes that most of these policies should not even be the discretion of a cabal in Washington to begin with, so it allows us to refocus the Federal Government on things it was meant to do and do well – national defense, equality of interstate commerce, management of our world trade affairs, protection of our borders and guidance of interstate infrastructure needs.

I hope and pray this New Year of 2012 will ring in a new paradigm of how we view our Government in the words of two Presidents that reveal the A and Z of the Progressive disease:
“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. Taxation follows that [latter choice], and in its train [is] wretchedness and oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1816
“So… ask not what your Country can do for you – ask what you can do for your Country.” – JFK, 1961

I am a pragmatic idealist, I admit it. But I do not believe that my idealism is unrealistic, it is principled and dedicated toward moving toward the right goal. The times are very serious and require particular expediency, but whether you think a man like Gov Perry can accomplish this or not in his time as President must yield to the optimism of restoring our nation, one elected official at a time.

I finish with another quote from 1961: “All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Happy New Year everyone!

Three Days Till Caucus-Time - The Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2011-12-28T08:47:00.000-08:00

Tick, tock, tick, tock...
As I’ve been preparing for our journey to Iowa this weekend for the GOP Caucuses, I’ve found that my motivation and creativity has already landed in Iowa, making the focus on my business here a bit more difficult than usual, the week after Christmas. But, I must keep progressing as I take a few days away from my own business, leaving it in the hands of my trusted management team.

The Christmas wrapping is not even cleaned up yet, the race tracks are still littering the bottom of the tree and the half-eaten candy canes are still strewn across the living room. Riley played Pirate and steam engine builder all week (yes, I bought and built with him, a REAL steam engine) while I prepared myself for the weekend in Des Moines. The next few days will see - no exaggeration - thousands of alien politicos from around North America descend upon the corn fields for a piece of the pie as Presidential candidates give one last appeal to win Iowans’ vote on Tuesday, January 3rd. This is the non-stop, fast-paced crop circle I’ve chosen to jump into, and I couldn’t be more excited.

Other Parental Patriots from around the country are bringing their little buggers too, so I’m not the only one. However, I think I’m one of the few single parents crazy enough to try. Riley will be bringing a fresh Christmas load of presents to keep busy, but I fully intend on bringing him to events as much as possible. He’s at this stage now in his four and a half years of life where he listens to what people say then sounds out entire phrases with a question mark at the end. “Rick Perry is a cool guy?” he says. Yes, I expect him to have a significantly developed vocabulary by next Wednesday when we return home. “Caucus”, “ethanol”, “bailout”, “Texas” and “Constitution” are on the pre-school spelling list already. I’ll be sure Riley engages his Dora the Explorer Phonics iPad app all weekend so he’s prepared for this experience.

The only part of the trip I’m not looking forward to is the six hour drive through Chicago and the monotony of flat, government-mandated farm fields with a four-year-old that will be asking to stop at every gas station he sees. But I will be travelling with my cousin who is playing nanny for the week, and another political activist friend of mine; surely it will take the edge off.

The last three weeks have been a fascinating study in Primary politics, media news cycles and polling. When I last wrote here, Gingrich was surging on his ability to speak alone, and Cain was falling apart under the inability to discuss Libya without a water bottle. Governor Rick Perry has since gained steadily two to three percentage points per week as he tours the state to standing-room only crowds that, if nothing else, are interested to hear him speak their language on local and national issues with such confidence, even if they are still unsure of their support for him come next Tuesday. “Retail Politics” is what this is called, and no one does it better than Governor Perry. He now stands in third place in most local polls, and is second among GOP voters.The Texas Governor has been a public servant in various capacities over the last 25 years: State Legislator, Agricultural Commissioner, Lt. Governor and now 11 years as Governor, and has never lost an election. He has raised more money on the campaign trail in his years in Texas than any statewide public figure in American politics. As he often says, “This ain’t our first rodeo,” and in his last debate in Iowa stated gleefully, “I am starting to really like these debates, and would be there early to debate Obama” [should he get the nomination].

Any objective observer would have to acknowledge that Perry’s steady return from underdog to real contender while staying on message and improving every facet of his campaign is respectable, if confounding and surprising – but surprising only to those who don’t know this Governor. He's inspiring and determined, and he knows every day issues as well or better than anyone running.
Once I leave Saturday afternoon, I will continue to report from the field and look forward to sharing our travels with you. If there’s any random requests you have back home, let me know. Ronald Reagan figurines in Dixon, IL or famous Cream Puffs from Davenport, I’ll try to bring back what I can. I plan on bringing back a glowing smile of victory to Caledonia by next Wednesday!

America needs leadership and experience, and the support to make the case for the Governor. My son and I are merely a sample of the 2,000+ activists making their way to Iowa for Perry alone, from Bettina in California and Randy in New York, to Chrissy in Florida and us in Wisconsin. This is the kind of energy that wins elections, and the sort of believable enthusiasm America needs. It’s been 30 years since we’ve felt this way.

Soon, you will too.

Welcome to My 1/4 acre - The Adventures of Mr. Ed and Little Punk

2011-12-07T08:43:00.000-08:00

Hello, my name is Ed.

OK, that’s how I start off every conversation in my sales career, and it feels just tad tripe.
How do I introduce myself? I’ve only recently joined the Patch community here, as a local blogger. And I’ve been spotty at best with active involvement in politics over the last several years, but I’ve always enjoyed writing about it. I’ve been tearing up Facebook with my rants, raves and misgivings for years now. So, a few of you know me because of my online passion already. But to a larger audience – the Community I live in – I want to have a part in adding to the character, the substance and maybe even the entertainment of the people that make up this virtual tax shelter I call home.

I moved to Caledonia in May of 2008, primarily because my family needed a larger home, but equally as important, the direction of the County I was in. I wanted lower taxes, more space, and a friendly community. Milwaukee County, despite the best attempts of its County Executive was simply headed in the wrong direction, so my wife and I moved to a wonderful ¼ acre lot in southern Caledonia, or as I affectionately refer to as, “So-Cal”. It’s my ¼ acre in “Cali,” and you can’t take that dream away from me.

The last three and a half years have brought me many joys (a new company that grows in a recession), various pains (an unwanted divorce) and new friends. I have the great privilege of raising my four-year-old son full-time. Having been raised as an only child by a single mother myself, I have a distinct, first-hand knowledge of the challenges and joys of living the life I have accepted.

From the time he was born, I’ve always given my son Riley the affectionate name, “Little Punk.” So for anyone potentially offended by this, understand it’s a term of endearment, not a reckless, burping, name-calling, and chauvinist bachelor showing a lack of tact. Little Punk and I enjoy riding his Power Wheel Jeep at Cliffside; late nights driving to Pick n Save because I forgot to buy milk, and playing ball at Crawford Park. We even got to enjoy some CRICKET with Indian men who stopped by this last summer. So far, it has already been an unforgettable experience living here, as I’m sure it has been for you.

Every March for the last five years, I’ve attended Spring Training in Phoenix, AZ to watch the Brewers play baseball in the sun. Learning the names of future major leaguers, meeting promising and current stars on the team and enjoying the AZ desert have been great traditions for me and now I get to share them with my son. This year will be his fourth Spring Training; yes, he’s only four… (I couldn’t even find an appropriate onesie for the little guy when we took him for the first time, so I just had him wear a Brewers bib every day.) We already have our tickets for this next March. Wanna come?

My childhood was a blessed one, being raised by a single mother who ran a bookstore, homeschooled me and raised me entirely on her own – Only God knows how… Superwoman? She led me through the high school years, getting her GED in the process, and teaching me most of all how to love experiencing new things, and HOW to actually learn. I graduated top of my class… har, har… went to college, the first in my family to earn a degree. My mom deserves the credit for being two parents in one for me. Blessed even more was the life I lived because she took me travelling to places all over the United States, and it taught me so much about the nation I love and the people that make it great.

I still remember, vividly, going to Washington, D.C. when I was five. Never mind the fire I started I the hotel sink with matches and plastic cups, it was an amazing experience, even at five. We travelled to Florida; journeyed over the mountains to California when I was seven; hoofed down to Texas for a business convention – where I rode a horse for the first time, experienced puppy love with a girl named April and swam in jeans in a Texas-shaped pool at a “Dude-Ranch” – experienced a Christian mission trip to Honduras when I was 9... I saw many parts of the world, and even though I was young, I still remember them like yesterday. I intend on giving my son the same incredible memories as long as I am able.

In the last year I’ve made no secret of my political interests, and having previous experience in various local, state and national elections I finally decided to pour myself this year into one particular candidate I used to despise in my ignorance and now admire with every fiber of my being. As of last month, I have been given the opportunity to travel to Iowa 26 days from now to help my candidate on his road to the White House. My son and I will be travelling to Iowa to help educate caucus goers, distribute signs and literature, make phone calls, meet residents and just have a good time in an old-fashioned political way, for my candidate: Gov. Rick Perry – America’s most experienced and successful public Executive.

Whether you agree with the politics I share with him or not, my goal for you in this Road Series is to be entertained by the adventures, educated by the details and engaged by the human experience of a single dad taking his only son on the trip of a lifetime, even if Riley doesn’t entirely understand what is going on. Yet.

I hope you enjoy reading the series as much as I will enjoy writing it. I invite lively debate, and hope it makes my community feel a part of this significant, Middle-American tradition: the Iowa Caucuses!

I’d be even more enjoyable for me if I could caravan a bunch of you all with me on this road trip to Des Moines late this month! Of course, only if you were voting for the same guy.
Just jokin’…

Rave: A Record That's Proven: Perry

2011-12-06T11:03:00.000-08:00

Earlier this year, during their sit-ins and demonstrations, Wisconsin teachers compared their state’s (supposed) #2 ranking in ACT/SAT test scores directly to Texas (at #47). Their reason for comparing to Texas was that Wisconsin teachers are unionized while teacher unions are illegal in Texas. This direct comparison was intended to show the benefit of unionized teachers in educating our children.

However, those rankings were found to be: 1) obsolete, using 12-year-old data, and 2) used questionable methodology. The ranking was debunked by PolitiFact and the claim has since been removed from the union’s website, in other words, they stretched the facts to fit their agenda.

One facet that makes a Texas comparison to many other states is the racial makeup of the student population. Minority students – regardless of state – tend to score lower than white students on standardized tests, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be. Regardless of the reasons, the gap does exist, and it’s mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) to a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

But let’s ignore that mismatch and compare them anyway – broken down by racial groups. We’ll compare some 2009 standardized test scores (the latest available) for 4th and 8th grade students in the areas of math, reading, and science. A pilot program for 12thgraders is being tested, but national comparisons are not yet possible for that grade. The data supporting the following rankings are found at the Nation’s Report Card website (link below the rankings).

2009 4th Grade Math
White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math
White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading
White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading
White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science
White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science
White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: White students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade.

Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohorts in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8. That bears repeating: Texas fourth and eighth graders outperformed the national average scores in all categories.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin.

In other words, students perform better in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools – especially minority students.

Source: http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

Rave: A Record That Counts: Perry

2011-12-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

I have been researching Rick Perry for two years. I was tentative at first. Then late last year I finally began to realize this was the man for the job in D.C.

Since February I've been talking about him on my wall and social circles, and since April I've been actively pushing for his candidacy as U.S. President.

Upon the eve of his announcement and within 24 hours of his spokesman Mark Milner revealing his intentions to run, I have been barraged on threads, my wall, email and elsewhere on his lack of Conservative credentials. I will address each one effectively, absolutely, and with good conscience. At least begin to...

The first erroneous claim is that he blew up the state budget as Governor from $44 billion to $95 billion, and has created a debt per capita ratio higher than California.

First, one must understand that historically, Texas hasn't bestowed much control in the Governor's hands. That has changed slowly over time, and is now becoming more significant in the last few years. But until Perry came into office, very little could be done by the Governor to rein in spending unless he has a super majority in the legislature.

That being said, he presided over incredible population growth, a HUGE influx of poor (estimated 2-3 million illegal immigrants) and ballooning union-driven costs like pension, education and health care.
But... TWICE he lowered the year over year budget expenditures. THREE TIMES he managed to lower taxes by moving the collections to different columns of revenue sources. And finally, his reforms in the legal system have created the most business friendly state in the nation.

Let's focus first in this post on the claim he "blew up the budget... what would he do in D.C.?!"

The following puts Perry's budget into perspective:

Texas State Budget:
2000 - $44.2b budget / $49b net rev
2011 - $77.6b budget / $86b net rev
75% increase, with an on the books surplus of 10.8%.

U.S. Fed Budget:
2000 - $1.79t budget / $1.55t net rev
2011 - $3.52t budget / $1.80t net rev
96% increase, with an on the books deficit of -48%.

Perry managed to keep general state expenditures at his disposal (transportation, protection, some welfare) in check, with only about 25-35% growth, relatively speaking, while the state's population grew 21%, and a major influx of poor, mexican nationals and their children flooded the schools, hospitals and welfare rolls.

Meanwhile, uncontrollable, public-union driven expenses like healthcare, pensions and education increased 90-115%!!!!!

Health care alone increased from $12.5b in 2000 to $27.6 in 2009. He has since negotiated a decrease to $25.8b.

State pensions increased from $5.0b in 2000 to $9.6b in 2010. This also was finally cut slightly in the last budget.

Education (something difficult for ANYONE to cut when you inherit a state at the bottom of the education ladder) rose from $8.9b in 2000 to $18.5b in 2009!

Here, in our State of Wisconsin we have proven that with 100% control of leadersip by Conservatives the union grasp on local governments can be scaled back! I look forward to Perry and others like him in Congress helping to rein in the out of control spending older establishment big spenders have engaged in.

I believe lost in the media circus and establishment fear has faded the true message of what the candidates really represent based on not only their own words, but their records; in fact, lost as well is the reason why we elect leaders in the first place.

We need people who see beyond the title and position and see the power to change, based on the RIGHT principles. They don't merely manage, they transform. Howard Schultz, Steve Jobs and many other iconic chairmen and CEO's of our time have succeeded by focusing their respective entities on their original principles, and creatively insipiring their people to follow them to the vision they see.

Debates are not where this inspiration happens. It occurs at a podium with a Presidential seal on it; on headlines that report the progress of the right policies; in the communities that resemble the world in which we want our kids taught, entertained and raised in; and in the bank statements that reflect an economy that helps everyone.

I see beyond the title and position and I see a President Perry giving us 8 years of the kind of change we were hoping for.

BlogBlurb - Perry on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno: "Genuine"

2011-12-01T20:39:00.000-08:00

In case you didn't catch the memo, Jay Leno taped a spot with Rick Perry today, and Michael Reagan was there too, even tweeted the photo back stage.

Afterthoughts.....

Perry and Leno exchanged experiences with bumbling or forgetting a couple of words. The laughter and the swagger that characterizes Rick Perry, as Texans have always known him was on full display. It was another great night for the ever confident Governor before millions of people curious to see if they'd witness the next news cycle drive-by. What they got was a feast of good Conservative meat with a nice dose of Texan charm for dessert.

It was a great exhange showing Perry's ability to converse quickly, humbly and effectively getting his point across. In response to questioning Perry's forgetting one of the three agencies (among hundreds of wasteful, pitiful, kicked around examples) that Perry would like to trim from the Federal budget, Perry quipped, "every now and then, I call my dogs by the wrong name". Touche.

Perry is well known for his strength at what's known as "retail politics", accessing voters on a personal level, increasing his likeability and affability with potential voters. This was no less apparent in his frequent use of people's names in the studio, including Darin, Rickie Miner, and Melissa McCreedy, the fellow guest actress on the couch next to him. Kindly patting her on the knee and saying "stay with me, I'm gonna need ya" was also a subtle, but effective way of coming across confident, lighthearted and convincing at the same time.

During the Thanksgiving Family Forum, hosted live and moderated by Frank Luntz with TheFamilyLeader.com and CitizenLink.com earlier last month, Perry showed a very genuine side where he briefly acquainted the audience with his story of meeting his wife Anita when they were children, and off and on dating until he finally convinced her to marry him. As he found her in the audience and described his most thankful moment in life was "getting her", he appeared almost giddy with excitement.

This was again apparent tonight as he referenced them and said they were somewhere in the audience. Once the cameras found them, he said "there they are" and smiled proud. It draws a clear contrast between him and the Cain issues, and might help to reestablish some of the sanity in voters' relationship with the GOP's family values platform, both spoken and unspoken. The expectations that voters have held over the GOP have last through years of affairs, trials, expose's on the left, and even a few on the right side of the aisle. These standards of faith, family and marital love have bound the GOP and Conservatives together and would risk becoming a losing distration in a general election next year if it were not a motivating factor in one or both candidates facing off. Perry gets high marks in every category, effectively serving all Christians of various streams and doctrines who are looking for a geniune man of character. He shined like a diamond on a stage such as Leno's, usually host to much less reputable personalities.

When the issue came up of making Congress a part time legislature, he appealed very convincingly to the millions watching, "the Texas Legislature meets for 140 days every other year. We're a part time legislature; we pay our legislators $600 a month, then they're back home living under the laws that they passed. They're doctors and lawyers, retired teachers, you name it... They're a truly citizen legislature, and that's what our found fathers originally set up... a part time [Congress]. I'm going to campaign [for this], and let me tell you... it can't get no worse!"

Absolutely.

Perry once again reaffirmed his belief that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, and made his case in typical Rick Perry fashion that has made him such a formidable campaigner - He turned to Melissa McCreedy next to him, and said "It's not going to be there for you. What you're paying into Social Security today, Melissa, it's not going to be there... those who are on it today, and those approaching the age, its going to be there for you... till the day you die." He then looke across stage and referred to Darin off camera, and repeated his case that we "need to have this conversation with America" and let people decide on their path. Something of a philosophy Perry holds, highlighted recently in a piece by Paulette and Brendan Miniter, "Optional Government". People connect with this. They want choices, and control. I believe he has a winning issue here.

Through issues like his 20/20 Flat Tax proposal, and his ubiquitous postcard "that even Tim Geithner could get in on time", withdrawing from Iraq, bringing home thousands of troops all over the world, Perry humbly and smoothly made his way through the 20 minute interview with class, relaxation and a strong, convincing style many voters might have not seen so far this season.

I believe this is only one of many public spotlights that will show Gov. Perry for who he truly is, and between his ground game in Iowa and his strong Evangelical ties in S.C. and Florida, you can expect that this Governor will show you it's a fool who counts out a Texan before he fully gets on his horse. We're in for a good race ahead.

Here is the video of the FULL INTERVIEW via RightScoop

Creating New Trade Zones Could Revolutionize and Bolster National Security, and Gov. Perry has a Bold Idea

2011-11-29T09:39:00.000-08:00

For 100 years, the United States has taken living on this planet for granted; we have been the leader in culture, economic growth and military security. That changed over the last two decades as we’ve lost our focus, our discipline and our spirit as a free people. The world that once loved to be like America has turned into an adversary of it. Something must be done at home before it can be expected abroad.

Our economic might won WWII, destroyed Communism and created the largest middle class and wealthiest upper classes in the history of mankind, lifting millions out of poverty and creating a world where even the poor have alternatives to starvation and homelessness like nowhere else. We watched for decades as the world grew eyes on the back of their heads and lived in fear, as Ireland, Southeast Asia, Israel and countless other skirmishes and civil wars battered free and oppressed people alike. Never once did we feel threatened here at home, and comfortable was the life we and our parents had built for ourselves. That changed on an infamous day we all remember too well.

Frequently, because of our historic position, we’ve been drawn into diplomatic or military interventions around the world, in allied attempts to manage a buffet of conflicts: rogue army, dictator, failing economy. This approach worked for many years but has seemingly veered off the last two decades, despite clear resolve and decisive action under the Bush administration. And now we're paying for it in more ways than one.

Paradigm Shift
Last night, at the CNN/Heritage Foundation/AEI debate, the focus was on national security and foreign policy. Many questions arose regarding how we deal with current dangers like Chinese influence, indignant Iranians and unity in Israel and productivity in Pakistan. 20 minutes and 27 seconds into the debate, Rick Perry defined a potentially HUGE foreign policy concept that should have everyone chattering today: Trade Zone Containment.

Rick Perry, in response to a question about the unnerving house of cards we’ve constructed in Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said:

“We want to engage these countries with our abilities and our companies that go in to help economically build these countries up, rather than write a blank check… to countries that are clearly not representing American best interests.”

“We’ve got Afghanistan and India working in concert right now to leverage Pakistan. I think that if we would work to create a trade zone in that part of the world where you have all of those countries working together, that may be the answer to getting Pakistan to understand that they have to work with all of the countries in that part of the world.”

Contain national security threats by focusing on what motivates us, not by what we disagree on? It’s a fundamental of diplomacy: focus on your strengths, balance your weaknesses. Condoleeza Rice brought a sense of history to her role as Secretary of State like few before her, and this helped her understand the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each culture we approach. I believe we need to expand on that, and lead from the front – we need to SHOW the world what exceptional nation building is, by doing it for ourselves.

It bends the steel in our minds, cast by past blunders and successes. It forces us to self-evaluate. What we do at home directly affects our ability to do anything abroad – a self-perpetuating conflict that is dragging us down a slippery slope. The lack of energy independence has created necessary evils we should never have needed to face. If we feel forced to choose between the lesser of two, it’s not because of our own evil nature – we are a great nation, with exceptional people – but because of neglect, collective detachment, or any number of interpretations. We really need to reevaluate our priorities, many of which are based on theory, ideology or just plain ignorance. Energy independence and responsible regulatory overhaul is necessary, immediately. When we begin to rebuild our country from the deep, dark inside out, the world will build itself in our image because freedom always wins and people will always choose freedom over oppression if given the choice.

The Status Quo Hasn’t Worked
There has been an innate tendency to drift toward a police-protectorate mentality – under both Parties, I might add – an assumption that tragedy around the world must be met with American Exceptionalism, either with the barrel of a gun, or the threat of it. Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, take your pick. Bosnia showed American weakness when Clinton was virtually shamed into action by British Prime Minister Blair. Somalia showed our lack of focus. Iraq showed our lack of influence with the EU. Libya simply showed our complete lack of resolve on anything – “Leading from behind” is now a sure tongue-in-cheek entry into the political lexicon for years to come.

Even the Bush Doctrine, or preemptive nation-building, radical as it seemed at the time, proved to be tasty treats for both sides of the Establishment aisle, and didn’t accomplish what it intended because of a lack of worldwide support. It also gave a new life to a struggling movement among the anti-war crowd that perennially gifts Ron Paul an excuse to run hopeless campaigns. There has been something missing in our approach to world affairs, and the world doesn’t seem to listen, the same as they used to.

Well, why should they?

We are in a conundrum, as a nation: we have vital national security interests across the planet on nearly every continent that must be protected. However, a growing sentiment of frustration across the world has raised itself in contrast to our presumed “exceptional” status, and prompted many at home to question our purpose in the world, and our mission as we engage other countries economically and militarily.

Nation building has now lost its support among most in the establishment now, and never found footing among the more fringe wings of the left or the right. So, in a post-“terror war” world that is nonetheless just as dangerous, what are we as a nation to do? How do we still contain the threats and focus on domestic growth at the same time? How can we continue to assert ourselves for the purpose of protecting the future of the American supremacy which led to the safest, greatest union of free people in the history of the world?

If we do not find an answer to the first question, the first domino that has already fallen will be forgotten in the torrent of future conflict sure to follow. Foreign policy is like herding cats. Why must we be forced to pick our battles? I believe it is possible to find a way for those battles to contain themselves, while addressing security threats around the world without further inflaming the people we intend to set free. Fortunately, we have an answer that is worth trying here in the U.S. with what Governor Perry has proposed.

Follow the Money
Enemies are almost exclusively motivated by one thing: Power. And money creates power.

The Chinese learned this, and they wised up to opening their 1.3 billion individual economic engines to the world trade juuuuuust enough to spark an economic boom that now soon threatens U.S. Supremacy. Perry’s suggestion seemed to roll of his tongue so naturally, as though it was assumed Conventional Wisdom. It shouldn’t have been such a surprise to me. This is the fundamental way he’s led all his life as a public Executive in Texas. But it has rarely been tried, and never successfully as a major policy initiative. Other countries have done the same thing, to great annoyance of our own homeland.

Think about it: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez succeeded in turning what was once a very cordial hemispheric relationship between the United States and Latin America into a noticeably stiff-necked opposition to American diplomacy. He did this by using energy sources and a trade bloc to create unity in mutual economic growth.

Second case: The EU learned to become more independent from the U.S. by unifying their economies into an almost do-or-die currency program that has created foreign policy complications for the United States for 10 years. The EU has, in turn moved toward more economic interdependency with Chinese and Japanese interests like never before.

We seem more interested in either appeasement in our security interests or flag-football war. Both accomplish nothing; both diminish our respect. Our lack of focus and self-control has led to less impact on world affairs that affect us than ever before.

Domestic Growth Creates Foreign Influence
As economic policy moves, so moves foreign policy. Case in point: The U.S. is locked into two unpopular conflicts, two more potential ones, and one that recently ended with less than congratulatory applause.What led to this stalemate? American dependency on foreign oil, and the devaluation of our dollar. We have no position of strength in dealing with Iran, Libya, Syria, Korea and perhaps most consequentially, China, when we are broke, contradictory and addicted to self-deprecation.

We must eliminate this sadistic dependency on foreign sources of energy and return our dollar to sound footing. The result will be a dramatically stronger position for our foreign policy objectives. Rick Perry’s bold suggestion has the power to completely transform the next 100 years of foreign policy and American economic dominance. Now, the only way this can work is for the following to have occurred first, before it could work.

It starts with:

An American energy revolution to unleash trillions of dollars in domestic activity

A balanced budget and flattening of the nation debt/liabilities to GDP ratio

Fair and competitive corporate tax rates and regulation to return investment to the U.S.

Federalist education reform: returning accountability and reform back to the states

Serious entitlement reform

When the American economy returns to its perch atop the world, we will be able to approach a region like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India with the knowledge, power, stability and respect, invest into their region and receive a solid return. It’s fascinating that the best ideas appear to be coming from an off-hand debate comment.It would hedge our threats in Iran and China simultaneously, it would create indisputably more harmony between currently feuding interests. Also, we’d gain three or more trading partners with massive potential for inflowing dollars, rather than the broken ATM we have become instead.

Leadership is Being Followed for Who You Are
Why has America stagnated from being the supreme leader in the world? We used to dominate the world stage by virtue of being followed by everyone. Are we now the beleaguered mediator between factions and “last great hope” or merely the also-ran culture that once drove the 20th century but cannot even educate its own children or pay its own bills today? Those are both undesirable positions to be in. We must return to the place of setting the standard world wide of what a God-fearing, free people can accomplish. Then, and only then can tyranny and ruthlessness be met with equal determination and winning strength.

Without independence in energy, State, not Federal-determined education and excellence (not needing H1-B visas to fill swaths of empty jobs here in the U.S.), we will never be able to exert our influence around the world again, other than simply slapping a predator drone or cruise missile up the back end of an annoying head of state.

America was lifted to the position of world power by virtue of our success, our stability, our character. We were a leader because we were followed, not because we simply took initiative. For decades, the U.N. was merely an unnecessary but feel-good cocktail circuit because the world looked to an American President for direction, strength and economic support, not a committee with competing interests. It is in our best interest as a people to be at the top of the world economic ladder; the primary LENDERS in the world, not the primary DEBTORS. This return to American Exceptionalism must occur for us to secure the future for our children, both in safety and economic security. If we put the reforms into place suggested above, sooner than later, maybe it will even give OUR generation the future in time our parents had promised for us too.

Right now, the goal of the Republican base must be to nominate a candidate who not only has the ideas practically falling out of his mouth, but has the experience and the resolve to move us in the right direction. A lackluster, back-footed administration must not be tolerated at this important crossroads. We need a dynamic foreign policy fueled by American economic expansion, and it must happen NOW, in the next decade and it begins by setting ourselves free to be who we are. We are a nation of diverse culture, incalculable knowledge and limitless energy. Now it’s time to make what Americans buy, buy what Americans make and sell it to the world. If we do it right, the world will be knocking down our door to get what we’ve got. And we’ll all be safer too.

Ed Willing is a freelance writer, small business owner and political activist from suburban Racine, WI and formerly served as NW Youth Coordinator for the Buchanan for President Campaign.

Paulette Miniter was gracious in assisting with the content of this article. She is a contributing author for the Washington Times and other online publications.

Misgiving # 11: The President's Jobs Plan is Merely Dessert

2011-11-22T18:07:00.000-08:00

"Desserts only, no spinach?. We’re still waiting for 'the rest of the story'."
- J.D. Foster
__________________________________

We all remember the night, September 8th, 2011, when President Obama presented a grand, inspirational-sounding message about hope and change on TV in front of millions.

No, this is not 2008.

Or 2009.

…..no its not 2010 either. Those were different.

This time he really, REALLY meant it. And less people watched it. And even his own Party couldn't pass his bill, which still sits like a cadaver fully dissected on the table, serving no purpose but his own self-aggrandizement.

The “post-Martha's-Vineyard-36-holes-of-golf-and-campaign-bus-tour-jobs-plan” is President Obama's “Stimulus 2.0” intended to jumpstart a stalling economy by increasing the activity among 6 categories of jobs:

Teachers
Police
Fire
Transportation workers
Highway workers
Small Businesses (but only if looking for a job longer than 6 months)

5 of these 6 categories are government-dependent or related jobs.

About Unemployment Insurance:
"Every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring. So, there are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance" - President Press Secretary Jay Carney

Well, then maybe Obama's American Jobs Act is really about getting us either...
1.) all on unemployment
2.) all working for the government

...or rich enough to pay the taxes to pay for both of those options, since the lower 49% of wage earners pay no fair share of the tax burden through credits and deductions.

He envisions “managed prosperity” for America. Is this really what people want? It feels good when someone hands you money or a job, but it feels different when you begin to dream and you’re told “you can’t do that, it doesn’t meet our requirements or fit our plan”. THAT is the end result of EVERY Progressive system ever tried. There are only so many ways to skin a cat, but this President is trying his best to invent new ways to label the methods. It’s NOT WORKING.

His speech sounded wonderful. It was passionate. It struck all the right cords that make us feel good: security, prosperity, family-time and kicking the Chinese’ @$$, right?

Any way you slice it, his plan is like asking the American taxpayers to take a home equity loan out on our Chinese neighbors' house to hire our cousins to build a driveway on our own property, then call THAT "economic stimulus".

If there was anything the last 10 years taught American workers and small businessmen and women is that you cannot live, build and grow solely on debt based on future income. The credit bubble was entirely built on this premise, and yet the President's vision is based entirely on this concept.

The beauty of the Free Market that Milton Freidman so often praised, and the reason it works best is because when mistakes happen - and they most assuredly do within any economic system - lessons are learned and corrected, naturally. The problem with Keynesian philosophy is that it erects institutions and spending streams that are perpetual and tasked with blindly picking winners and losers (like Obama's small business tax credit for hiring employees that meet his criteria only), which they cannot possibly accomplish fairly or accurately.

The Free Market determines winners and losers based upon ability, quality and creativity.

The Progressive Market determines who should win based upon intangibles that cannot be forced upon individuals, they must be born within.

"We can make America the greatest nation on earth!"
Please... after 2 1/2 years, let US make America great again by getting out of our way. I don't want to be made great by my Government; I'd rather make my nation great by being myself.

Everyone wants prosperity and equality… in freedom. But our system is built, and is successful upon the liberty to PURSUE happiness. There is no reasonable guarantee of happiness, simply the liberty to pursue it. So when a benevolent Government protects us from ourselves through too much regulation, then places a burden of supporting inactivity on the productivity of those who are successful, and hands that reward to those who never earned it, we become numb to the idea of cause and effect, learning from consequence or the sense of merit.

We become and entitlement generation, and a permanent voting block.

So we heard a nice speech that hit all the right chords and rang the ears of Conservative Independents and the subjects of focus groups everywhere. But at the end of the day, it was the same, tired, proven policies of failure. When everyone was yelling about Rush Limbaugh saying he wanted the President’s policies to fail, I took a more direct, less rhetorical approach: I KNOW that his policies will fail, and THAT is why I oppose them.

I’m not playing politics here, I cannot afford for this economy to sit sluggish until a new President comes along. I WANT prosperity for my country, and most of all, for the community I run my business in. But I KNOW this President believes Government can affect change from the top down, and that’s the problem.

He says “everyone must sacrifice”, but he wants to be the one to determine what that sacrifice is. I will sacrifice my sweat and my fortune to hire more people and expand my business… but not with this climate of fear that results from being managed at every turn.

It appears the only "job" created last night was an acting job. Nothing he proposed will come out in the final product, and all the rhetorical flourish his TelePrompter could muster will change the mood of America’s producers until a real leader stands up and tells his Government what to not do, instead of telling the PEOPLE what to do.

This speech also assured me of one thing: this bill guaranteed the elimination of at least one job - his own.

Rave: Why I Support Gov. Rick Perry

2011-09-15T21:29:00.000-07:00

I recently wrote a letter to a locally-based, syndicated talk show host regarding his rationalization about who will be the next nominee for the Presidency. Of course, I have my horse in the race: Gov Rick Perry. But the host's position was frustrating enough for me to write him personally with this response:

_______________________

This morning, you said Mitt Romney is the more prepared candidate, making him a better one. Romney has been running for nearly 5 years, of course he's more prepared. That doesn't make him the better candidate.

You challenged listeners on what Mitt Romney has they don't like, and when you responded it was most often was "what he says..."

This is the problem Conservatives have with him. What he says changes and what he believes has evolved the same the PARTY has evolved. Which yes, is an improvement. But the GOP has evolved because of new blood, not changing principles. Romney has improved through evolution, not an epiphany.

You talk about a border fence as though that is a Conservative Principle: who decided that? I was once for a fence, then realized the unfortunate truth that a fence would still be climbed over, breached or tunnelled under, therefore requiring the same boots, technology and other volunteers watching the border that we'd need WITHOUT a fence. Perry made this argument, and I now believe the same. We could spend $8 billion on a fence, then $200 million a year maintaining it, just to need another $200 million for the technology to do what saving $8 billion could also accomplish.

Romney's stances on multiple issues over the years reveal his INSTINCTS, you were making a case only for his rhetoric:

HEALTH CARE (government management, Federal OR state/local is the problem)
GAY MARRIAGE (he once violated his own faith by embracing the right to gay marriage because it was politically expedient. Silence since then on the issue is equally complicit.
FEDERALISM - Is not a strong advocate in state matters - he is not a firm believer in federalism and believes the Feds can exact change from the top down, even well intentioned policies. This is Bush 2.0
ETHANOL - he stated 3 weeks ago he is in strong favor of subsidizing this industry, and that reveals a flawed progressive thinking that hurt the steamboat industry, the railroad industry, the early flight industry and others. Free enterprises without subsidies have always developed quicker than their sponsored counterparts. Romney favors a subsidy YOU'RE AGAINST. And this is recently.
GLOBAL WARMING - he very recently made comments in support of the concept of man made global warming and the need to enact policies that are "responsible" to that end. His campaign then leaked they were "recalibrating".

This leads me to my third point:

Romney is a MAN MADE candidate (pun intended)
Perry is a SELF MADE candidate

Real leaders sometimes take different positions on how to handle the same problem, using the same principles we share with them. No one person can define Conservative Principles as a particular law, a particular fence, a particular mandate. It is the principles that matter, not the application of them that define the philosophy.

I disagreed with Perry on the border fence, but we share the same belief in protecting borders, national security, states rights for different approaches and local control, etc. In the end, his principles of security and reformed immigration procedures match mine, but I came to understand his position that doubling up the costs of securing the border were silly outside urban areas.

But a real leader, like Reagan, can make a persuasive case to another end, and inspire people to follow his method.

Something the current occupant of the White House cannot accomplish, even within his own Party.

It is this reason that I believe Perry is the best candidate. He is almost as squeeky clean as Romney in his personal life, has just as much, if not more executive experience, has proven diplomatic skills with both sides without compromising his principles and has an ability to not flip flop, making his case and winning people over.

Screw "preparation", if we get Romney as our nominee, we get a product, made by man for the office.

If we get Perry, I am convinced we get a man, made by circumstances and proven by fire.

Perry is the anti-establishment candidate, the Teflon Conservative, the unapologetic, albeit imperfect leader that fits no mold but his own and can make a case for the positions he takes. He learns from mistakes, not focus groups, and he knows why he believes what he believes.

And THAT is why I support him.

Here we go again....

2011-08-12T08:09:00.000-07:00

It's time to rev it back up. The latest Presidential season is about to commence, and it's time to reboot and get some fresh blood back in the White House. Conservative blood. I reckon it'll be the first time we've had trult Conservative blood since Ronald Reagan.

It's 1979 all over again... actually it's 2011, and Texas Governor Rick Perry is about to announce tomorrow his entry into the race for the Republican nomination of President of the United States. Similar and familiar bridge, but much more grave circumstances.

Let's get 'er done.

More soon.

BlogBlurb - Why I Believe Gov. Rick Perry Will be the Next President of the United States

2011-06-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

Since late January I've been investigating America's most successful CEO, and trying to figure out how to fix this vaccum that appeared to exist in Conservative leadership for Presidential candidates.

I determined the best candidates were unable or unwilling to run. However, because of a combination of chance, and having friends in Texas that couldn't stop bragging about their economic environment I stumbled into an initial cynical perspective on Texas Governor Rick Perry. As I explored him further, and evaluated his blemishes (any reasonably experienced politician has them), I realized that this was my horse in the race. Even though he wasn't in the race.

By early April I began posting on my FB wall his accomplishments and dropping lines in threads about how he could help lead our executive branch back from the brink of unconstitutional oligarchy and dismal failure.

Within the last few weeks, I've been elated to see the Conservative nation come around to noticing him. Does he have flaws? Yes. Do we have the liberty of purist principles at this hour? No. Are his fundamentals sound and in line with my own? Yes. But, can Obama beat this man? (that's the question...) No.

More coming....

BlogBlurb - The Definition of a Patriotic Citizen

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

All the talk by political leaders, most notably President Obama, keeps emphasizing America's citizens. I hear it especially on this day of recognizing patriotism... but every time they do it seems they keep talking about the RIGHTS of citizens, the PLIGHT of citizens, the culture, spirit, blah blah blah.

What about the OBLIGATION of a citizen?

Doesn't a citizen have an obligation to their community? Well, sure, but liberal thinkers believe that's only if you're making enough money to tax you and share your discretionary income with others who have no responsibility to speak of. The sure few that face obstacles at no fault of their own are dwarfed by the massive numbers of people who milk the system for all it's worth, appearing to have needs, needs in the least created by a life of irresponsibility. And usually those needs, legitimate or not, are worsened by the system that never holds them accountable. It facilitates a life of expectation, and breeds a generation of entitled brats.

The obligation of a citizen isn't to take care of his neighbor by government-compelled charity. The obligation of a citizen is to take care of his OWN life and his OWN responsibilities and hopefully to succeed enough that he finds himself in a place to help others. ...out of the kindness of his own heart and gratitide for a community that affords them the freedom to accomplish this ability. Private charity is far more effective, accountable and mobile than government molasses.

Obama wants to see Americans RISE to the occasion to serve their neighbor. Great. Good sound bite. Then call Americans to give. But also call Americans to LIVE.

Convict them of their selfish ways... not selfish because they won't hand a buck to an addict, or a gangster who got shot and is now a quad sitting in government housing requiring 4 times-a-day nursing care...

Convict them of their selfish ways - of living life for only themselves and taking whatever the government or their neighbors give them without the impulse that says "no, I have more pride than that - no handouts for me".The President has a unique opportunity right now in this economic climate to call all Americans to the conviction of living a productive, prosperous life that will reduce their dependency on government and produce solid citizens.

Hey, Mr President, just a heads up: Prosperous people create more tax revenue... to fund the programs that can legitimately help those in need.

Hey, Mr Biden: Pay your "patriotic" taxes and shut up, let me keep mine.

Mr whoever else is in charge these days: Tell the Americans with their hands out to live the life of a responsible citizen and stop telling me to open mine.

Stop redefining "citizenry" to those who already understand it, and start encouraging those that don't understand to start doing so... or receive nothing.

The rest that remain are the ones that really need it. Let's focus on those.

Reprint with credit as desired, share the fire!Footnote: I have a friend who has a cool new blog - check it out: http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com/

Misgiving #10 - Hypocrisy in Brutal Display... Does it Get More Pathetic Than THIS?!

2009-03-19T17:53:00.000-07:00

Does indignation look more pathetic and fake than this?

Total Stimulus to pork ratio:
$787 billion vs $8 billion (1%)

Charles Schumer D-NY (2/16) wants "to say this to all the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny - yes, porky - amendments: The American people really don't care."

REEEEEALLY?! My poor HD LCD almost suffered abuse the day I saw this on TV.

AIG bailout to "Evil" Retention Bonuses ratio:
$185 billion vs $165 million (.09%)

Charles Schumer D-NY (3/15) said, "They should voluntarily return them. If they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it... To those of you getting these bonuses: be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

Hey Chuckie... newsflash: Americans don't really care that much. That is, when they understand that these bonuses were from contracts that had to be fulfilled and that conversly BILLIONS were sent to overseas banks and their executives too. There's greater travesties than this... if it is even a "travesty".

_________________________________________________________________

Tell me, America... if you were working at a company that went under, and you got out just in time, but managed to do a good job in your own department while you were there, wouldn't you be seriously ANGRY if the government said you were going to get that taken away from you? Why do so many millions fail to take their brains this far in the logical process?

_________________________________________________________________

Further nonsense:

"What is the highest excise tax we can impose that will stand up in court?" mused Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. "Let's find out."

"But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology." - Charles Grassley R-IA

What I find outrageous is the outright, pathetic and incredibly OBVIOUS hypocrisy by BOTH paties in Washington to this event. I was against the bailout, I am against the corporate welfare that has been fashioned in haste the last 9 months, and I think it's ridiculous that executives have continued to rake in their bonuses in light of current conditions for those they used to manage, and in some cases had to lay off. BUT, a free market that is free to fail, free to rebuild and free to prosper on proven business principles is a market that succeeds for everyone. In this case, the very people that took donations from these executives have now turned on them because it's politically expedient. Even further, they're guilty of self-indulgent taxpayer molestation themselves. I'm not letting AIG execs off the ethical hook, but I think these creeps in D.C. have no credibility and it all makes me sick to the stomach.

Christopher Dodd LYING in plain English to Greta Van Susteren on the AIG bonus flap:

Earmarks from respective Senators just in the $410 billion OMNIBUS BILL alone:

Sen. Charles Schumer earmarks: 209 earmarks for $238 million
Sen. Max Baucus earmarks: 16 earmarks for $8 million
Sen. Charles Grassley earmarks: 119 earmarks totaling nearly $199 million
Sen. Christopher Dodd earmarks: 61 earmarks totaling over $49 million

Senator base salaries in 2009: $169,300 (Schumer gets $193,000 as Senate leader)
Senator pay raise in the last 10 years: 24%
Senator pay raise during recession (started in Dec. 2007): 6.3%

By the way, today there are approximately 410 retired members of Congress currently receiving retirement benefits for life, for as little as 5 years of active service.
AIG screwed up, and screwed us too.
And the Government hasn't?__________________________________________________________________

hyp⋅o⋅crite - noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Americans need to remember something very fundamental in all of this - anytime the government throws money at something to solve a problem, it ends up biting us in the butt, specifically, the rear pocket... right by my wallet.

So why is everyone acting shocked? So many are financially perverted and corrupted by power, we've simply replaced one out-of-control-spending political party with another... worse one.
___________________________________________________________________

Just a small sample of the "stimulus" to rescue our economy that was so desperately needed:

$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$50 million for “Watershed Rehabilitation”
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
$1 billion for “Periodic Censuses and Programs”
$350 million for State Broadband Data and Development Grants
$1.8 billion for Rural Broadband Deployment Grants
$1 billion for Rural Wireless Deployment Grants
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for “Scientific and Technical Research and Services” at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership”
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
$140 million for “climate data modeling”
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for “Community Oriented Policing Services”
$250 million for “accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.”
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$300 million for “Major Research Insrumentation program” (science)
$200 million for “academic research facilities modernization”
$100 million for “Education and Human Resources”
$400 million for “Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction”
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$1.5 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance fund
$624 million for Navy Operation and Maintenance
$128 million for Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
$1.23 billion for Air Force Operation and Maintenance
$454 million to “Defense Health Program”
$110 million for Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$62 million for Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$45 million for Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$14 million for Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$302 million for National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$29 million for Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$350 million for military energy research and development programs
$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers “Construction”
$250 million for “Mississippi River and Tributaries”
$2.2 billion for Army Corps “Operation and Maintenance”
$25 million for an Army Corps “Regulatory Program”
$126 million for Interior Department “water reclamation and reuse projects”
$80 million for “rural water projects”
$18.5 billion for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries
$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies
$1 billion in grants to “institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency”
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
$3.4 billion for state energy programs
$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs
$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program
$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments
$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing
$4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid
$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”
$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)
$500 million for “Defense Environmental Cleanup”

$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$426 million in small business loans
$100 million for “non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry
$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry
$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security
$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges
$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program
$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects
$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
$1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance” in the National Park System
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs
$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities
$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs
$800 million for Superfund programs
$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
$8.4 billion in “State and Tribal Assistance Grants”
$650 million in “Capital Improvement and Maintenance” at the Agriculture Dept.
$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”
$550 million for Indian Health facilties
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$50 million in grants to fund “arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn” through the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities
$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities
$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve
$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments
$300 million for “construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers”
$250 million for public health centers
$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers
$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training
$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control
$1.5 billion for “National Center for Research Resources”
$500 million for “Buildlings and Facilties” at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.
$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states
$1 billion for Head Start programs
$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs
$100 million for Social Security research programs
$200 million for “Aging Services Programs”
$2 billion for “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”
$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds
$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs
$5.5 billion in targeted education grants
$5.5 billion in “education finance incentive grants”
$2 billion in “school improvement grants”
$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
$250 million for statewide education data systems
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair
$160 million for AmeriCorps grants
$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Security Administration
$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims
$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative
$3 billion for “Grants-in-Aid for Airports”
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads
$300 million for Amtrak capital needs
$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades
$5.4 billion in federal transit grants
$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways
$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states
$2.4 billion carbon capture products…
$4.19 billion for ACORN and other bogus “community organizing” groups…
$650 million digital tv conversion…
$79 billion to bail out the state education system…
$400 million global warming research…
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts…
$200 million to refurbish the National Mall…

BlogBlurb - Ben Stein at his Best!

2008-11-09T18:57:00.000-08:00

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.

I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu If people want a crïeche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did.

But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein

Rant #17 - Back Off, Socialist Punks! Congress Tries to go Blackjack with the Same Failed Hand...

2008-09-29T22:04:00.000-07:00

This week, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Washington Mutual inched closer to the cliff and AIG received an $85 billion bailout that gives the Federal Reserve an 80% stake in AIG’s equity funds. The credit crisis has reached a new level as relatively few bad mortgages are affecting normal, predictable, theoretically “safe” investments like money markets, bonds and pension funds.

In a previous article, I decried the Federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie, and I still stand by this on principle. But the problem goes much deeper than this. The problems have been mounting for many years and have been affected by many variables, but the largest factors that figure into today’s economic quagmire consist of a single bill, a single political Party and a single Senator that was shot down by his colleagues. While no single factor is solely to blame for these problems we’re suffering with today, there are significant benchmarks and individuals that factor into this:

In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and President Carter as a way to make low to middle income borrowers (LMI) qualify for the types of home financing good borrowers have access to. After years of criticism by both sides of the aisle for being too vague and not accomplishing what it was supposed to do, President Clinton finally led a charge to pass a “modernization” amendment to the Act that called on the Treasury to report within two years how to fix the loopholes and “insufficiencies” in the system, and make it easier for LMI borrowers to get home loans.

Finally, in 2001 Congress passed revisions to the actual act that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other banks (including much smaller banks, for the first time) to qualify for government support for these types of loans, by virtue of being able to dump these types of mortgages on obligated bankers at Fannie and Freddie. Meanwhile, through the 90's the seeds of corruption under the guise of good intentions were laid by a man named Franklin Raines. The result was the beginning of a housing boom, as tens of thousands of new homeowners poured into the homeownership market. The natural economic cycle combined with this regulatory change to fuel growth that was exacerbated by the Federal Reserve lowering the discount rate to 1% by 2005-2006. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie became the largest lobbyists in D.C., pushing for promotion of programs that helped to fuel their growth and their earnings. The CEO’s of these mortgage behemoths were being compensated based upon earnings, which led to falsely reported earnings for many years in a row. Risky loans abounded and banks were flush in hundreds of millions of cash (with no call for “windfall profits taxes”, by the way…), and only a select few saw the rising tide coming.

One of those people were Senator John McCain, of Arizona. In 2005, seeing the negative effects of these two loosely regulated banks and showing a distaste for the blatant lobbying habits of these same two, McCain sought to introduce a bill that would establish a separate, independent committee to oversee the two banks and recommend impartial changes, and strip governance of them from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and give it to this newly formed committee. The law passed the Republican-controlled House but faltered in the Senate, which was unable to pass it due to the inability of Republicans to overcome blockage by Senate Democrats. The bill died.

Sounding today like a prophet, McCain said the following in introducing the bill to the Senate Committee that oversees finance:

“Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.

This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market.

OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Today, Congress failed to pass a bailout plan for financial markets, and the U.S. stock market responded with an 800 point drop followed by several other international markets doing the same as they opened later in the day.

We now face a serious crisis in credit and liquidity and Congress insists that the only solution is more oversight and government control of hundreds of thousands of bad mortgages.

Barack Obama is refusing to take a hard line on this proposal so he can claim plausible deniability later, but he comes from the same cloth of governing philosophy that believes Government can best serve the needs of the people in such affairs. As everything shakes out and new revelations come to light on how this mess began and strengthened, we are seeing that not only is Obama comfortable with the idea of a virtual government "takeover", but is surrounded by the very people who brought about this crisis to begin with. Barack Obama received over $126,000 in contributions and financial support from 2004-2008, second only in total receipts to Senator Christopher Dodd, who collected only a few thousand more dollars, but spread over 19 years. This means that Barack Obama received the support of Fannie and Freddie lobbyists and their appendages at a rate 4 times that of any other Senator. This is terrifying to realize that Fannie and Freddie (who have now been revealed to have literally broken the law and falsified documents and forged signatures to drive up earnings and bonuses for Execs) saw something in Senator Obama that would lead them to support him far and above any other legislator in the House OR the Senate.

The corrupt executive at Fannie Mae who began this culture of deception is now considered part of the inner circle of Barack Obama's economic advisory panel, as Barack seeks his advice in housing and finance.

Unless you want the government to be landlord to your neighbors and becoming the single largest investor in the world, using your money, then I suggest you apply all necessary and accessible pressure on your Congressmen to continue standing on the principle of truly free markets and taxpayer protection. It was Congress meddling in the natural affairs and time-tested mechanisms of the financial investment market that set the motion for this collapse, the last thing we need is another intervention by the very entity that screwed this up to begin with.

The problem today is a financial system crippled by the mistakes learned by private institutions 80 years ago. The reason we suffer today is because once again, socialists tried to hijack a free system for their own cause, whether legitimate or not. Let's not make the same mistake again by letting the fools get another crack at it.

BlogBlurb - Who I Am: My Definition of a Conservative Minarchist

2008-09-13T19:49:00.001-07:00

A friend recently challenged me to identify my political philosophy as succinctly as I could by answering some basic questions.

What is your political philosophy?

How do you think government should be run, and why?

Do you identify with a particular brand of politics (i.e., Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, etc.)?

Why?

What's the issue that inspires you to hold your viewpoint and associate with that brand?

This is my political philosophy:

I have to identify myself as an idealist in principle, but pragmatic in philosophy. I am Conservative. But I jokingly refer to myself as a Conservative Minarchist, that is, minimalist in government control in almost anything other than infrastructure, policing of reasonable morality, and military protection.

The pragmatist in me recognizes the needs of a society with radical differences between Hartford, Connecticut and Mobile, Alabama. But in this respect, I still believe local needs should remain local, and the Constitution affords the powers and rights not given to the Federal Government to the individual States and to the people. If Massachusetts wishes to serve the poor through it’s varied tax base, New York shouldn’t have to pay for it. I believe government has a responsibility to equip and encourage, but not to facilitate or provide.

Through history I see countless examples of good intentions that end up replacing the original problem with a new one, or several. Welfare, unemployment and federal project grants are just a few of the examples I’ve seen gone awry.

The problem I have observed is that government programs inherently survive beyond their usefulness and perpetuate their intended audience rather than resolving the initial injustice once and for all.

Which serves another final point on my philosophy… government is to see to the defense of those suffering injustice. But natural, human tragedy is not the same as injustice. And in this regard, I believe private charity should always come before the compelled compassion of “government assistance”. Private enterprise, social services and charity have always been more successful than government attempts at the same.

So, in conclusion, I firmly, though sadly believe the society we have today is the result of a Church that has failed it’s other oft’ overlooked commission to both the world and to it’s own:

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

- James 1:27

So, Church... What are we going to do about it? Your country and her people desperately need an answer. I believe faith in action within a local community and prudence in governing across a nation work together in perfect harmony and would revolutionize American culture. It would shrink the demand on government services, allow personal freedoms to flourish, and revive American churches for generations. True religion, or the lack of it, determines the rose and fall of nations. America was a unique experiment, and we are sadly losing it. This is why I've been shaped into the kind of voter, and layman I have. My goal is to change the church and community I serve and the government that serves me.

This is the life of a Conservative Minarchist.

Blogblurb - Your Call: So, is this "bias", or just typical "hard news"?

2008-09-08T12:41:00.000-07:00

Tell me, if you were going to report on the convention of a major national political party and it's supporters came out raving and happy, and the ratings were through the roof, how would you report on the event? I would expect myself to interview attendees, highlight the positive momentum and give the public a picture of the energy the convention held for everyone there.

...Even if it were the Democrat National Convention.

But, MSNBC, in despair after falling in dead-last in the ratings game for BOTH conventions (FoxNews came in dead-first in the coverage of BOTH, by the way), and after demoting it's two lead anchors for the evening political news instead had this lead page in its programming department:

Though it is purely beside my point, it is notable that the same page shows a headlining video of Michelle Obama, with the title "Michelle Obama dances on 'Ellen'". But my observation centers on the "coverage" of the Republican National Convention. Or, that is, the "aftermath" of said Convention.

Now, it must be noted that these videos fall under "Countdown" which is hardly claiming these days to be "fair and balanced", as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow take their hour to pour the vitriol that leftist desire so much. Those disenchanted by the relative "balance" of CNN find their home on "Countdown" with Keith "Olderman" and Rachel "Mad-woman" as he they've taken on John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, George Bush and Karl Rove on a daily basis for years.

However, "editors" exist in this business for a reason, and they used to have the job of maintaining at least an APPEARANCE of balance and objectivity.

While on this page Michelle Obama is having an Arsenio Hall moment, the Republican Convention "coverage" was titled "The RNC Aftermath" and featured video clips with titles such as:

"Maddow - Let's call lies lies"
"McCain speech skips vets"

"Filling in the blanks on Palin"

I was astonished that Keith Older-man was placed as the ANCHOR for the RNC this last week... imagine if Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh were the Anchor for DNC coverage the week before. The Dems and Obama campaign would have been all over it, crying foul... especially since it appears America prefers FoxNews over any other cable network (they hit ratings near 10 million viewers last week, while their nearest competitor came in with about half that audience). Fox understands it's viewers appreciate their attempt to be "fair"... which in this world of media-immaturity means a "moderate" report would seem "right wing".

It's pathetic. And a lousy excuse for a network.

Unfortunately, Chris Matthews had to take the fall along with Keith. Sorry, Chris.

Misgiving #9 - U.S. Government Seizes Control of Nation's Two Largest Banks, FNMA and FHMLC

2008-09-07T09:09:00.000-07:00

This morning the United States Treasury Department announced the Federal takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Department Secretary Henry Paulson made the declaration in the midst of significant uncertaintly on Wall Street regarding the solvency of the two banks to survive losses in excess of $3 billion resulting from defaulting loans.

Henry Allison and David Moffett were the CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively. The Chief Executive Officers of both companies have been ousted and all portfolio loans under both agencies will be managed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae together control or insure over half of the nation's $12 trillion mortgage market.

With combined revenues of $84 billion and assets, they have lost more than $10 billion and sent major concerns through not only the secondary mortgage market, but now the public securities market as well.

Many Democrats adamantly support the Bush Administration's move, but the political fallout has yet to be seen as the government initiates one of the most significant takeovers in decades. As Government Sponsored Entities, the two corporations are private but loosely regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. However, this move will amount to a Federal buyout of investors and potentially billions in taxpayer dollars being needed to shore up the corporations in light of defaulting mortgages.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 by the Roosevelt administration to help assure liquidity in the private and government-backed mortgage market for the sake of private banking institutions. It became a private corporation in 1968, and became a guarantor of private and commercial loans only, with government loans falling under the control of another new Federal agency, the Government National Mortgage Association. (Ginnie Mae)

When Fannie Mae was made private in 1968, the Congress realized that there needed to be a balance of corporate competition, and in 1970 they chartered the creation of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac for short), providing the services of bundling mortgages into securities to be sold as a package on the investment market.

It was the development in the 70's of the speculating market in mortgage securities that led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac finding themselves at the helm of nearly the entire U.S. mortgage market, yet under the whim of the stock market and it's idiosyncrasies.

The most recent credit crisis was initiated by many factors, but most significant of which was the insertion of loans issued under bad credit (sub prime, high-interest government loans and other riskier loans) into the same consolidated mortgage investment instruments as those with low-risk loans, then giving them the same investment rating as the higher value securities. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac as well as other large commercial banks bought and sold these instruments on the secondary mortgage market throughout the housing boom of the last decade without concern to the bad loans sitting within the securities they had built their equity upon. When the cards began to fall in 2004, some thought nothing of the ripples made by a temporary disruption in one or two banks that had failed to balance their sheets or invest wisely. However, when larger mortgage companies began revealing mounting foreclosures and losses, Wall Street began to take notice.

The housing market had exploded with a vengeance for over 5 years, and as home prices began to stabilize the sub prime and adjustable-rate mortgages that had become so prevalent began to weigh on the banks that had bought securities with these loans consolidated into them. As homeowners found themselves unable to refinance out of these loans because of a flat real estate market, foreclosures began to rise with an equal vengeance, causing a flat market to begin to pull backward. With foreclosures doubling and housing values (the last source of stability in a failed loan package) falling like a rock, many banks began to fail, or merge with other banks to cover their losses. Traditional banks and investment houses who had gambled on the rising real estate market suffered mightily in the mounting crisis, and the downturn claimed the lives of banks such as Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and event the stalwart Bear Stearns.

Understandably, the Federal Government feels an impulse to aid failing homeowners and inject some confidence into the market, but after hundreds of billions of dollars have been borrowed to shore up the industry the Treasury Department now sees it as necessary to take over the two largest corporations in the mortgage world, shielding investors from the consequences of a capitalist system that routinely corrects itself as necessary when the excesses of failed judgment come back to haunt those who looked idly by, including the Federal Reserve.

The Government does bear responsibility for some of this mess, but I believe the best course would have been better oversight (NOT meaning "regulation"), and the best course now is to allow the market to correct itself, which it is already doing. Banks fail when investors make mistakes in judgment, but the system fails when the government steps in to stop the necessary bleeding that allows the whole of the market to prosper over time. The stock of these two companies has fallen nearly 90% from their one-year highs, as of July of this year. However, as in every free market recovery, this only presents a lesson in discretion to those that lose, and an opportunity for reward for those who buy these devalued shares now.

Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama spoke at a campaign stop in Indiana and addressed his concerns about the takeover plan, but refused to pass judgment until he sees the Bush Administration's plan. Meanwhile, Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin were campaigning in Colorado Springs, CO and gave their take on the financial crisis and pending takeover. McCain said this is another clear example of the nation's economic woes, and lemented that "Today, we're looking at another federal bailout of our home loan agencies".

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin responded by saying, “They’ve gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

I am adamantly opposed to this "bailout" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and support the full disclosure of the manner in which these entities run their books. In addition, I believe future oversight can be accomplished by tightly regulating the manner in which mortgage securities are bundled together and graded, but much else would be a violation of our free market principles and would reward only those investors who made foolish decisions to begin with and deserve to suffer the consequences of their failure in prudence.

Misgiving #8 - Slime 101 / How to Smear a Politician

2008-09-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

The media has not even attempted to hide their blatant disregard for common sense and general goodwill in their biased attacks on Sarah Palin since her selection was announced last Thursday as John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee. Armed with only a few days of investigative journalism, many news outlets have hit the stands and their internet pages with charges usually reserved for the National Inquirer for washed up celebrities that no one cares about.

A few examples:

The London Daily Telegraph: "How Good a 'Mom' Could Sarah Palin Be?"

The New York Times: "Vice in Go-Go Boots"

And the best of all...

US Weekly: "Babies, Lies and Scandal"

This story was found on FoxNews.com and written by Jana Winter:

On its most recent cover, due out on newsstands Friday, the magazine shows a picture of Palin with the headline, “Babies, Lies & Scandal” — a marked contrast from its gushing review of Barack and Michelle Obama that ran two months ago.

Critics say this cover, which was released a day ahead of Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, is a sucker punch aimed at the GOP ticket, and is a blatant attempt to influence the votes of the magazine’s 12 million mostly female readers.

Us Weekly publisher Jann Wenner is an outspoken supporter of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

“When you look at this Palin cover and contrast it with the super-friendly story on Obama, it’s hard not to see that they’re clearly biased,” said Jane Hall, associate professor at the American University School of Communication. “It’s not fair and it’s also offensive. I think that they are going to be offensive to many people regardless of whether you’re for Sarah Palin or not.”

Us Weekly’s June 19 cover featured a photo of the Obamas with the headline, “Michelle Obama: Why Barack Loves Her.” In smaller print: “She shops at Target, Loved Sex and the City, and never misses the girls’ recitals. The untold romance between the down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her ‘my rock.’”

In contrast, this week’s Palin cover shows the Alaskan governor cradling her baby Trig in her arms. The captions: “Under attack, admits her daughter, 17, is pregnant. Investigated for firing of sister’s ex-husband. Mom of five: New embarrassing surprises.”

An article inside the magazine focuses on a January 15 incident in which Palin laughed along with an Alaskan shock-jock DJ who called her political rival, a cancer survivor name Lyda Green, a “cancer” and a “bitch” and ridiculed her weight.

Wenner, the magazine’s publisher, has given $130,308 to Democratic causes and candidates since 1993 — and only $3,500 to Republicans, according to records. Wenner also runs Men’s Health Magazine and Rolling Stone Magazine. In March, Rolling Stone featured a glowing endorsement of Obama, “Barack Obama: A New Hope,” on its cover.

Hall said she found the Wenner-owned magazine’s coverage transparent and troubling. “I mean look at the Obama cover and look at this new one,” she said. “New embarrassing surprises? Really? You couldn’t have a stronger contrast, at least between these two covers,” Hall said.

Rumors about Palin’s personal life and public record have been swirling since John McCain named her to be his running mate last week.

On Monday, Palin released a statement confirming that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant, prompting the media spotlight. Despite calls from both Democrats and Republicans to leave Palin’s family out of the media, many political watchers say that it is contradictory for a public official who has a staunch stance against sex education and promotes abstinence-only programs to have a teenage daughter who is pregnant.

While Hall said McCain’s camp should have done more to vet Palin, she said this level of media depiction is unfair.

“Publications like this one are taking it too far. Calling it ‘Babies, Lies and Scandal’ looks out of bounds,” she said

____________________________________

In addition to the above smears, US Weekly also felt it necessary to make the Presidential election about Sarah's husband Todd's DUI charge from 21 years ago, adulterating on CBN's gracious report when he was 22, and even daughter Bristol's boyfriend Levi Johnston, publishing a story, libelously titled: "Father of Bristol Palin’s Baby: 'I Don’t Want Kids'" as if any of these details have anything to do with the election of a qualified woman as Vice President. These are the politics of personal destruction invented by Lee Atwater and perfected by the Clintons.

This is pathetic, disgusting, revolting and absolutely infuriating!

Barack Obama is, in the least, facilitating these digusting politics by not intervening (outside the spotlight) with the media that is VERY OBVIOUSLY at his beck and call.

BlogBlurb - The Definition of Sick Politics of the Lowest Regard!

2008-09-03T13:00:00.001-07:00

Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number and Home Phone Number!

This story was posted on RedState.com:

The Politico has received an opposition research file from the Alaska Democrats. You can read it in PDF here.

In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home addresses.

Back in 2005, Democrats used Michael Steele's social security number to get his credit record.
It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin's social security number, but release it in opposition research to the press.

We need to know who did this. We also need to know what happened. We also need to know if it was used to bolster the Democrats' opposition research.

When it happened to Michael Steele, it turns out the Democrats knew about it and did nothing.
They cannot not take action now.

UPDATE:

The Alaska Democratic Party says it did not release the information. From Ben Smith, at the Politico, I got this:

Our story doesn't say that "Alaska Democrats" gave us that document. It was a document prepared for Tony Knowles two years ago. We haven't revealed our source.

You should also note that it's a partially REDACTED social security number. That seems relevant. If less sensational. It's missing four digits.

Here is the key take away: Yes, the SSN is redacted and people can pay for themselves.

Now, here are additional points:

If the AK-Dems didn't do this, who did? Obama? The DNC? Who? They're releasing the whole thing now and letting the media make hay of it.

Why didn't the SSN get fully redacted?

It's ironic the party that thinks only Republicans invade privacy, invaded the privacy of Sarah Palin enough to learn her social security number and distribute it to the media.

Rave #9 - Obama ACTUALLY Said His Pursuit of the White House Qualifies Him to be President!!

2008-09-02T13:18:00.000-07:00

In his own words, Obama said yesterday:

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years."

First of all, apparently Obama thinks that his campaign managers have done a great job handling the last 18 months of his pre-packaged life, and for that much I agree... they're the best liberal business universities have to offer, and I'm sure they're running a fantastic "corporation" using all the fundamentals of any reasonable firm: outsourcing where necessary, and hiring based upon merit, not skin color (how ironic).

But secondly, I am laughing at the notion that Barack's "handlers" mistakenly informed him only of the stats regarding her mayoral and city council years, which even a 5th grader could find by googling "Sarah Palin experience". Great job, Campaign Managers and Mr. Experience - Barack Obama.

But my amusement is this: Obamuhh used her Wasilla experience as a counterpoint, failing to mention her other experience:

Running a corporation (a.k.a. the state of Alaska)
Employer of over 25,000 people
Managing a budget of $10 billion
Facilitating the proper management of 18 different State departments

She is currently in charge of a state that borders and negotiates with two foreign countries (Canada and Russia), manages land that would stretch from Georgia to California and is currently negotiating a $40 billion pipeline to bring alternative fuels to the United States.

Obamuhh has experience managing a political campaign. ...and maybe a lemonade stand when he was a kid.

BTW, Obamuhh, she has 20 months of experience managing this one, 2 months more than your blessed campaign which started out a lot smaller than your little darling. THEN, you can add her Wasilla experience on top of that if you want. And for that matter, Wasilla isn't some podunk "town of 7,000". First of all, the city proper has nearly 10,000 residents drawn by it's access to Anchorage, spectacular growth, it's plentiful jobs, low sales taxes (less than 3%), low property taxes (down 60% during Palin's administration) and good schools. It is also the economic center of a larger borough that is home to over 65,000 residents.

But, even I digress... she still has more experience than Obama as GOVERNOR, not including her experience in any other capacity.

Its laughable that Obama thought his PURSUIT of the White House would qualify him as President. That's like saying the Freshman in High School who campaigns to be student body President is therefore qualified to be Principal of the school.

I can't believe Obamuhh actually said something so imbicile on the campaign trail - does he really think Americans are going to smile and nod on something as idiotic as this?

Not this one.

BlogBlurb - Barack Obama's OTHER Birth Certificate (out of three)

2008-08-30T20:01:00.001-07:00

Hey, his sister Maya only has two Birth Certificates from two different countries, so she's only somewhat well-resourced. But here is an alleged Birth Certificate on file in Canada, but with a different birth date, August 23rd (his official birth date is reported to be August 8th)

Click here to see a current lawsuit by a disgruntled DEMOCRAT (albeit of course, a Hillary supporter) challenging the citizenship of "Obamuhh"...

Oh, and here's another little tidbit I found fascinating... Obama isn't even the first "African American" candidate... He has only one great great granparent that is African. The 7 others on his father's side are Arab. That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black. 12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America. (sourced from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html )

So uh.... he'd be the first ARAB AMERICAN President. Now THERE'S a groundbreaking reason to vote for him! :)

Misgiving # 7 - What the HECK?! Obama's First Official Mis-step...

2008-08-29T12:36:00.000-07:00

The official response from the Barack Obama campaign today came through his minion, Bill Burton who said:

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Are you kidding me?!

First of all, while I appreciate the implication in this statement that John McCain is in fact the next presumed President of the United States, I would like to point out my own observation of monumental hypocrisy:

"This week, the Democrat Party put the former 'present, but no vote' legislator of the State of Illionois with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency... if America is stupid enough to elect him."

That's all... I just wanted to point out the pot calling the kettle bla.... oh shoot, I can't say this can I? Ummm..... You know what I mean. ;)

Rant #16 - "Change That is Actually Believable!"

2008-08-29T09:45:00.001-07:00

How the GOP has an opportunity to change the current tide of corruption and mis-directed policies into a tradition of ethical change that defends our liberty to succeed or fail on our own, without Daddy Obama's many promises.

Barack Obama’s campaign has been both praised and derided for the slogan “Change you can believe in!” and “Yes, We CAN!” and the even more elusive “the audacity of hope”. And up until today millions of voters have seized upon the media’s inferred malaise of the American Public by falling into line in an almost trance-ish submission… “change, we need chaaaaange. Not four more years of Bush, we need chaaaaaange”.

What is audacious – in my humble view – are the claims made by Barack Obama to change America, redefine what the American Dream is, promise us things that only a far leftist majority in both houses could accomplish and declare that the GOP has “ruined America’s prosperity and confidence”. With a stalemated Senate and an almost pointless majority in the House, Congress is the real policy setting body in D.C. and Obama can accomplish nothing unless he becomes what he adamantly denies he will be – just another politician.

As a Conservative Libertarian who usually votes GOP, occasionally votes Democrat, but ALWAYS votes my conscience I have been nauseated by the last 8-9 years of power obsession of the Republican Party, falling into an illusion of creating a “permanent majority” through intimidation, corrupt lobbying practices and a muscular foreign policy that has never made me comfortable, whether it was a Republican or Democratic President.

Barack Obama has built an entire campaign on vague principles, unsubstantiated promises and a cult of personality. Along with millions of other Americans, I want change too! I want to see my government do what it was commissioned to do in 1994 when we first sent them a majority in Congress, and a President in 2000. I want wasteful government spending to be taken on violently and with no mercy; I want lobbyist corruption to be rooted up and destroyed; I want immigration made a legitimate, efficient but SAFE option for anyone in the world; I want the entire judicial branch of Government to start acting according to its commission and stop setting policy and start interpreting original intent, not cultural relativity; I want public dependency upon the Government to end in a way that motivates individuals to help each other instead of dropping off our needy on the doorsteps of a victim-hungry political movement; I want a Government that refuses to think we are called to address every sad, bleeding-heart crisis in the world with military force, whether peaceful or otherwise.

These are all changes that Obama either cannot or will not deliver, and it leaves me to look for another option. John McCain is not my first choice, or my second, or my third, for that matter. But this fact does not diminish the significant difference between Obama and McCain in their ability to bring change to Washington, D.C. and potentially turn the tide of tradition that has flooded the Capital with arrogance for the better part of the last century. McCain and Palin together have forged careers built upon facing the challenges of bureaucracy with a stiff neck, even when it meant holding their own Party to the fire, and I respect the commitment to their nation and their principles. John McCain and I have differences of policy on many issues, but his leadership ability and his experience make him the most viable choice this November. Sarah Palin, first term Governor of Alaska only cements this formidable conviction even more.

So I believe the McCain campaign should take hold of this opportunity to spin Obama’s message on its head, pushing a philosophy of “change that is actually believable”, “yes, we actually WILL” and “the audacity to live free”… because every promise Barack assured us last night was our right to claim comes with a price, an estimated $1 trillion price, and only ensures us of further slavery to a dependency that develops millions into a guaranteed voting block, like employees of a benefactor who “writes the check that puts food on my table”.

And I, for one refuse to let someone or something make a submissive servant out of me.

McCain/Palin have all the right tools, the history and the momentum to change the Government in Washington… not just a speech they gave in 2002. :)

BlogBlurb - Palin (Pay-lin) is the "Hockey Mom" to Veep the GOP

2008-08-29T07:34:00.000-07:00

Who is Sarah Palin? The GOP's pending choice as Vice-President as McCain prepares to make the announcement of his preferred running mate in the next 15 minutes while I write this Blurb.

A first term Governor in Alaska who has also served on her local city council and as mayor of the same city, serving two terms in each capacity with wide margins of reelection victories.

A former beauty queen and moderate personality, she has an aggressive position on Government accountability and transparency, reducing even her own salary to fulfill a campaign promise to reduce wasteful spending and taxes. (While mayor of Wasilla, she managed to reduce city property taxes by 60%)

Known for challenging corruption in her own Party, she has taken on the big wigs in Alaska and brought justice to members of her OWN Party while maintaining enough support to win landslide elections among the public. Elizabeth Arnold of NPR reported in December of 2007 that Sarah Palin is "also a moose-burger-eating, snow-mobile-riding maverick who's not afraid to take on fellow Republicans she disagrees with."

Fred Barnes wrote an excellent piece on Palin in 2007 that highlights her record against corruption and her ability to bridge the gap and excercise sound government.

She has a strong environmental record, balanced by her having served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation council and signing aggressive research and development legislation to increase oil and gas production. Her husband Todd also works for BP on the North Slope in Alaska.

A mother of five, adamantly pro-life (after genetic testing revealed her 5th child Trig had Down's Syndrome she refused to terminate the pregnancy, saying "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection") and a member of "Feminists for Life", she is reasonable but principled on social issues, rejecting the concept of gay marriage, but fighting for equality, not special rights, for gay and lesbian citizens.

I think this makes for a fascinating pick for the Vice Presidency, essentially equalizing the female force in this election and harnessing some of the lost momentum that was previously monopolized by the Democrat Party. More time will tell whether the American Public accept this woman as their endearing Veep choice in the Fall, but I think she has all the right elements to make her both invigorating (being a woman), empathizing (having a newborn with DS), fiscally respectable (lowering taxes, decreasing spending and making services more efficient), articulate and a stalwart of integrity (taking her own Party to task over ethics). Palin's only potential weakness - inexperience - is cancelled out by Barack's own inexperience, and furthermore, she is a VP candidate, not the Presidential candidate as Obama finds himself. What a brilliant choice.

Barack Obama's message has been one of "change, change, change", blah blah blah... Well, I want change too, as a conservative made nauseated by the behavior of unethical Republicans over the last 8 years. We don't need to elect another Party into power to change the direction of the country. McCain just made it clear that he too is an agent for change, and in fact, the only candidate who has the experience and the ability to get it done. As a spending hawk and virulent opponent of wasteful government programs himself, McCain has just selected a woman who went against her own Party in Alaska and cleaned up the Government's ranks of tree-stump politicians who had failed the people.

You want "change"? McCain/Palin, with their occasional faults and weaknesses, just made themselves the only authentic "change" in this election.

Oh and one more point... I think McCain's Campaign management staff showed shrewed brilliance in how they handled the media in this matter, effectively shutting down the news media's Obamagasm last night by 6am this morning with speculation over his choice. His campaign kept his name in the flow last night with his nationwide ad campaign and his non-leak news leak about a possible Veep selection yesterday. Those of us who are looking for "anyone but Obama" have increasingly more to be pleased with as McCain shapes his true image in the minds of Americans over the next 60 days.

Rant # 15 - Truth Can Be Adjusted

2008-03-09T10:39:00.000-07:00

People of all races and backgrounds have an innate ability to rise above their circumstances and succeed based upon their own will and determination, as long as there are no societal or governmental barriers to them achieving this. The only force that can effectively keep people accountable to their actions and motivate them to succeed is the fear of failure, and the sense of self-worth that causes us to "pick up our bootstraps", so to speak, and do the responsible things that add up to a good community, a good government, a good culture. Governmnent "saftey nets" only add up to perpetual dependence and a generation of "entitled" brats.

Ours is a difficult philosophy to defend in a world where perception is reality based on truth that can be adjusted.

But the policies of a conservative pine for exactly those motivating, liberating changes that lead to a responsible and prosperous society. It was the Republican Party that was formed in Ripon, WI, 1854 as the "anti-slave" party, and successfully elected a the only third-party President to wage war on the societal assumptions of race superiority. They passed the first Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1871 and again in 1875. It was the Republican Party that insisted on empowering individuals in the midst of small recessions and the depression of the 1880's-90's. Champions like Gover Cleveland and William McKinley believed the strength of the American system was in allowing people to learn dependence on no one. They believed it was better to find your face in the dirt after you've fallen, than find your knees on the ground the rest of your life.

But again, this outlook on life is berated in the public media and painted as cruel and heartless by progressive liberals who preach "compassion" to the masses they look forward to victimizing and securing as a voting base.

But it was the Republican Party that lowered taxes from over 90%... YES! 90% on the richest Americans and the tax rates on every other taxpayer in the 1920's to ignite an economic boom that saw record unemployment, developed an overnight middle-class and initiated the most radical, positive changes in American Society since the Industrial Revolution. During the 1920's tax rates were savagely cut while tax revenue more than doubled. It was the Republican Party that helped foster the economic boom of the 1950's that saw low tax rates and little regulation encourage the development of something we call the "suburban life", lower-class Americans were moving up and moving out and were finding more freedom to pursue the American dream. But something still remained as a stain on American society: institutionalized racism. And by the way, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that sent troops to schools in the south to force the desegregation of blacks and whites. It was also Ike who appointed Chief Justice Warren to the Supreme Court, which ultimately did away with the hidden institutionalized racism that plagued our country. Finally, it was the Republican Party that pushed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 of 1964 against KKK Democrats like Roberty Byrd and then-Democrat Strom Thurmond. (Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, but ran as a segregationist Democrat in 1948.) Again, they pushed for another Act creating a means for enforement with additional legislation in 1968. Time after time, the Republican Party has been the champion of the "little guy"... but not by giving them a handout... rather they believe in their ability to fend for thsemselves when given the liberty to do so.

The Southern Democrats had a strangehold on blacks that were looking to take part in the same liberating, free will success everyone else was enjoying. From the time immediately following the Civil War, they had fought hard to keep Freemen from voting through a patchwork of ridiculous rules to keep them from being able to register. They wanted to ride the same busses, go to the same schools, shop in the same stores and vote in the same elections, but the Democratic Party, the champion of the poor WHITE masses would have nothing of it.

Meanwhile, many Democrats in the 1920's formed together to form the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states, and by the end of the decade their numbers had grown to nearly 5 million members.

Frances Rice, founder of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) points out that it was Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., who unleashed dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. And Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox who "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. And Democrat Governor George Wallace who stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools. She asks, "Have most black Americans ever been taught any of this? Of course not."

Today the Democratic Party is seeing a new opportunity rise in the latino community in the form of illegal immigrants and their inherent dependency on something or someone. And if they can show them a door to "freedom", they know they can secure generations of dependent sops all over again. Another race of open-handed, entitled poor people who will come to depend on the government for everything from housing and food to job placement and health care. Of course, the conservatives within the Republican Party find themselves in an awkward position of having to explain their philosophy of independence and self-determination through a muted media that will not properly convey their true heart or intentions. Ironic, since it has been Republicans who have essentially shoved equality down the throats of Democrats for 150 years.

Much of the latino community is a family-protecting, hard-working, God-loving culture that has so much to offer the American Way, but instead Democrats tell them the Government is there to "help" them and "protect" them. And the Republican Party is trying to play both sides, avoiding the brand of race-haters all over again. Somehow we lost this fight in the 1960's, but we MUST avoid allowing big-government activists to falsely frame the argument against Conservatives again.

People live best when they are free. No one deserves the same starting point to achieve success - that is more the result of natural forces out of our control or the foolish decisions of previous generations. But EVERYONE deserves the same right to use their freedom uninhibited in pursuing the happiness the first "conservatives" wrote into the Declaration of 1776. And they WILL achieve it if we get out of the way, allow the hot stove principle to teach them discretion, and allow men to pass or fail the test of life as God intended it! If I make a mistake and face economic despair because of a decision I made in a free society than sobeit. I'd rather die standing dirt poor than be a slave on my knees groveling at the feet of another.

Liberal Democrats have a vision of an "equal" America that defies human nature and history by enslaving the poor and punishing the wealthy. Conservatives look to empower EVERYONE without any strings attached. And I'm ticked that we have allowed ourselves to be cast as the opposite.

Misgiving # 6 - Global Warming is Being Proven as The Folly We Thought It to Be

2008-03-03T21:08:00.000-08:00

The following column was published today on foxnews.com by John Lott, and does an excellent job of properly framing the debate on global warming, and cutting out the rhetoric. He states concisely the practical measures of what global warming is, how it is caused, whether it can be mitigated by any human effort and if it is even still occurring.

(Significant links for footnotes on every major element of the article can be found on the Foxnews page where this story was sourced.)

_____________________________________

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency. After consulting with Al Gore, Obama feels the problem is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until he becomes president.

Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have been cooling dramatically over the last decade.

Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.

A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.

Yet, we just keep on piling on more and more regulations without asking hard questions about whether they are justified.

New mileage per gallon regulations were signed into law last year that will mandate cars get 35 MPG. The rules will make us poorer, forcing people to buy products that aren’t otherwise the best suited for them. More people will die because lighter cars are less safe, but we are told this is all worth it largely because of global warming.

But much of what gets passed is arbitrary. Was there anything scientific about picking 35 MPG instead of, say, 30 MPG other than the desire to do more? And how do these regulations fit in with all the gasoline taxes we have that are already reducing gas use?
To see if all this makes any sense there are really four questions that all have to be answered "yes."

1) Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but "there has been no net global warming since 1998." Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.

2) But supposing that the answer to the first question is "yes," is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).

Over 100 leading climate scientists from around the world signed a letter in December stating: "significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

In December a list was also released of another 400 scientists who questioned the general notion of significant manmade global warming.

3) If the answer to both preceding questions is "yes," is an increase temperature changes "bad"? That answer is hardly obvious.

Even the UN’s original draft stated that an increase in temperature of up to two degrees Celsius would be good for many regions of the globe. Higher temperatures could increase ocean levels by between seven inches and two feet over the next 100 years.

Although some blame global warming for seemingly everything, according to others higher temperatures will increase the amount of land that we can use to grow food, it will improve people's health, and increase biological diversity.

4) Finally, let's assume that the answer to all three previous questions is "yes." Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear.

If we believe that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people are claiming from global warming.

You want to pick a tax that just discourages carbon emissions to the point where the cost of global warming is greater than that of cutting emissions.

Too little of a tax can be “bad” because we would produce greenhouse gases when their costs were greater than the benefits. But too much of a tax also makes us poorer because we won’t be getting the benefits from cars or electricity even when the benefits exceed the costs that they would produce from global warming.

What is often ignored in the debate over global warming is that we already have very substantial taxes on gasoline, averaging 46 cents per gallon in the US. Even if one believes that gasoline use should be restricted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the question is whether our taxes are already restricting use "too much" or "not enough.” But simply saying that carbon dioxide emissions are bad isn’t enough.

In fact, William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale and former member of President Carter’s Council of Economic Advisors, puts the “right” level of gasoline taxes at around 10 cents a gallon today, reaching 16 cents per gallon in 2015. Nordhaus’ analysis assumes that the answers to the first three questions are “yes.” If anything, while gasoline taxes are partially used for such things as building roads, it seems quite plausible that, even accepting Nordhaus’ assumptions, current gasoline taxes are much too high to deal with the harm from global warming.

However good the intentions, the debate over global warming is much more complicated than simply saying that the world is getting warmer. It is too bad that these questions won’t be getting a real debate this election. The irony is that those who sell themselves as being so caring aren't careful enough to investigate the impact of their regulations.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Rant # 14 - The Great Contradiction: Compelled Compassion?

2008-02-19T10:53:00.000-08:00

I have found it amusing that the same ideologues who insist that “open-mindedness” and the questioning of authority are the duties of every American also insist that the Federal Government is the best agent of change and the ordained executor of force upon those who would resist this “compelled compassion".

In a recent conversation with a friend, I began to see why this apparent contradiction permeates among moderate and left-of center politicos. He believes that – by default – the government IS the people, therefore it must be that the will of the government is the will of the people. The logical conclusion is that government has the right to regulate, because this regulation is essentially self-imposed and as a result, involvement in the details of our lives cannot be questioned.

Programs like elderly welfare (Social Security), health care subsidization (Medicare), rental compensation for societal squatters (Section 8)… these are all elements that are intended (read: “sold”) as a means to help the poor, but end up enslaving multitudes of unsuspecting and open-handed young people who grow up never knowing the harsh realities of a life unlived. I don’t even question the basis of Government’s right to intervene if that is what the “people” call for, but I do question the fact that it will ever succeed. The entire 20th century was a monument to proving that these “well-intentioned” battles against poverty merely remove the responsibility and the consequences of decision from the individual and place them on a wandering “collective” that is neither equipped, nor capable of addressing needs on an individual basis. The system is so easy to abuse and we end up replacing one problem with another. Over time, the only resulting "compassion" is to those who have the the most influence on the weaker.

As Christians, my friend and I agree that we have a Biblical duty to see to the needs of the poor, the widows and orphans. The Church is charged with this duty, the Government is not. We are pathetically more interested in buying an HD flat-screen or saving for our futures more than helping our neighbors. We have marginalized “compassion” and charitable giving to being another expense in our budget, expendable when our waists are tightened. While we would be willing to sacrifice everything to provide for our family and protect them from failure and harm, we are unwilling to do the same for our fellowman; “love your neighbor as yourself” assumes we already love ourselves and has nothing to do with “loving yourself” first.

But now… we have allowed apathy to breed a passive attitude to liberal government philosophy, and it no longer thrives only in classrooms and universities, it has become the philosophy of Joe American. Because of the Church’s failure to serve, and the Christian’s selfish policies of economic “protectionism”, we have concluded that maybe the Federal Government IS a reasonable vehicle of change. After all, SOMEONE has to help the disenfranchised, right? The argument appeals to the best of human nature, to help someone in need. But giving this power to a centralized Government with endless lines of credit and little accountability allows the lesser side of human nature to take control and abuse the system for their OWN benefit. And this has occurred time and time again, even right here in America. On the other hand, when Americans are encouraged either indirectly through policy or directly by public pronouncement and example, the needs of the poor are met appropriately through the means of Biblical love and compassion.

Last year, Americans donated more than $150 billion to charitable causes in education, housing and sustenance programs. The Federal Government spent nearly $900 billion on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in the same year. How much more would we as a community embrace each other in need with the power of more economic freedom if we simply trusted ourselves to do the same? Instead, we somehow have lied to ourselves for so long that we now believe the Government system is more trustworthy than we are on a local level.

The Great Contradiction has been borne out of our moral nature to help the underprivileged and down-trodden, but has been polluted by the wake of destruction left behind by countless failed policies and socialist agendas. Capitalism and representative republicanism thrives because it harnesses the worst of human nature (greed, individualism) and assures it is funneled back into the mutual benefit of the community (open market), providing employment, charitable practice and most of all the freedom to pursue dreams and learn from our personal mistakes quickly.

Studies by the Heritage Foundation (1, 2) and the Cato Institute (1, 2) have proven the case that when taxes and regulation are scaled back, charitable giving and common decency fills the void. And this result is entirely more efficient and accountable than a Government program raising voting blocks full of “entitled” lemmings, wouldn't you suppose?

Rave #8 - Romney Gives Memorable Speech as He Drops Out of Presidential Race at CPAC

2008-02-08T18:59:00.000-08:00

In a speech that embued the best of conservative philosophy and being "Presidential", Mitt Romney saved his best speech until last. As he bows out of the race, he indirectly endorses McCain and underlines the importance of protecting America from the dangerous policies of the left.

This speech will be referenced and studied for years, as we have Reagan on so many occasions, to communicate what conservatism is and should be. I was a doubter of Romney's true "conversion" while in office, but these words are very obviously coming from the heart of a man who believes every single word.

Watch it, savor it, and spread it around to those who are spreading the lies that the Conservative Movement is dead.

BlogBlurb - Cut it out, Conservatives!

2008-02-02T18:16:00.000-08:00

ABC News asks survey takers “do you think that Mitt Romney would be a good or a bad President?” and people respond by saying he’s “too corporate”. John McCain’s various compatriots throw out news bait questioning Romney’s ability to manage government because he hasn’t had enough time in the system. Online bloggers suggest that Romney’s “flip-flopping” makes him untrustworthy.

While Huckabee insists on staying in a race that only the delusional believe he has a chance of winning, the conservative vote is split between the only two men that hold a perception of being conservative. Romney is not a tried and true conservative in the mold many Republicans have been hoping for, but it seems that is not his biggest liability. Instead, countless evangelical and other protestant Christians have no intention of supporting a candidate who is not only a Mormon, but even held a leadership position within his church. Their most serious charge is that Mormonism is a “cult” and they just don’t trust a “cultist” to be President. But as a member of a very conservative Pentecostal denomination I have also had charges of “cult” hurled at me countless times by the moderate and agnostic.

The definition of a “cult” by the Random House Dictionary:
A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers.
A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

To all of my fellow evangelical die-hards, listen to me: while we believe that our faith and doctrine are the only correct interpretation of scripture, we are no more OR less a “cult” than Mormonism! Somehow it doesn’t bother these same detractors that 17 of our 43 presidents were Masons, as well as Ben Franklin, Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, who are, at heart worshippers of humanity and Mother Nature. I don’t understand the aversion of some fellow Christians to voting for a man who has a spotless record of character, has been married happily for 38 years, loves his wife and children and has never had a single slimy scandal in his life simply because he believes another faith other than traditional Christianity? I personally believe Mormonism is false, but so is the faith of playboy and maverick John McCain. McCain on the other hand was such a rebel that he lost his first wife, was known for frequenting strip bars and drag races, dating models and exotic dancers and has done more harm to the largest of conservative causes in the last 10 years than any other high-profile Republican member of Congress.

It remains to be said that every other major candidate in this race is a career politician and has no real experience running a business with the principles of efficiency and high customer service. On the contrary, Mitt Romney has a leadership ability that attracts the right people, motivates the cynical and transforms mediocrity to levels of greatness. While I do not agree with every decision he made as Governor of Massachusetts, he is by far the most conservative candidate remaining in this primary race. Huckabee is at best a moderate in governmental and fiscal policy, and McCain is the definition of an opportunist that has literally lied about previous positions and votes, believing the media will simply overlook his "inaccuracies" out of allegiance for his "independent" spirit and flair.

Christians need to stop haranguing Romney for his faith, independents need to start seeing the pandering and legacy-hunting character of Playboy McCain, and they need to begin paying attention to the dynamic of this race with three dramatically polarizing candidates and vote with responsibility. Mitt Romney is not God’s gift to conservatism, but he’s the closest representation we have to choose from, and American conservatives will be miserable with 4 years of John McCain if voters continue looking for the perfect candidate. Mitt Romney is a strict insightful businessman who understands efficiency and creativity and knows how to keep his hands clean. Something we haven’t been able to say about our President in a long time.

BlogBlurb - Take your false facts and stuff 'em...

2008-01-28T21:33:00.000-08:00

It is now the official Election Year nationally, I have been getting these reports sent to me. This one was particularly interesting ( I have included a link to the original report). Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the War on Terrorism, this report should open some eyes.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006

____________________________________________________________

These are some rather eye-opening facts.

Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through today, we have lost over 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents.

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ........ 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 ...........2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years @14,000 deaths
1997 ......... 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 ........ 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 .......... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths
2005 ......... 919 (George W Year)
2006........... 920 (George W Year)

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race: European descent............................69.12%
Hispanic ....................................... 12.5%
Black...............................................12.3%
Asian ...............................................3.7%
Native American ............................1.0%
Other .............................................. 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ...........................................10.74%
Black .................................................9.67%
Asian ................................................1.81%
Native American ............................1.09%
Other ...............................................0.33%

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for liberal political gain). Nothing more...its all about politics and the libs are famous for turning American against American for a vote. (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf ) Now ask yourself two questions:

"Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?"
and
"Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide) web as much as they do?"

Ensure you do your homework before you place your vote. Because the media does their own, and they know how to manipulate those who don't.

Rant #13 - What's Going on with Ron Paul?

2008-01-26T17:49:00.001-08:00

A recent article by Don Luskin on his evaluation on Ron Paul’s popularity reminded me about some conversation I had with a local radio talk show host recently on this subject. The host insisted that Ron Paul was a freak that shouldn’t be given a platform at all. But Luskin had it right when he said it is “time to take the TEN-TERM Texas congressman seriously”.

That’s right, ten-terms. I am not personally endorsing Ron Paul for reasons better left to another post, but I do recognize that he has a loyal following and appears to be gathering the support of lunatic fringe groups on both the right and left sides of the aisle, as well as those of us who are simply out of any political classification. He draws thousands of supporters from libertarian groups and anti-globalists in an almost cult-like following giving millions of dollars to his campaign to fight the “establishment”.

You cannot count this guy out. Luskin points out that Paul placed second in Nevada and beat all other candidates like Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani with 14% of the vote. Of course he only got ¼ the votes that Romney did, but nonetheless, he IS a formidable candidate in this race, and in fact, got 10% in Iowa, 6% in Michigan, 8% in New Hampshire and 4% in South Carolina where you’d think he’d get zero. Whether you think he’s a bit loony or you think he’s the savior of Federalism, it is quite a surprise that conservatives are throwing him such widespread support. And as other candidates are dropping out of the race because of a lack of funds or nationwide support, Paul is just heating up.

Think about it:

He raised $19.5 million in the final quarter of 2007 alone, from 130,000 individual donors. That makes him THIRD in fundraising behind the two top Democrats.

The average contribution was $150, leaving a massive amount of fundraising potential remaining among his current contributors alone. (…a potential $200 million)

He raised $6 million in one day in what many consider the record for single-day political fundraising in U.S. history, and raised $1.8 million YESTERDAY (1/21/08) as well.

In fact, “front-runner” Mitt Romney raised over $18 million in the same quarter, but $8 million of it was a loan from Romney himself.

Dr. Paul has the "mo" an independent needs – his campaign flaunts the fact that if he gains any more traction and can get a mere 200,000 people to donate a thousand dollars each, he will have nearly as much cash as both Hillary and Obama combined. He has nearly that many contributors on his speed-dial as I write this piece.

Now to some of us this is a scary thought, to others it is an awesome in-your-face to the diluted Republican Party we’ve watched sell itself off in pieces for the last 6-7 years. Ron Paul is about simplicity. Sure, he has skeletons in his closet but his supporters don’t care. And yes, he seems more like a Ralph Nader in a slightly newer suit than a Ronald Reagan-like leader.

But there is a growing rebellion among the political left and right that is increasingly frustrated with a government that believes it has the solution to problems, instead of removing itself from them. In fact, no one called Reagan “fringe” for believing the same thing when he said that “government IS the problem”, but it is in fact the same philosophy built on the history that Americans prosper most when government does not try to help them.

The talk-show host I mentioned earlier had also expressed skepticism that Ron Paul doesn’t seem to spend any of the money he has and maybe someone should investigate him. But could it be that Paul is bracing himself for a larger, national campaign and he’s holding the cash until he needs it most? Is it possible that Paul is actually preparing for a third or fourth party candidacy? If McCain wins the Republican nomination, expect this.

Some are skeptical about Ron Paul simply because of the company he attracts. They figure that if 9/11 conspirators and SK-toting long-beards can come together under the same tent there must be something fishy about him. Could it be that we have marginalized OURSELVES by forgetting that the other half of this country may have completely different political views but the same mothers and fathers and history as we do? Isn’t it possible that Americans are looking for a leader that appeals to the buried human nature in us all of self-preservation and independence?

We take a political position on myriad issues and determine that our favorite candidate is the one who can make it HAPPEN. But I think many of Ron Paul’s donors believe THAT is actually the problem – government should never be allowed to “make” anything happen. The greater good of society is borne out of the individual’s pursuit of their own liberty, not the collective majority vote in an election or the "vision" of a candidate of "change".

Maybe Ron Paul’s candidacy is reminding people of something that the rest of us should pay heed to: we all (liberal and conservative) have a God-given nature that desires the freedom to do what is right, and prosper with the dreams that define us. And the Government has tried for a hundred years to help us achieve our dreams and rid ourselves of the “primitive” side of humanity, not realizing that maybe that primitive nature is where greatness comes from… it’s where liberty finds it’s value. Don’t we WANT a leader that we can all unite under as he deconstructs the system that forces us all to either conform or resist? Maybe the Republican Party needs to get its’ act together and see what the rest of America is crying out for. Not a “New Conservatism”, not “reform”, but “retraction” and an elimination of “vision” for America. Just give me liberty and the freedom to make the most of it!

BlogBlurb - Oh Yeah, the Media Just Loves 'em... But Why? Hmm....

2008-01-22T20:27:00.000-08:00

...imagine if he was the nominee. Let's just say Huck is a ratings DREAM.

BlogBlurb - Thompson is the Man for the Job...

2008-01-02T20:08:00.000-08:00

Don't believe me, check out these videos. We have only a weeks before our own Presidential Primary here in Wisconsin on Tuesday, February 19th, and most of us are able to vote this year. Did you know that most people our age don't vote? But we don't back it up by voting to change things. Yet, your vote does count. Your perspective does matter! Fred Thompson has amazing support among young people who appreciate his vision, his clarity, his ability to communicate and his emphasis on de-centralized, smaller government. He believes government isn't the solution to the problem, but the source of the problems!

He has never CHASED the Presidency, he is not a career politician - this opportunity came to him because his supporters, me included encouraged him to run because we believe in him and his ideas. Watch and listen to his ideas to fix the health care system, tax issues, immigration issues, high college costs, energy costs, out of control judges, secularism in schools, etc.

Misgiving #5 - I Heart Huckabee? Uh.... no.

2007-12-07T23:41:00.000-08:00

I began this year looking at the lot of Republican hopefuls with some disappointment... surely after 6-7 years of a slowly denigrated conservative party there would be a leader or two that would rise out of the ashes of Medicare prescription coverage, nationalized education, and a record number of earmarks. But those of us that are the unwavering conservatives, we were faced with an opportunistic Mitt Romney or a rock-solid, but pro-choice Giuliani.

Ah, so suddenly all of you have gotten so excited about one man, Mr. Mike Huckabee. Alas, some of you have been campaigning for him for nearly two years, long before he even declared his intent. I'm so glad that some of us have had the vision to look ahead and begin, literally, a grass roots movement to raise a leader you can believe in to national status... with almost no special interest money or compromise.

But I have had a hesitation in my gut since day one. Not just cuz the guy is from Arkansas... I mean, only two of the last three governors have been corrupt; it doesn't mean Huckabee had to be. In fact, he was a crusader! He came in to clean things up, right? He's pro-life, pro-family, a Baptist minister in his own right. It's almost too perfect!

Exactly.

I've learned to trust my gut, and so I decided to start digging for the truth long before conservative talk show hosts did. Those who know me and my past political adventures know I’m not one to shy away from voting my conscience. I don’t consider it a “wasted vote” to vote with your heart – with PRINCIPLE. It’s weakness at the ballot box that gives us weakness in leadership. So I really wanted to see if this Huckabee guy was all he was cracked up to be. I wanted someone to BELIEVE IN AGAIN! I began my journey about 8 months ago, just as the Republican list of nominees seemed set in stone. But conservative columnists like Ilana Mercer and Vox Day began chiding conservatives for the next several months because of their blind embrace of the pro-life minister. I wanted to know why.

Meanwhile, the mass-media has begun to notice Huckabee, and as our mutual distrust for the Arkansan Politico has matured, they have finally put into writing what I have been slowly discovering the last 4-5 months... Mike Huckabee is not a conservative. He is no more a conservative than Zell Miller. Yes, that's right. Of course, he supports gun rights. He's from the Ozarks man. Of course, he's pro-life – he IS a man of faith, and I DO respect that. But any man that raises taxes 47% during his governorship, pushes for government subsidies of tuition for illegal aliens and health benefits, criticizes the President for his veto of the Democratic increases in CHIP, grants pardons to criminals as often as he winks at the camera (more than 700, you know including 12 murderers), calls fellow conservative critics names, slanders his Republican brothers with flat-out lies (Club for Growth accusation on hidden donations), suffers 15 reprimands from the state ethics board, then SUES that ethics board (and loses), views global warming as a serious issue and that we have a "biblical duty" to address it… is NOT a conservative. He is a social conservative, to be sure... but he is NOT a fiscal conservative at all, and Lord knows, the Republican Party is not the same today because it lost sight of the other half of the two-edged sword, small-government vs. strong morals.

One of the most disturbing revelations I found about Huckabee was his reaction to the Club for Growth, a conservative, anti-tax, small government group because of their opposition of him. Rather than playing the gentleman and ignoring the critics, he slandered them as hiding their sources of money and called them "Club for Greed". Ironically, Huckabee founded a non-profit while governor and strangely, the non-profit's only expenditure was paying Mr. Huck himself for various speeches. Of course, these donors are not public either, and being a non-profit, allows the "conservative savior" to make thousands of dollars outside the realm of his public office.

My problem isn't so much his attempt to reach "across the aisle" to get things done, or even some of his positions... I can be pragmatic too. My problem is the fact that he represents NOTHING of my fiscally conservative values and has toed the line of ethics so long that no one in his past political circles respects him anymore. Even fellow Republicans.

To all conservatives out there, please heed these warnings... Mike Huckabee is NOT the best choice. Every frustration we've tried to ignore with our current President is magnified in this man. If you thought the last several Congressional sessions were a waste of time, Huckabee gives no reason to hope otherwise. Together, the Americans for Tax Reform, The Club for Growth and the revered Cato Institute have given us stern warnings about him and his economic philosophy. Huckabee supporters are out there in the audience of this post, and please, don’t take offense to this. But be honest with yourself. Don’t tell me he cut taxes… his tax increases outweighed his tax cuts by $500 million!! Who CARES about the tax cuts when you cancel every one with a hike somewhere else, and THEN som.

As governor, Mike Huckabee:
Signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission
and the Department of Parks and Tourism.
He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.
He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax
on private nursing home patients in 2001.
He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.
He opposed a Congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.
In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law
Increased state spending over 60% from 1996 to 2004
Opposed school choice or open voucher programs

So let me ask you, is there any reason you want to support a man like Huckabee, other than he's funny, affable, smart, "experienced" and pro-life?! Is being Pro-life the only thing you care about? Then heck, let’s get Georgia’s Zell Miller to run for President! He’ll bankrupt us with nationalized health care and kill our nation with open borders, but he’s pro-life!! Come on, let’s be serious

If Huckabee gets your Republican primary vote, he really has pulled off one of the most impressive grass-roots uprisings I've seen in a long time. But I guess that's not too surprising for those who knew him back in Arkansas… they know their ole’ guv’ner well… there they affectionately call him, "the Huckster"... apropos.

Below are some of the many links I've gathered of articles exposing The "Huckster" for what he really is... another sleezy, fun-loving Arkansan. Don't hate me yet... just read these first. ESPECIALLY the Robert Novak piece in the Washington Post:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12394
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501547_pf.html
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/updated_huckabee_white_paper.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/media/uploads/071113-white-paper-huckabee-update.pdf

BlogBlurb - Huckabee - The Snoopy Candidate

2007-11-12T15:22:00.000-08:00

I like that association... Huckabee, the Snoopy Candidate. And the one a conservative goes for when all else hope is gone. ;)

Rave #7 - The Democrat's New Form of Slavery

2007-07-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

This column piece was written by Ann Coulter and featured in Human Events, on WorldNetDaily.com, Whistleblower Magazine and on TownHall.com

IMPORTING A SLAVE CLASS
'Vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery'
by Ann Coulter

Apparently, my position on immigration is that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, inasmuch as this is billed as the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens -- and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., center, accompanied by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., left, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, discusses immigration reform legislation during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 17, 2007. . (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy -- he must know where they are!

How do we even know there are 12 million of them? Why not 3 million, or 40 million? Maybe we should put the guy who counted them in charge of deporting them.

If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

I believe that the shortage of unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans we experienced in the '60s has been remedied by now.

Since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year. Only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why on earth would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants?

Say, don't Ph.D.s and other skilled workers have more influence on government policy than unskilled workers? Aren't they more likely to bend a president's ear? Yes, I believe they are! Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the government's policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers.

The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms -- and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes.

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants -- unlike you lazy Americans -- are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden -- the downtrodden trimming their hedges -- pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but (1) they don't believe that; and (2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

Not to worry, Marie Antoinettes! According to "Alien Nation" author Peter Brimelow, "There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10 percent of Mexicans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican-Americans." So you'll always have the maid. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: "You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?"

We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery.

What do they care if their servants are made citizens eligible to vote and collect government benefits? Aren't the fabulously rich happy in Venezuela? Oops, wrong example. Brazil? No, no, let me try again. Mexico! ... Well, no matter. What could go wrong?

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .

Rant #12 - "Buffetting" the Truth for Some Distorted View of the World

2007-07-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was sitting in Starbucks just outside Waukesha, WI surrounded by the upper-middle class to upper class managers and executives that make this Wisconsin's richest county and largest tax-source. At the same time, I was reading an article about Democratic leadership vilifying the wealthy and demanding they pay more taxes because it is their "duty". It hit me - are we all so naive to think that such policies stop with the defeat of their first target? I intend to make more money to support my family as I get older. Could I be next? Here, companies such as GE and Red Prairie, AT&T and Kohl's have found refuge from the claws of the socialist tax policies of nearby Milwaukee County and it's historic hub of stubborn, hard-edged working class grit, the city of Milwaukee. Waukesha County has the highest property taxes in total receipts in Wisconsin, as well as the highest income tax collections of any county, though not for it's aggressive, progressive (or regressive) taxes, but because of the freedom the county has provided to generate that wealth. In turn, Waukesha County has given back in big measure.

I believe many of our inequalities, both social and economic are rooted in and caused by the efforts of "social engineers" in their drive to exercise their power for "social justice". They have hijacked the emotion of compassion and slapped it into a liberal vehicle that drives circles around common sense, but never goes anywhere. The politicians of the nation's wealthiest communities succeed in posterity when they care less about social justice than social empowerment. But many, sadly are falling into step with the liberal action line: "everyone deserves the same thing."

You must see the biggest difference between conservative and liberal philosophy is belief in where the ultimate social justice can be found - is it in the human heart or the laws of the land? Is the role of government to protect its people from enemies foreign or domestic, or is it to protect us from not only ourselves, but even nature itself, environmental and human? Is the role of any authority to empower, train and facilitate the excercise of mature freedom, or to protect it's subjects from any and every potential threat or discomfort? Have we failed to depend on the varacity of the human spirit to survive and instead turned to a collaborative body so easily manipulated by power to depend upon for our basic needs? We have raised a generation of weak, unambitious push-overs who have no concept of trial by fire, solid work ethic or moral absolutes.

And this too has resulted from the aforementioned looking for a way to "protect" and "defend" the "helpless". In fact, they have secured their helplessness by infusing dependence into their very core. Our governmental bodies were once mockingly referred to as "big brother", but that was so long ago. Our default mentality has become one of expectance; you and I are now owed so many "rights", they make the Bill of Rights look primitive.

It seems that health care has now become a "right" for every American, and it has become the "duty" of the wealthy to share the largest portion of the tax burden. When foolish people build a metropolis on a Hurricane Alley bullseye, it is now the responsibility of a federal government a thousand miles away to save those people and give money to the ones who threw their futures away on a swamp. So, to fix these disadvantages, often well-meaning crusaders gather up the democratic momentum to pass laws that will "never let this happen again", not taking into account all the unintended consequences.

Look at a couple of examples of "unintended consequences":

The poor African-American communities in 1960's America had been shunned by the workforce, struggled with the onset of de-segregation for the first time in 200 years, and needed a helping hand. So we invented a welfare system that hardly fixed the original problem and created a larger one: there's no need for working fathers and responsible families to exist, because the government paid for the house, the food and other "discretionary" items.

In the 1970's and 1980's there were abuses in the Oil industry, both locally and abroad that harmed the environment and lead to severe damage to coastlines and wildlife: laws were subsequently passed that made it so difficult and expensive to build refineries and explore new sources for oil that current crises in spiking energy costs have resulted from 30 year old plants and 40 year old fields losing the ability to meet demand. Oil companies aren't raking you over the coals, they're building new refineries they couldn't afford to build before because of restrictive policies and massive profit losses. But nonetheless, environmental hyper-sensitivity and emotional politiking has triumphed over responsible common sense and costed consumers literally billions of dollars in foreign dependency and uncertainty.

Take a picture of the easiest target: Exxon made nearly $40 billion in profit last year, never mind that Exxon is the largest corporation in the world and made only a 10% profit on $400 billion in sales. It's much easier just to blame them and their evil greedy shareholders than think rationally. They already pay more taxes than most of us would think. Financial commentator Jonathan Williams noted last year that “the tax burden on American ‘big oil’ … exceeds total GDP of 150 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank.” In addition, the profit margin of “Big Oil” is on par with returns in many industries – somewhere between 8 and 10 cents on the dollar – and actually lags behind many others. In other words, Exxon’s huge raw profit is simply a reflection of the company’s massive revenue stream.

Once more, never mind that those "evil greedy shareholders" are most likely your pension fund, your retired grandparents or your own personal retirement account.

But I digress...

The reason I mention the above is to frame the argument for keeping government where it should be - in a role of "responding" to problems if needed, not a tool to "react" when a problem needs to be fixed. To address one shortfall, we put out thoughts into black and white, creating a new problem that falls into the gray area between. Then we pass another law to clarify and solve THAT shortfall and again create perpetuating shortfalls over and over again. It was Thomas Paine who said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

I fully acknowledge that there are thugs and wicked people in this world that will always try to manipulate and take advantage of the weakest around them for their own personal gain. And it is a rightful place for the government to assure everyone the same opportunity to succeed. But it is NOT it's rightful place to assure everyone the same ACHEIVEMENT of that success. We now have more than one generation that has grown so lazy and dependant that it is nearly impossible to imagine having to plant, grow, harvest and feed our own families with the natural tools found around us. But that is exactly the ethic that made this nation great and placed it in the position of becoming the wealthiest in the history of man. You would never know by driving down the streets of urban America, seeing the total lack of respect for authority, honor of marriage and family, devotion to a fine education and an ambition for a solid, well-paying job. While Milwaukee, Wisconsin suffers with a 25% unemployment rate within the inner city there are several hundred welding jobs paying over $20/hour at the two largest mining companies in the world only a short bus ride away. How can this be, in a land that gives you so much opportunity to succeed? I believe it is because in an attempt to assist the needy, we made them unable. With any economic or legal system there will be shortcomings and abuses if human beings are involved in the process. Our goal should not be to simply eliminate the forces of evil that seek to take advantage of the weak, but to liberate the inate force within each neighbor to reach higher and not be impeded by social ineptitude OR an entitlement mentality of dependence. Sadly, we have created both through "social engineering".

I would dare to say that the severe inequalities that exist in our nation today are not a result of "capitalism" run amok, but rather our attempt to somehow FIX it by inventing a hybrid of socialism/capitalism. We have taken two competing, opposite philosophies and tried to fuse them together, when the human conscience knows better.

So back to Starbucks... as I sit here among all these proud members of America's top 5% taxpayers, I am reading an article in U.S. News, dated July 16, 2007, page 51, by reporter James Pethokoukis. I am reminded that the taxes on the rich and large corporations is simply another political power tool liberals use to flex muscle and engineer a better society, yet fail in the end. He makes my argument patently clear in his words regarding Hillary Clinton and Warren Buffett:

"Clinton praised Buffett for understanding it was the national duty of wealther Americans to pay higher taxes. In a May 29 speech Clinton said, 'It's simply not fair that as corporate profits have skyrocketed, the percentage of taxes paid by corporations [has] fallen... It's as though we've goneback to the era of the Robber Barons'.

[However, she failed to mention] the combined top federal, state and local corporate tax rate in the United States of 39.3% is the second highest among industrialized economies and nearly 11% above the average. Back in 2000, the average international tax rate was 33.6%, but [foreign] governments have been slashing rates like mad to atteact foreign investment. The rate differential is one reason U.S. companies try to avoid repatriating profits that they make overseas."

Now tell me, how does this status-quo scenario benefit the poor? How does "punishing" the wealthy by demanding they pay their "duty" to society actually help the unemployed who need to find a lower paying job because Company X went overseas to make their retired shareholders an income? Ohhhhh, uh oh.... time for a new law. This time, let's tax the profits of companies made and retained overseas as well. That should work, right? Cross your fingers, because that's as good a chance as you might have.

Mr. Pethokoukis continued with his analysis:

"...Companies are paying more [taxes] already. In 2006 the feds took in $354 billion in corporate income taxes, 70 PERCENT MORE THAN IN 2000! [Emphasis added] And perhaps lowering corporate rates might actually generate more business and revenue. There's the old axiom that says whatever you tax, you get less of."

I will offer you the proof of his statement that he lacked the space to include:

Across-the-board tax rate reductions in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929.
In fact, the decade began with less than a quarter billion dollars in annual revenue from the wealthiest 5% to the Treasury, and ended with nearly $1 billion, despite cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans by nearly 60%! The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent.
In 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25 percent to a maximum of 63 percent, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79 percent later in the decade. The 1930s, to put it mildly, are not remembered as one of the American economy's better decades.
Across the-board tax rate reductions introduced by President John F. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with substantially lower taxes on savings and investment, are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.
The Johnson surtax, enacted in 1968 during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the inflation-induced bracket creep of the 1970s (subjecting taxpayers to higher rates even though their real incomes had not changed), resulted in a decade of stagflation.
Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs. The U.S. Treasury also enjoyed a doubling in tax receipts, while cutting the rate at which they collected them from the often-stigmatized "evil" wealthist Americans. These high-bracket earners ended up paying a higher share of the tax burden simply because they were investing and earning more in a free, less-regulated environment.
The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush and Bill Clinton are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the average family's income.

Source: The Heritage Foundation

Every couple of decades the momentum shifts and another generation of people decide they have a great idea to solve the great evils and social ills of our society, assuming that previous generations had never thought of them first, or tried them... let alone failed at them. Now we have another assembly of arrogant politicians who think that their "new bright ideas" are going to lead us into the promised land.

A wise and witty U.S. President once said: "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours." Let's hope it never gets to the point of proving his words true.

Keep your head up and your feet down this next election and maybe we can delay those other idiotic economic minds from engineering our self-defeat a little longer.

BlogBlurb - Democratic "inefficiency and non-compassion"

2007-01-05T20:24:00.000-08:00

Those suffering from the "entitlement mentality" in the southern state of Louisiana believe a.) that it is the feds responsibility to bail them out and rebuild a foolishly established city and give it to those who will only repeat their mistakes; and b.) believe that the inaction of the federal government before and after Katrina is racially motivated. They do of course, release any Democratic Congressional leader or President from these charges.

Finally a prominent figure has articulated the truth against this travesty of human misconception.

In an interview with BET.com, the Black Entertainment Network's website, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, who is black, addressed charges of racism related to the government's response to Katrina.

Jackson said his agency has helped Katrina evacuees move out of shelters and hotels, but very few are being placed in the New Orleans area. He said his agency has addressed specific accusations of housing discrimination toward blacks but insists the problem is not widespread.

The difficulties his agency faces in New Orleans, he said, are unusual, because the flood waters moved homes off their foundations. "So our first task is examination; is it safe to move the homes; and second is it safe to rebuild," he said. "We might not want to rebuild the way we did before."

Scty. Jackson argued conditions in New Orleans' Lower Eighth and Ninth Wards were "not livable" before the flood.

"It disturbs me tremendously when people want to say racism played a part in this," he said. "As I reminded the Reverend Jesse Jackson and (NAACP President) Bruce Gordon, for 31 years we've had a black mayor in New Orleans; for 25 years we've had a predominately black city council in New Orleans, and the quality of life did not change for black people living in the Lower Eighth and Lower Ninth."

In fact, Scty. Jackson asserted, "the quality of life had only gotten worse until the flood came in. ... My contention is it wasn't race, it was inefficiency and non-compassion."

AMEN!

Somehow, the failure of 90 years of generally overwhelming democratic rule becomes the responsiblity of a government hundreds of miles away that has no responsiblity for the city to begin with. New Orleans should have been a utopia by now, with all the democratic programs and leftist "equality" systems in place. But alas America's most crime-ridden city (with a murder rate 8 times the national average and 5 times the number of assaults) has become a beacon for the failed policies of a well-intentioned but unmotivating philosophy. Government cannot be a source of fixing the problem; government is and has been the problem.

A portion of this post was sourced from WND.com

Rant #11 - Playing Rummy... Could it be Time to Discard?

2006-10-31T10:03:00.001-08:00

I'm about to go off on a little rant... (albeit a wee controversial)

Approaching this November election, we stand 7 days away from a watershed moment in politics, and American sentiment. For the first time in 30 years we could see the atmosphere and condition of another nation around the world determine how we are going to live here in America. More than 60% of Americans are frustrated with the war in Iraq and agree that it has not gone exceptionally well. In fact, the President agrees with them. No particular person is to blame for this scenario, but the percolating facts and figures tend toward one side of the soup bowl. And whether right or wrong - I've learned that management life is never fair - fault (or the lack thereof) does not always equal responsibility, yet it does not negate it either; and wherever the epicenter of criticism should be in blaming our losses in Iraq, we must make a decision about how to correct the current malaise.

In the midst of this, it would be a mistake to believe President Bush is the person we ought to focus on in this debate. It has been unfortunate that the focus of this election for months has been on a man that is not even on the ballot. On the one hand, the political left is right to portray this election not in a local context, but on a national perspective. If you want the current national state of being to continue, your vote may play a very large part in determining the future course of our country. But on the other hand, the stakes are high: Chairmanship of every committee in Congress is up in the air, and if laid in the hands of eager Democratic visionaries, we will see the rise of middle and top end taxes on income, restoration of ridiculous increases of government entitlements, decreased funding of intelligence agencies, and either a full pull-out of Iraq or simply political deadlock on the campaign - leaving no fire behind push. The factors effecting the purity of our war in Iraq have been numerous and unpredictable.

NEWS FLASH: All wars suffer the same fate!

If the Republican Party has just one more significant trick up it's sleeve, I measureably believe it could be one thing: ask Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Ok, take a breather and consider it for a moment......

You good? Ok. Donald Rumsfeld represents a number of glaring truths about this war, and our country's approach to armed conflict.

He stands firm and makes resolute decisions he feels are the best for the country
He has aggressively and effectively placed the entire military industrial complex on the chopping table, and made it leaner, meaner and more efficient. In short, we're getting more bang for our buck, so to speak.
He has a very defined goal in mind, rather than a muddled, one-day-at-a-time mentality. He knows we must get the job done in Iraq, and does not want to throw away any accomplishment by pulling out before the right time.

But... I also believe he has shown his resolve can ruffle feathers, get under the skin of subordinates, irritate diplomatic relations... he has revealed to his counterparts in the media that he is stubborn to the point of encyclopedic proportions. While his strengths make him a valuable asset, his method makes him a liability.

For nearly a year and a half, the President has stood by the side of Rumsfeld, declaring his confidence in the man, and repeating his mantra that they are "getting the job done". Unfortunately for the President, as the American people have grown weary of this war's daily figures and headlines they've begun to place the onus upon him, not just his administration, or even terrorists that know conditions on the ground affect policy and public sentiment here. So suddenly, the third district House race in "Anywhere, U.S.A." matters more than it did last time. This Congressional election has become a referendum on America's emotional capacity for nasty headlines. And our economy and national security may suffer the consequences.

If the Republican Party wants to turn this election on its ugly head and go into the last several day stretch with a push the Democratic Party will not have time to construe an answer to, there is only one choice I believe they have to make: Release Donald Rumsfeld.

Even if he's not asked to leave right away, the sentiment will have such a staggering effect on media consciousness, it will ripple through America quicker than $100 million of dirty prime-time advertising. Bush will become the water-cooler conversation for the next 5 business days, and people who have been questioning the President's ability to lead, whether legitimate or not, just may tilt on the fence of opinion and vote with their gut, not their emotions. This action would not be a surrender, it would not project weakness; it would certainly undermine the only claim the Democratic Party has against this administration in light of a roaring economy, rising wages and benefits, lower crime, easing health-care costs, historically low unemployment, increasing diplomatic relations with North Korea, increased border security, disappearing budget deficits (in fact, achieving budget surpluses within 6 years), record stock indexes, higher standards for public education, resolved baseball labor agreements (thank GOD!)... or whatever else you can think we have now that we did not 6 years ago. So, if you want to change all these things about our nation's current condition, then vote your emotions and against Republican candidates. Otherwise, vote with your gut, your brain, your wallet, or whatever it is that makes you vote for the conservative agenda.

The facts before voters (although a bit clouded and unclear) are that the economic condition is incredibly viable through many terrible factors, local and state governments are becoming more solvent and effective, small businesses are flourishing, international security threats are being dealt with in a determined manner... and despite the discouraging news from a war that is as difficult as any other we have fought, we ought to consider that all the great things that have been accomplished the last 5-6 years could begin to dim if we lose faith in a system of government that allows Americans to control their own destiny, their own finances and their own day to day functions. Keeping that subtle drift toward more government control is more important to me than casting my emotional vote on how I feel about Iraq, and I believe most of the rest of us feel the same.

I believe the key to winning this election handily, rather than by the hair on our chinny-chin-chin is by discarding our highest scoring card for the sake of beating the odds. Bid Rummy a respectable farewell and say hello to Deputy Gordon England or General Pace.

Think about it...

BlogBlurb - America, Watch Out!

2006-10-26T09:22:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press - you know, "they" - just reported that Mexico officially opposed the construction of a 700 mile border fence *gasp!* along a stretch of our border with Mexico, by reading a statement at the Organization of American States. Based in Washington, DC., this diplomatic organization is comprised of representatives from each of the American states in the western hemisphere.

Being supported by 27 other sovereign nations, "the declaration [was] read aloud Wednesday at the OAS headquarters in Washington, and said the barriers would not solve the immigration problem urging the U.S. government to rethink its position, according to press releases from the OAS and Mexican foreign ministry."

When I first read this statement, I felt a twinge in my gut and said to myself "man, I'm so tired of the United States having a negative image in the minds of other nations when we're only doing what's necessary... what now? But then I read on; would you like to know who those 27 nations were that Mexico has rallied against the evil United States?!

This is going to shake you off your chair. If these nations turn against us, where else do we have to turn? In fact, if we're not careful, they just may deem the U.S. an unsafe global neighbor and impose sanctions and God knows what else to put us in line...

In an incredible, indelible, undeniably intimidating show of unity against our "shameful Berlin Wall" (as Vicente Fox calls it), the following nations are holding our necks against the wall with a warning: *shiver*

Antigua
Argentina
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Our good friends, Colombia
Costa Rica
Chile
Ecuador
Stable little El Salvador
Poor little beat up Granada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti, with all their integrity
Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua's quasi-communists
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
The imposing San Kitts and Nevis
San Lucia
San Vicente
Suriname
Uruguay
And of course, the always dependable foe, Venezuela.

President Bush, you have a "coalition of the willing" that have stood against you; beware your actions and be quaking in your Tejano snake skin boots every time you see an illegal immigrant.

They have the world behind their cause!

Disclaimer:
If you actually think I'm not being sarcastic, then please visit this page and read with complete seriousness and piety.

Rave #6 - Debunking the Myth of the Underprivileged Soldier

2006-10-19T14:46:00.000-07:00

The following is a paper published by the Heritage Foundation in November, 2005 in response to a underground leftist claim that our military deliberately attempts to build our armed forces and lines on the battlefield with poor under-privileged kids from cities and rural regions, sending our "poor off to fight the rich man's war".

__________________________________
Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier
by Tim Kane and James CarafanoNovember 29, 2005

They all volunteered. The U.S. soldiers pitching in with hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast and those fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere decided, on their own, to serve their nation.

Or was the decision made so freely? Could it be that unscrupulous Pentagon recruiters duped them, taking advantage of their poverty, their lack of education and the bleak futures they share as members of the USA's urban underclass?

That's the view of some critics, such as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who writes that "very few" of the soldiers fighting in Iraq "are coming from the privileged economic classes," and that there would likely be no war if rich kids had to fight. According to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., social equality demands reinstatement of the draft, which he justifies by asserting that "the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." Herbert concludes that there is "something very, very wrong with this picture."

What's "very, very wrong" with the Rangel-Herbert picture is that it has no factual basis.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.

Yes, rural areas and the South produced more soldiers than their percentage of the population would suggest in 2003. Indeed, four rural states - Montana, Alaska, Wyoming and Maine - rank 1-2-3-4 in proportion of their 18-24 populations enlisted in the military. But this isn't news.

Enlistees have always come from rural areas. Yet a new study, reported in The Washington Post earlier this month, suggests that higher enlistment rates in rural counties are new, implying a poorer military. They err by drawing conclusions from a non-random sample of a few counties, a statistically cloaked anecdote. The only accurate way to assess military demographics is to consider all recruits.

If, for example, we consider the education of every recruit, 98% joined with high-school diplomas or better. By comparison, 75% of the general population meets that standard. Among all three-digit ZIP code areas in the USA in 2003 (one can study larger areas by isolating just the first three digits of ZIP codes), not one had a higher graduation rate among civilians than among its recruits.

In fact, since the 9/11 attacks, more volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes and fewer from the lowest-income groups. In 1999, both the highest fifth of the nation in income and the lowest fifth were slightly underrepresented among military volunteers. Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top two-fifths of income levels but have decreased among the lowest fifth.

Allegations that recruiters are disproportionately targeting blacks also don't hold water. First, whites make up 77.4% of the nation's population and 75.8% of its military volunteers, according to our analysis of Department of Defense data.

Second, we explored the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks, which range from 24.1% black up to 68.6%. These areas, which account for 14.6% of the adult population, produced 16.6% of recruits in 1999 and only 14.1% in 2003.

Maintaining the strength and size of our all-volunteer military isn't always easy. But Americans step up when their country needs them. To suggest the system is failing or exploiting citizens is wrong. And to make claims about the nature of U.S. troops to discredit their mission ought to be politically out of bounds.

Tim Kane is an Air Force veteran, and James Carafano is an Army veteran. Both are research fellows at The Heritage Foundation.

First appeared in USA Today

Rant #10 - Stealing Oil

2006-09-17T07:14:00.000-07:00

Sourced from FoxNews.com

'Plundered Petroleum'? Someone's Stealing, But Not the U.S.
Friday , September 15, 2006
By David Asman

The latest hogwash coming from the mouths of Islamic terrorists is that we are stealing Middle East oil. Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out with a video in which he exhorts fellow terrorists to “stop the theft of Muslims' plundered petroleum.”

Maybe we should simply agree to ignore anything coming out of the mouths of these creeps. I could live with that. But since terrorist claptrap does occasionally get re-circulated, let’s nip this one in the bud.

Let’s start with Saudi Arabia, since that’s where Usama bin Laden is from and that’s the country Al Qaeda’s most interested in taking over. Here’s news: Saudi Arabia still has lots of oil. The country has about one-fourth of the entire world’s proven oil reserves. That’s why bin Laden wants it.

And while oil has gone down in recent weeks, it still costs the Saudis just $2 a barrel to pump it out of the ground. Even if oil goes down to $50 a barrel from its July high of $78, they’re still getting an awful lot of our money for something that costs them next to nothing.
So who’s stealing from whom, Mr. Zawahiri?

Now, there is an argument that crude oil output is about to plateau. Something called the “peak-oil” theory is making the rounds among certain academic circles. It posits that we’ve just about reached the point where the oil that’s cheapest to pump out of the ground is almost used up.
In the entire history of the world, human beings have produced about one trillion barrels of oil. That leaves about 4.7 trillion barrels left. So what’s the problem? Well, “only” 1.2 billion barrels of oil can be pumped the old-fashioned, cheap way. The other 3.5 trillion barrels will have to be “pumped” out of tar sands, shale and other sources that are much harder to get at.

Even those estimates, though, still leave us with enough oil to last more than 140 years at current consumption rates. And there are other estimates, like one by the U.S. Geological Survey, which states that there are still more than 3 trillion barrels of more easily drilled oil remaining.

Plus, the estimates above don’t take into account surprising new finds, like Chevron’s (CVX) major discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. About that jackpot Business Week wrote: “The discovery of reserves in the Gulf of Mexico means supply isn't topping out… the capability to find and recover petroleum at extreme depths, temperatures, and pressures, as demonstrated by the Chevron team, may indeed tip the balance of supply and demand in the long term.” (From the September 18, 2006 issue.)

But beyond all that, does anyone really believe that human ingenuity won’t come up with another (and perhaps cleaner) method of deriving energy before the oil runs out? Already, we are turning the corner on hybrid-energy cars, hydrogen fuel cells and other alternative fuels.
But to the antediluvian mindset of a Zawahiri or a bin Laden, human ingenuity is a mystery. Like the antiquated form of Islam to which they and their ilk cling, there is nothing modern or enlightening about these people. There was a time when Islamic leaders ruled over a population of scholars and scientists who were open to new ideas and a relatively open market. But these Al Qaeda barbarians are so lame in their understanding of how the world works that they call a 3000 percent profit on oil sold to the West “theft.” It is theft, but not on our part.

Al Qaeda-style Islam is the ultimate zero-sum game. They do not understand the process of supply and demand, or the wonderful creation of new enterprises in the marketplace. They survive only because they were born on top of oil fields. They are incapable of producing anything new or anything of value, so naturally they have no idea of what value or production really is. Left on their own, they would wither and die. They are the ultimate parasites.

BlogBlurb - The Future of English Teachers

2006-04-05T23:19:00.000-07:00

A High School baseball coach was recently fired for his impropriety of workplace equipment usage, rather than his apparent lack of grasp on the language he's been hired to teach.

Rudy Rios admits he used a district copier to make fliers encouraging Hispanic students to attend a rally protesting restrictions on illegal immigration.

But the hilarious part is that according to the Houston Chronicle, the fliers read:

"We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (four-letter expletive) with out us (sic)."

Rios is an English-as-a-second-language teacher, and is keeping that position despite his ouster from the baseball program.

Houston, we have a problem...
this is the man teaching your students how to speak English.

Hat tip: WND.com

Rant #9 - Bite My Flag!

2006-04-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

Apparently patriotic displays of the American flag have increased tension in a local Oceanside High School, so the entire Oceanside Unified School District has banned all flags and patriotic clothing.

Superintendent Ken Noonan made a decision last week asking students to leave flags at home. He also prohibited placards, face paint and signs related to last week’s protests, because all of these items were contributing factors to the violent acts on campus surrounding immigration demonstrations. This temporary limitation is allowable under California Education Code.

Oceanside schools Superintendent Ken Noonan hopes this deals with threatening violence on their campuses. He said “I have a concern when flags are used as a means of emotionally attacking somebody. The flag is not a weapon.” At one Colorado High School, High School Principal Tom Stumpf says some American flags "were used in a 'vilifying fashion' by being waved in the faces of Hispanic students."

Talk show host Rick Roberts on KFMB San Diego had this to say: "American students are being punished for the idiocy of those breaking all the rules and expecting us to respect their opinion."

I couldn't agree more!

People come to this country because they want to be Americans. This flag problem is not what the angst is about. I understand enforcing civility, but draw the line at cracking down on displays of patriotism and the heritage of this nation. The American flag is not the problem. For crying out loud, even the Mexican flag is not the problem. Our schools are now being run by adolescent dictates of whom 25% will never even graduate. The public schools have lost control of their own classrooms. THAT is the biggest concern in our public schools. Yet legal, law-abiding, homeland-loving Americans are suffering the consequences. Frankly, if someone is offended by my American flag, they can leave. A little blunt? I don't care. We all retain part of our culture, but we're all Americans. Don't rob any of us of our enjoyment of it. Clearly everyone else protesting is enjoying it right along with the rest. We are people of many creeds, colors, faiths and origins. It is a beautiful patchwork of God's creativity. But to wrest the concept of American freedom, security and the protection of our sacred homeland from the hands and mouths of those who love it is scandalous.

Why don't they support the law that frees them?

Miseducation, that's why. Hundreds of thousands of protesters are protesting a bill that would merely place every illegal immigrant into a pipeline toward legality while putting backbone into laws that already exist. Some of the protesters are even going so far as to use the right of free speech this "terrible, hateful nation" affords them to criticize and demean the very honor of it.

I ask them this question... How can you blast the United States and claim the U.S. stole land from Mexico, yet you choose not to live there? Apparently, they are convinced that because their grandparents and uncles and aunts and friends are decent, good, hard-working individuals that it overrides the fact that a fairly large portion of illegal immigration is harmful to this nation. The harmful consequences effect not only naturalized native-born Americans, but legal, law-abiding immigrants from around the world as well. We're all in this together!

The Consequences

33% of the U.S. prison population is made up of illegals.
In Los Angeles alone, 95 percent of outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens, as are 66 percent of fugitive felony warrants.
The notorious 18 Street Gang has 20,000 members, of whom 60 to 80 percent are illegal aliens, according to the California Department of Justice and the Los Angeles Police Department, respectively.
The Lil’ Cycos Gang, notorious for murder, racketeering, and drugs in Los Angeles’s MacArthur Park, was thought to be comprised of 60 percent illegals in 2002, and the percentage is higher now.
90 percent of the meth (methamphetamine) manufactured in this country is manufactured by Mexican national (Mexican non-U.S citizen) drug organizations,“- Ron Gravitt, California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement’s clandestine lab unit chief, Oct. 2000, Sacramento Bee Special Report. “Methamphetamine cases today account for 80% of the nation’s police departments’ drug investigations.”
Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone.
Taxpayers pay $750 million annually to house the 18,000 illegal aliens in California prisons alone.

So…do those folks also deserve amnesty with all of the others?

The answers are not easy, the questions are difficult; the circumstances ought to be highly motivating, because the outcome is going to be fundamental to the future, either way it goes.

Rant #8 - Illegal Benefits

2006-03-28T21:41:00.000-08:00

Apparently millions of young, thriving, hard-working illegal immigrants are helping to shore up a system they don't understand, and apparently neither do we. Furthermore, we do not understand how to handle this illegal blessing. And it continues to grow by roughly 60% a year.

There are an estimated 16-22 million illegal immigrants in the United States, out of a total population of 290 million, roughly one out of every 14 people in America. 3 million or more made it across the borders this last year alone. It is estimated that each illegal worker contributes an average of $1600 a year to the solvency of the Social Security system past politicians believed in so strongly. What an awkward position to be in today, as an elected official. Without the nearly $8 billion a year in approximate subsidies, the program would most likely go broke much sooner than is anticipated. In fact, the subsidy stands to grow larger because according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average Hispanic family is nearly 70% larger than the typical American clan. More kids equals more future workers, more workers have more children, etc. The exponential growth means that in less than 20 years, the current illegal population will have doubled, accounting for approximately 15-20% of the income for the entire Social Security system. Keep in mind that those dollars directly underwrite those receiving benefit checks from the government every month, essentially a free ride.

I call the contributions a "subsidy" because these individuals (the majority of them, anyway) are paying into the system which funds today's payments to seniors and the disabled, yet these same workers will never realize their current contributions when they retire, even if they become legitimate U.S. Citizens.

With My Own Eyes I See the Tragedy of Contradiction

I happened to be in Los Angeles on Saturday, March 25 when 500,000 protesters stormed the streets of downtown and shut down massive sections of the city to declare recent Congressional legislation unfair. It is fascinating to watch so many people come out to display their disgust with a system that is both broken and unfair, unafraid in a nation that both gives them the right to protest and simultaneously calls them criminal.

I do believe that there is a serious immigration problem that exists in America, and it begins with the bureaucracy that makes an émigré wait up to 9 years to process paperwork and be given either a yes or a no answer. I also believe there is a problem with our system when it denies local authorities the ability, funds or even jurisdiction to confront and arrest those that are here illegally.

What I find missing in this debate is a proposal to create an Ellis Island sort of assimilation program that would greet all those who wish to call America home, calling "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses". New York used to beam these words of light into the distant hearts of desirous populations that heard and dreamed of the American Ideal. As one comic reasoned, instead of "Give me your huddled masses," Lady Liberty now is holding a bat saying "you want a piece of me?!"

I Truly Sympathize

I have a relative that is married and has a child by a man who immigrated here illegally, then later pursued legal affiliation. He is the hardest working man I know, and sends a huge portion of his paychecks back to his family in Mexico. Amazingly, he still manages to afford a relatively comfortable lifestyle here in suburban Milwaukee, WI.

Conversely, I have another relative that lives in rural Arizona, and faces a regular influx of vandalizing, criminal immigrants that care only for material gain, not familial security or societal benefit. (Sounds a little like Corporate America anyway, doesn't it?)

· I sympathize with the mothers that fear losing their husbands and having no security for their families already established here in America.
· I sympathize with borderline ranchers who fear for vandalism and drug-related crossings on their property.
· I sympathize with those that desire higher-wage jobs to support their families in America by working 70 hour weeks for minimum wage.
· I sympathize with both the local school districts that must educate everyone, despite the lack of proportionate tax base, and with the families that seek a better bi-lingual education for their children knowing that it is key to their future success.
· I sympathize with the medical industry that fears the costs of illegal immigration on its infrastructure, which costs taxpayers and consumers more money each year.
· I sympathize with the millions of individuals fearing a vicious, poverty-stricken cycle back home.
· I sympathize with politicians frustrated with Mexico's proliferate support of illegal immigration, and its effect on local services.
And yet... while I sympathize with each of these concerns, I recognize a need for change... quickly!

Cultural Division is Eminent

Before this gets much more ugly than it already has, we must find a reasonable compromise to halt our hurtling towards cultural discord and racial tension.

While very few of the illegal immigrants are true terrorist threats to national security, I do believe that we have created a problem for ourselves that allows for both those respecting law and order and drug-lords alike to become covert allies in their bid to better their lives through whatever means they possess; harmful or beneficial. And it's about time we do SOMETHING about it.

The Bill to Do Something

What started in July of 2005 as a vision to protect America's borders while preserving the dignity of freedom-loving immigrants has now become a well-hammered out set of push and shove, agreeable upon by both sides of the aisle. Illegal immigrants may file for 6 year green cards, stay here almost indefinitely while paying a $1,000 fine for their trespass, and local businesses and charities will be allowed to provide privacy to those in need while also being held accountable for systemic abuses. Families will not be broken apart, camps full of arrested hungry, half-naked immigrants will not rise out of the deserts, and America's heritage of open arms and upward lives can continue to flourish.

I support Senate Bill 2454, and the efforts of Senators and Representatives across the Border States for answering the call of their constituents to finally do something about a problem we not only created for ourselves, but have exacerbated through our neglect.

Hopefully through this bill we can secure our borders and our cities while still assuring the world that only freedom has open arms that can both embrace your in your need and let you free to pursue your ambitious dreams.

There's no place like home!

BlogBlurb - Liberal Impropriety

2006-03-18T07:44:00.000-08:00

Within the last few weeks, a debate has erupted over the allegedly proven comments made by a teacher in a Colorado high school classroom that compared President Bush to Hitler and called America the most violent and hateful culture in the history of mankind. An excerpt of the tape can be found here. Tell me if you think it sounds a.) balanced, and merely "thought-provoking", or b.) having anything to do with GEOGRAPHY.

A recent interview on FoxNews' Hannity & Colmes found Sean Allen, the student that recorded his teacher giving a lecture on geopolitical issues offering an interesting conclusion to the debate that ensued. He said he was confident the school made the right decision in allowing the teacher to resume his duties! He went further to suggest that Mr. Bennish was, in fact a good geography teacher... when he taught geography.

Sean Allen has become a figure head of the teacher-student relationship in class, and what is appropriate for a teacher to say publicly. Fox News and Sean Hannity have driven this story into the forefront of the media from day one and it is clear from the recording that the teacher clearly overstepped his bounds and gave a radicalized personal opinion.

The school responded by suspending the teacher, which many students were given the opportunity to protest. Here is an edited video of some student's reaction to the suspension. As of Friday, March 17th, the teacher was reinstated and allowed to teach his students once again. Sean Allen respectfully agrees with this decision, never wanting his teacher to lose his job in the first place. He transferred out of the class, and THEN went to the media so he could simply bring accountability in, from outside the isolation of the principle's office. However, Sean has still been threatened for his stand against agressive indoctrination. 17 year old Miles Merritt, a junior, said that when he was enrolled in Bennish's human geography class last fall, "it turned into a very political class" with Bennish criticizing Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina. So this is not an isolated incident.

It has always been abundantly clear that liberal-viewing teachers outnumber conservatives by a large margin, but for the most part it has not been overwhelmingly clear whether there has been clear impropriety in the teacher's lectures. I am sure there have been indiscretions on the part of conservative teachers attacking liberal leaders as well, but it is not known how often, and it is not as widely complained about. While both are wrong, this may simply be because there are less conservative teachers existing in the school system through which to abuse this sacred position. Nonetheless, this class was a high school class, which even further implicates the teacher's claim of "stoking and challenging the thoughts and minds of the students"... High school students are still extremely impressionable, and should not be challenged to face the filth without choice that college students have to face by choice.

My biggest concern is that we will end up boxing ourselves into a corner because of a teacher's liberal rant. I don't believe it is right to indoctrinate children from the right or left, in a public place. But the fact that we sentence our children to attend compulsory doctrine-centers, we take the chance that our kids will be exposed to teacher's opinions. We are at fault, and we can change it.

Rave # 5 - The Mythology of Health Care Reform

2006-03-04T09:10:00.000-08:00

Feature article by Michael Tanner

For years I have appreciated the research and subsequent input from the studious Cato Institute. Their think tank has produced articles that are cited by some of the nations most powerful leaders in both the public and private sector. As director of Cato's health and welfare studies, Michael Tanner heads research on new, market-based approaches to health, welfare and Social Security. His approach is based on individual responsibility rather than government control. Read the following article with eagerness and forward it to your nationalized health care advocate friends!
_________________________________________________

Health care is once again moving to the top of the national political agenda. The early evidence is that this debate will be dominated by misinformation and misconceptions. Advocates of a government-run, national health-care system will do everything they can to frighten Americans and discredit consumer-directed health care. But we would be advised to look at the facts and not the scare tactics.

The Claim:
The U.S. spends too much on health care.

The Facts: It is true that the United States spends more on health care than any other country. Why is that a bad thing? There is no “right” amount to spend on health care or anything else. The United States spends more on athletic shoes than any other country. No one speaks of the athletic shoe crisis.

Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending rises or falls with income. As incomes rise, people demand more and better health care. America's wealth determines its spending on healthcare.

The real problem is the fact that the people spending the money are not the people paying the bills. Because those purchasing health care are able to pass the bill onto third parties, the usual market disciplines don’t apply. True health-care reform would focus on giving consumers a greater stake in the decision-making process.

The Claim:
Though we spend more, we get less.

The Facts: America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Most of the world’s top doctors, hospitals and research facilities are located in the United States. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. And Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.

If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, the United States is the place you want to be. Tens of thousands of patients from around the world come to this country every year for treatment.

Critics of American health care often point out that other countries have higher life expectancies or lower infant mortality rates, but those two indicators are bad ways to measure the quality of a nation’s health-care system. In the United States, very low-birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low-birth-weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low-birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated.

Life expectancies are also affected by other factors like violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco, and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States outperforms the rest of the world.

The Claim:
A government-run health-care system would expand access to care.

The Facts: The one common characteristic of all national health care systems is that they ration care. Sometimes they ration it by denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration indirectly, imposing cost constraints through budgets, waiting lines, or limited technology. One million Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals at any given time, and shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 100,000 operations each year. Roughly 90,000 New Zealanders are facing similar waits. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks. In Canada more than 800,000 patients are currently on waiting lists for medical procedures.

The Claim:
Health care is too complex for average Americans to make decisions about price and quality.

The Facts: Health care is increasingly high-tech and complex, but so are many other products and services that Americans purchase everyday without specialized expertise. A consumer does not need to know how an internal combustion engine works in order to buy a reliable car, or how silicon chips are manufactured before he selects a computer. When consumers have good information about product prices, quality and safety, they naturally gravitate toward the goods and services that offer the highest value for the lowest price.

There are numerous studies that show health-care consumers make decisions about price and quality. The current problem with the healthcare sector is that there isn’t enough good information available for consumers to make sound decisions about which healthcare provider or facilities offer the best value. But that’s rapidly changing as providers respond to increased consumer empowerment.

At the same time, patient advocacy companies are springing up to help health-care consumers make informed choices. When consumers, rather than insurers or employers, control the money, markets naturally respond.

The U.S. health-care system represents one-seventh of the American economy, and is literally a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. Here's hoping that they'll be able to sort the facts from the fallacies in the coming debate.

Rant # 7 - Muslim Port Management... Are you serious?

2006-02-20T08:29:00.000-08:00

Are we seriously considering this? Yes, in fact it has been approved.

A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.

A government-owned operation named Dubai Port World (or DP World) has recently been purchased by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of London for $6.8 billion. A map showing where DP World operates other shipping facilities can be found here. The merger, up for review by the U.S. Senate banking Committee, and needing approval from the Department of Homeland Security's foreign review was just given the blessing of the U.S. Government. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security. Meanwhile, The United Arab Emirates said on Friday it was a close ally of the US in its war on terrorism as well as trade. "We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

Pictured is Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman, Ports, Customs & Free Zone Corporation.

The White House Vehemently Defends Decision

A White House spokesman said the process was "vigorously reviewed." Others in Washington say they either doubt the merits of that review or they simply don't care, based on the principle that "We have to have American companies running our own ports. ... Our infrastructure is at risk" according to Barbara Boxer, Senate Democrat from California.

DHS Secretary Micheal Chertoff responded, "We have a very disciplined process, it's a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security. We don't take a risk. What we do is we require a very careful review – we have the FBI involved, we have the Department of Defense involved – of what the challenges are. We have, in fact, dealt with this port before because we deal with it overseas as part of our comprehensive global security network," Chertoff said.

A full transcript of the most recent White House briefing can be found here.

"We've built in, and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen. And, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment." But most legislators and other members of government regulatory agencies aren't buying it. The issue that raises the most concern is that the United Arab Emirates has known ties to terror groups, and several of the 9/11 hijackers were from or bankrolled by entities within the UAE. U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Senators React in Bipartisan Opposition

As a result, Senator Robert Menendez, D-N.J. is preparing legislation that would forbid any companies owned or controlled by foreign governments or primarily based in foreign nations from operation port facilities in the United States. In fact, he believes the Bush Administration, when it comes to the national security of our international ports, "just does not get it." Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal; the port handles about 12 percent of the nation's cargo traffic.

"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history," Menendez said in a prepared statement. "We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Shareholders of Peninsular and Oriental Steam, based in London, England approved the sale Monday, Feb 20, 2006. The British firm, the world’s fourth-largest ports company, runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

U.S. officials have said money for the Sept. 11 attacks was wired through the United Arab Emirates' banking system. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But plans for the merger are moving ahead as expected, despite a growing clamour in the U.S. Congress from both sides of the political aisle:

Rep Mark Foley, R-Fla., said, “Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free-trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11."

Pictured is Senator Mark Foley, R-FL

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. said, "at a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism."

And Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said today, "Handing the keys to U.S. strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."

Foley, Fossella and Schumer and Coburn were among seven lawmakers who wrote to Snow expressing concern that the Bush administration was not giving the case appropriate attention and urging him to make the Committee on Foreign Investments undertake a full 45-day investigation. Other Senators who signed the Letter were Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Shays (R-CT) and Dodd (D-CT).

The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?

Well, the Brit's Owned it, Right?

First of all, this is not just about "foreign ownership" of our ports. There seemed to be no problem when Brit's owned it. We are, after all fighting a war against terrorism with the British running with us all along the way. Britain is considered by many in the adminstration to be a greater ally than even our northern "neighbor" Canada. But maybe there should be some concern about any foreign ownership, or management of port facilities inside the United States. It stands that our airport security is not being bid out to companies in Afghanistan; it is likely that some top-notch government security corporation in China would not be allowed to manage our baggage check.

Then why should out international ports be an exception?! U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year but only about 5 percent of containers entering the United States are examined on arrival. While 95 percent of all international commerce enters the U.S. through the nation's approximately 360 public and private ports, nearly 80 percent of that trade moves through only 10 ports. By far the biggest loads pass through Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and Oakland.

U.S Ports are Unsafe, and Broadly Unchecked

In February of 2005, an Inspector General issued a report stating that the Department of Homeland Security has not focused efforts on protecting the nation's most vulnerable ports.
The department distributed $517 million in grants for port security between June 2002 and December 2003, but less than a quarter of the money had been spent as of September 2004, the inspector general found in an audit, according to a report in today's New York Times.
The audit says "the program has not yet achieved its intended results in the form of actual improvement in port security."

So time and time again, officials throughout the twisted web of government Bureaucracy have called attention to this massive loophole in our nation's safety infrastructure, yet we have taken few steps to solve the delinquent checks and systemic frailty. I could be going out on a limb here, but I believe it is possible that the Bush Administration green-lighted this sale knowing that Congress and other concerned parties would pick up the slack on squashing the deal. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has gained some political capital in the mideast for its efforts to lower some of the roadblocks to the bustling American Economy. It appears that some measures have been taken to close up Border Security at our port shipping facilities, but the task is far from over, and even further from acceptable.

Principle Over Reason

The principle of whether our ports ought to be managed by foreign companies is a sensitive one, and a question with billion dollar answers no one wants to be responsible for. Personally, I wouldn't panic if I knew that the British Prime Minister was head of security at the Port of New York. But I must ask myself if the principles of sovereignty and security are more important than the short-sighted conclusions of an ultimately human and potentially flawed investigation. I must also ask myself how anyone with a right mind could approve of the facilities management sale of our ports to a government directly influenced by our greatest enemies. I ask those who hold the authority to bust this deal between P&O and DP World: what is the economic benefit in gambling with a force beyond our control?

Misgiving #4: Secretary General Clinton? Savior of the U.N.

2006-02-13T12:53:00.000-08:00

I have always appreciated the fact that the United Nations was easy to despise. It's egalitarian dreams of utopian humanity agreeing together in perfect Communism was always enough fodder to make a level-headed American queezy.
"Pardon me, where is the little boys room?"

But lately, I've been noticing a trend in media sentiment toward the eminent turnover of U.N. authority to a new Secretary General on December 31st. As recently as January 14, 2006 BBC reported that former U.S. President Bill Clinton was jaunting around the Isles humbly touting his "friend" Prime Minister Blair as being capable of doing "good... in the world and that's the most important thing."

When asked on BBC2's Newsnight if Mr Blair should run for UN secretary general, Mr Clinton responded: "That would suit me. He would be a good one."

But Clinton himself, as Secretary General of the U.N.? It has been talked about in U.N. circles and among the former president's insiders for more than two years. And now, according to a United Press International report, Clinton "definitely wants to do it."

Since his own retirement in 2000, the former President has himself done many "good" things, running around the world's elite circles raising cash for impoverished tsunami victims, hurricane Katrina's thousands of homeless, and campaigning for world debt relief and fighting HIV/AIDS. Even current Secretary Kofi Annan has shown his appreciation globally for his buddy. It must be nice to get the stamp of approval from a leader that normally cannot find any respectable words for our current American leadership.

Very respectable for any former world leader to do with his valuable time, I must say. After all, Clinton's "down time" is worth millions, as he encouraged Tony Blair: whatever Mr Blair did after leaving Number 10 he could expect "immense rewards" from speaking engagements, books and directorships.

Clinton would know... despite heart surgeries in the past couple years, Bill Clinton has still been hitting the podium — for speeches around the world. He rakes in about $125,000 per speech in the U.S. and as much as $250,000 for those given abroad. In 2004 alone he earned about $6 million from book royalties and speaking engagements. So all of this mouth-flapping seems certainly aimed at bolstering his world-prestige and acutely designed to predestinate him as a prime candidate for the next Secretary election. Could all his banter about Tony Blair possibly be a only a viel of his own career intentions? Read this report of a recent appearance by Clinton before the world body.

Former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms is raising the possibility that former President Bill Clinton may want to succeed Kofi Annan as U.N. Secretary General when Annan retires. "I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake." After a Middle East U.N. Secretary-General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post, U.N. experts say; no American has ever been U.N. secretary-general. Nonetheless, the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget, so that is possibly a moot precedent.

A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. All of the diatribes against "American aggression" and "Bush follies" are, I believe aimed specifically at distancing Clinton from the stereotypical American stygma. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?

My God, let's hope not. He's just too likeable... and that scares me.

BlogBlurb - Level-headed Islam

2006-02-08T06:13:00.000-08:00

I find it astonishing that a Danish newspaper prints a cartoon, depicting a bomb in the headdress of Muhammad, and the world erupts in protest... VIOLENT protest!

I think they just proved the cartoonists' point.

Most muslims are not violent and are peaceful, freedom-loving individuals living all over the world. I remember the betryal I felt when Christian fundamentalists were blowing up buildings and shooting abortion doctors in the 90's. I was disgusted with the fact that out-of-line militias were making a bad name for our peaceful faith. There was nothing I could do but pray that God would put it to and end. Eventually, it made its way out of the news. And for the most part, Christianity is seen as a peaceful faith, albeit a little extraordinary at times.

However, there are 164 verses in the Koran that speak of Jihad, that is annihilation of those that resist the faith; the unbelievers. While those that practice terrorism are those that take the Koran most literally, I do not believe that all other muslims can distance themselves as far as they would like from those that do these horrific things. The "peaceful" muslims are those that interpret Islamic law in the most philisophical of ways, translating the truths of the Koran into a way of life very different than it has been taught for 1,700 years. Only recently did Jihad become a "mental and spiritual war against the world" to the peaceful. They are to Islam what the United Methodists are to the Christian Church. Liberal, philisophical, post-modern retranslation. The problem is that such teaching does not exist in a dozen or so entire nations that embrace the most literal and traditional forms of Islam, which call for killing those opposed to Muhammad and "Allah".

I do not agree that the cartoonist should have displayed the cartoon in such a brash way. But the violent protests that have proceeded are only proving his point. And I don't see anyone else pointing out this ironicity. Even moreso is the instance of an Egyptian magazine printing the same cartoon 4 months earlier during Ramadan. Yet there were no violent protests then. Secretary of State Condi Rice is now contending Iran and Syria have propagated these outbursts at demonstrations to earn global clout for their agenda.

Fortunately for us, 1.1 billion of the 1.2 billion Muslims are "liberal, philisophical" and "post-modern" or we'd all be dead.

Misgiving #3 - Bipartisan politics: The Defenders of Democrats(cy)?

2006-01-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments."

If you agree with the basic tenets of this statement, then you should be equally sure about your position regarding the efforts by the Senate Judiciary Committee to slice up and deliver the most diplomatic representation of a potentially explosive report.

This is my misgiving: That American leaders with enough cash can silence the mouths of accountability; and as long as the junk-science of "politics" continue, we can never be assured of absolute improvement of Government.

1995 - The Year of the Scandals
The final report of David Barret, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is scheduled for release on Jan. 19. Barrett is the last remaining Independent Counsel of the Clinton years, spawned by numerous scandals that began to hit the fan beginning in 1995. However, it appears "as it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett. "One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, [I am] disappointed that the report may not reflect [our] careful and diligent efforts." A maverick Republican Senator from Iowa and David Barrett himself are now fighting for it's life, and trying to assure the report will not be shelved for good.

David Barret was hired back during the Clinton presidency to investigate allegations that then Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros lied to FBI investigators and committed tax fraud in attempting to conceal money he had paid a mistress. Cisneros pled guilty back in 1999, and that would have been the end of the investigation; but Barrett and his team of investigators found serious problems in their findings, and were tipped off to possible criminal behavior in the Justice Department and in the IRS in relation to Cisneros' case.

It started with this man, and his "indescretions"; sound familiar?

Just Another Illicit Affair?
This seems at the outset to be merely an investigation into the illicit love life of a public official; certainly not the only one of the Clinton Presidency. However, as most Independent Counsels end up going, more has been uncovered than a simple payoff to keep a mistress' mouth shut. Barrett would have ended his operation long ago had that been the only conclusion. But no, according to leaks, an IRS whistle-blower told Barrett of an unprecedented cover-up. This informant said a regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department. Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice's public integrity office and questioned him thoroughly, but Radek seemed determined to protect President Bill Clinton and gave up nothing, niether conclusive or otherwise.

David Barrett's report has been completed and ready for release since August 2004, however David Kendall, Bill Clinton's top lawyer-dog immediately jumped on the report by either trying to gut it with nearly 140 redactions - leaving it virtually inconclusive and vague - or by trying to avoid it's release altogether. Because of the delays related to the legal proceedings brought on by the Clinton Administration during the investigation, and now during the final days of the Independent Counsel, the price tag of $22 million is being decried as government waste and Kendall is saying it should be stuffed in a box to be forgotten.

Such tactics have been used for years by the Clinton Administration to delay document release or to discredit officers of the court. But now, a bipartisan panel lead by a Republican Senator have conceded to the legal efforts and it is now apparent that the report may never be released at all.

The Defenders of Democrats(cy)
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-South Dakota) has lead the charge, along with Sen. Carl Levin and House Rep. Henry Waxman agaist the release of these documents, and Senators Kit Bond (R-Missouri), a 4 term Missourian and Joe Knollenberg (R-Michigan) have agreed to the amending of the report before release.

In one light of hope, Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is spending his hours seeing that the unamended report sees the light of day, but his battle is an uphill one as the majority of the Republican-controlled Senate JC have sided with David Kendall and his team of legal dog-fighters. He will not be easily disuaded, however. "Chuck Grassley is a stubborn Iowa farmer who often drives the White House and Republican leaders to distraction," wrote Robert Novak in a recent column.

Will Grassley be successful? One can only assume that the final days leading up to the tentative release will see throngs of government watchdogs and open-meetings advocates pounding on the doors of both Parties on the Hill, demanding that the political masquerading and back-scratching come to an end. And one can only assume that something of a political compromise was made to the Republican leaders so they would bow down and allow the amendment to go forward.

The Straight Skinny of the Report
The 120 page report, followed by 500 pages of appendices and footnotes will be potentially damaging to the reputation of both the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service for allegations of abuse of power and harrasment against individuals during the Clinton Presidency. Apparently, Section B of the report contains conclusive findings that such abuses did occur and that top administration officials were involved. It is true that no one really knows just how damaging the report may be, except for Barrett and those on the 3 judge panel overseeing the process and the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, Robert Novak writes, "while the investigation would be a long walk into the unknown with possibly far-reaching consequences, prominent Democrats in Congress have spent much of the last decade in a campaign, successful so far, to suppress Barrett's report. Its disclosures could dig deeply into concealed scandals of the Clinton administration. These vital considerations, not the mere continuation of a $58-an-hour independent counsel position, is why Republican lawyer Barrett for a decade would not close down his prosecutor's office."

Where's the ACLU?
Civil libertarians concerned about the heavy-handedness of the IRS and its use as an instrument of political repression by the executive branch of the government know that this is very important. The reports of every other Independent Counsel have been released to the public in full, with only minor redactions where classified material might be revealed. I wonder aloud why the ACLU has not been pursuing this, armed with the Freedom of Information Act to make sure that government responsiblity remains in the hands of the people. Maybe they're too busy litigating the 20+ cases in the courts regarding the use of the word "Jesus" in public office displays? I'm sure that Government endorsement of Jesus Christ amounts to a much greater national security threat than NSA leaks and Independent Counsel cover-ups!

Tony Snow offered some interesting perspective as to why this effort is being given such attention in the back halls of the Senate: "By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects," writes Snow. "At the very least, it would bring to public attention a scandal that would make the Valerie Plame affair vanish into comical insignificance."

Writes a participant on FreeRepublic.com, where several comments recently have been posted: "They should just leak [the report] to the public. It seems to work for the New York Times and they never face any consequences."

I am absolutely disturbed by the potential windfall that may occur if this cover-up allowed to succeed. Corrupt administrations in the future will have a free hand at playing politics the way they are played in a banana republic... or 20th-century Arkansas. And the most fearful fact of this scenario is that the freedom of Americans can be infringed upon, investigated, and then covered up in the most stealthy of fashions. That is why I am posting this article and have spent so much of the last three weeks pondering it's release. I have researched, verified and thought about the consequences of such abuse of power, and I am more sure now than ever before that we live in unprecedented times where sometimes starting from the ground up is the only way to expose a fraudulent system. That's who we are, the "grass-roots."

BlogBlurb - NSA

2006-01-07T08:01:00.000-08:00

Bush-approved [warrantless] eavesdropping took place during phone calls originating outside our borders.

American citizens are subject to warrantless searches all the time.
Airport TSA searches, questioning and detaining at border points of entry, random DUI roadblocks. These all constitute a warrantless search on behalf of the executive branch, and occur daily without report from the press.

Imagine the outrage if another full-scale attack occurred and it was made known that the administration had the ability to listen in on international calls made to known terror suspects... but did nothing.

Think about it.

Rave #4 - Wal-Mart's Debt to America

2005-12-20T09:50:00.000-08:00

Last month, a study sponsered by Wal-Mart found numerous indicators of the company's effect on the U.S. economy, both good and bad numbers. It seems that no matter how successful an American company is at acheiving profitable status and market domination, the children of the Entitlement Mentality will always pursue the "evil angle" and potential demise of this institution, unless of course that institution gives them a hand out. But nonetheless, Wal-Mart has pushed on and succeded in not only saving consumers money on every day items, but due to the sheer size of the company, have to a greater scale, affected the entire nation in a positively financial aspect.

After a rant or two, I have to rave about an authentically American institution, a cultural beacon of corporate brilliance that has both its flaws, but also its values.

In the face of tyrrany, a push against the grain
There is an entire generation that feels like everyone should have a chance to get ahead. For sure, nearly every level headed American believes that life, liberty and the pursuit of financial happiness is an American value. Yet we've perverted that value of life, liberty and happiness into something of a selfish, vicious circle of a game where King of the Mountain is obligated to furnish the hand-me-downs to a tyrranical mob just waiting for its turn to take a beating.

Wal-Mart was started by a former JCPenney employee who had a degre in Economics from the University of Missouri, earning just $75 a month. The ball started rolling when Sam Walton purchased a department store in 1945 for $20,000 using $5,000 he had saved from his military service as collateral. He began experimenting with his someday Wal-Mart principles early on, offering central location, longer hours, special discount pricing (by buying right from the manufacturer), and offering a wide assortment of goods. Soon his store (A franchise of the Federated Store family) led the six state region where he was located in sales. So successful was Walton in his management that everyone wanted in on the action. When Walton's lease was up in 1951, the landlord refused to renew the lease because he wanted the store for his son. So Walton used it to his advantage, selling the store for a $50,000 profit!

Sam Walton had already been planning ahead and had purchased a small 5 and dime in Bentonville, Ark which was also a chain of Ben Franklin/Federated Stores. He staged a "Remodeling Sale" and introduced his new store to the community. It was just as successful as his first store, and soon he opened another 5 and dime in Fayetteville, 20 miles away. Serving on the Rotary Club boards, the City Council, starting little leagues for the kids, he began to branch into nearly every area of pubic life in his little local town. And when he opened up his new store, he began to do something aggressive: he began to nose around in other stores to find talent to manage his business! He did, and offered competitive salaries and managed to build a successful team with vision and values. From the very beginning Sam Walton offered profit sharing and benefits to his employees, something that most businesses did not offer at that time. He valued his employees and knew they were the key to his success. (Don Soderquist, "The Wal-Mart Way")

Soon after, by the mid 1950's Walton, with the help of his brother, brother in law, and father in law had opened a couple more store from Kansas City to Arkansas. He opened his first Walton's Family Stores, and by 1962, with 16 variety stores in tow, he opened his first store named "Wal-Mart".

Over the years, Wal-Mart slowly and quietly applied it's principles to foster consistent growth and stretch ever further across the nation and press prices further down. By 1965, he employed 250 people, and by 1975 the operation had grown to 6,500 employees and over 200 stores. By 1980, Wal-Mart was selling more than $1.2 billion in merchandise at prices lower than any of it's competition: K-Mart, Sears, JCPenny, etc.

By 1990, Wal-Mart had 275,000 employees, 1,528 stores with over $25 billion in sales, and it was only beginning! By 2000, Wal-Mart had increased its sales to $165 billion a year, making it the world's largest retailer by far; larger than Target, Sears or K Mart combined. in the four years on the books since then, the company has seen more than 1,000 new stores push it's revenues to over $260 billion, saving the American consumer over $12 billion a year. Even Warren Buffet, greatest investor in history recognizes the positive effect of Wal-Mart on the overall health of the U.S. Economy: "You add it all up," says Warren Buffett, "and they have contributed to the financial well-being of the American public more than any institution I can think of." (Fortune, 3/03 "One nation Under Wal-Mart")

Sam Walton died in 1992, but he left behind a legacy that despite what the critics say, has valued his employees and his customers. I would agree that a few lessons could be passed on from Sam to his successors, such as his tendancy to visit stores at random and talk with various 'associates' about their jobs, the environment they worked in, and how many people they smiled at that day. But nonetheless, Wal-Mart today stands above many employers, in that it offers health insurance to all it's part time employees, profit sharing and upward mobility to it's managment and offers academic scholarships and encourages further education to those who have the unction to reach higher. The only reason Wal-Mart gets the brunt of the hostility is it's size, the scale by which the company is measured. People figure that a company that earns billions should be forced to give those billions away to its employees, but the drug store owner down the street could make 15% off the candy bar you buy from him, and won't hear a peep from the unions now will he? What hypocrisy!

Some believe that Wal-Mart is driving down wages while it beats prices down to almost nothing. In fact, it has contributed to a lower "average" wage, primarily for the lower income, illiterate class (which ordinarily may be out of a job entirely, by the way). According to studies by Global Insight, researchers found that the world's biggest retailer accounted for nearly 210,000 net jobs last year while driving nominal wages down 2.2 percent. On the other hand, however, lower wages (which are still significantly above minimum wage in every state) have lesser effect on the economy when prices are either kept flat or even pressed lower.

Making 98 cents this year compared to $1 last year means little or nothing if what you're buying costs less than 97 cents, when it used to cost $1. Does this illustration make sense?

Because consequently, the same study found that The world's biggest retailer also lowered consumer prices by 3.1 percent, and real disposable income was 0.9 percent higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart.

In the eyes of Wal-Mart's detractors, the chain embodies the worst kind of economic exploitation: it pays its 1.2 million American workers an average of "only" $9.68 an hour, doesn't provide most of them with health insurance (because they choose not to pay the $20/mo for it), keeps out unions, has a checkered history on labor law and turns main streets into ghost towns by sucking business away from small retailers.

But...
McKinsey & Company did a research a few years ago, concluding that Wal-mart contributed to at least 12% of the entire productivity gains in the years 1995 to 1999 alone. Quite a significant benefit for one company to have. The least of all accusation against Wal-Mart is that it is ripping off the American public, a general standard of bad or good business. So the enemies of personal responsiblity and free-markets have to find something else to criticize. And wages are the golden key to them. Yet, when prices are held in check, and inflation is almost singlehandedly harnessed to historical lows by one company looking to both make a buck and benefit its community, how can someone complain?

"By now, it is accepted wisdom that Wal-Mart makes the companies it does business with more efficient and focused, leaner and faster. Wal-Mart itself is known for continuous improvement in its ability to handle, move, and track merchandise. It expects the same of its suppliers."

In 1992, Sam Walton received the Medal of Honor from President George Bush, and to the nation he stated, "We're all working together; that's the secret. And we'll lower the cost of living for everyone, not just in America, but we'll give the world an opportunity to see what it's like to save and have a better lifestyle, a better life for all. We're proud of what we've accomplished ; we've just begun."

Just because a man's dream became a reality doesn't give a person the right to claim their part in the success with no merit to stand on. If you want to make more for your effort, increase your skill, move up the ladder, become management, use your money wisely, invest it into the fastest growing retailer in history (30 years running) and buy yourself a little house and stop complaining that the rich don't give you freely what they worked so hard to get in the first place.

In short, Wal-Mart's only debt to America is that it allow its principles to flourish more abundantly, not that it be held against the wall and shaken down for the few pennies it makes off your bubble gum.