Friday, December 24, 2010

The Message of Peace and Redemption: Why Is It Such A Bad Thing? Really!

Tell me which of these are NOT good things to live by: love others, don't commit adultery, don't steal or cheat, don't lie, don't envy or covet others' property, and don't murder?

Regardless what non-Christians think of Christians, I think an honest person has to admit that the Christian belief in the Ten Commandments and loving others (regardless whether they're Christians) is not such a bad message at any time of year. It's not a message reserved for just Christmas after all.

Long before I became a Christian I found the message appealing. I saw it as a message that embraced a good way to live and deserving of respect for that reason if no other. Taking the words of the Ten Commandments and love at face value, they are good things to live by (irrespective of 'religion'), are they not? Take any of the Ten Commandments. Which of those would not contribute favorably to a more civil and peaceful society? Even the ones about not worshipping false gods is not such a bad thing for non-Christians. After all, materialism and money are 'worshipped' by many and that's not such a good thing! What other religion has such a fundamentally positive foundation?

Whether you believe in/about Christ as we do, what's not to like about what we're accountable to live by? Most people value honesty, truth, integrity, fairness, and such. Those principles are fundamental to what Christians are supposed to live by so why do such principles and beliefs deserve attack, criticism, disdain, hostility, hate, etc when it's Christians saying that's what we want to live by and want to share with others?

Sure, we try to 'spread the Word' to others but it's done out of a desire to share the peace it can bring to one's life (not to mention what we call salvation). That we go about that in peaceful ways should account for something (other than hostility and disdain). After all, we don't seek your submission to our will and we do not consider it our duty to kill you if you reject the message.

It's what we believe and we encourage you to do that also but if you choose(!) not to, that's between you and your maker. We're not God's 'enforcer'. Whatever 'judgement' is rendered as a result of your choice is not ours to deliver. In fact, we're commanded to love you anyway! Go figure!

Okay, so you can find lots of hypocrites among Christians. It's true we're not perfect. But that's why we need salvation. Human nature tends not to do the right thing after all. (Check out the Adam and Eve story where it all began.) Self-control is not an easy thing! We often don't follow the commands we espouse but it's what we are expected to continue seeking. We keep trying to self-correct to those commands even though we stray from them due to forces of human nature we cannot always control very well. Isn't that a better goal than any other you can think of? What's so wrong and contemptable about wanting to live that way?

Compare our objectives for living life, the Ten Commandments and loving others with other religions' stated goals and their actual actions. One prominent religion even says it's okay to lie about anything, including one's belief as long as it advances that religion. Completely objectively, taking religion out of the equation for all of them, which one's principles seem most geared toward real peace and good principles? In fact, they're not such bad principles on which to base a country's constitution, don't you think?

It's the time of year when we celebrate the birth of the one we call Savior. By celebrating Him, we're celebrating all He stands for, including peace and love. Is that such a bad message? For any time of year? We Christians pray God Bless you and yours now and throughout the year! We wish you peace and love. We won't try to force it on you. It's your choice and it's yours for the asking.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

'Only' Unfit? More Importantly, Unprepared For Life!

A new Pentagon study shows that 75% of Americans ages 17 to 24 do not qualify for the military because:
  1. They're physically unfit (note that's a disqualification regarding fitness, not disabilities),
  2. Have criminal records and/or
  3. Didn't graduate from high school.
Huh?

Anyone who knows anything about the military knows the physical requirements for getting into the military are not all that rigorous. And the other two requirements are just things that shouldn't be going on in ANY civil society to this extent.

As bad a commentary on our youth as the first sentence above is, I think that such a few number of people qualifying for military duty is the least of our country's issues. Those aren't simply qualifications for military service, they're qualifications for getting by in life.

Sad, sad statement about our youth!

Monday, December 20, 2010

President Obama Does NOT Have Constitutional Authority To Insist The Senate Accept The START Treaty As-Is!

So now President Obama is telling the senate NOT to change anything in the START treaty he recently sent to them for approval. Got news for you sir. The constitution gives you no such power to insist on that. In fact, the constitution says you may make treaties (only!) "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate".

Pardon me, sir, but the constitution does NOT say the senate is to be a rubber stamp for treaties you want to make. You do NOT have the power/authority to force them to accept it as-is from you. In fact, you have a constitutional responsibility to hear them out and negotiate compromise in good faith. It has to do with the whole balance of powers thing so that tyranny has a better chance of being prevented.

If the Russians want to bluster over this treaty and threaten us over any attempt to negotiate a change or two, that's their problem. We are a constitutional democracy which means any treaty the Russians desire to make must be done within our laws. They have no basis or right to assume, much less dictate(!), otherwise. If they want to be our partner in international relations they should respect our laws. Yielding to them would be a capitulation of weakness on our part.

When the president heard from the senate that they want to discuss one element of the treaty he should have told the Russians that he supports that instead of telling the senate to butt out and rubber-stamp the treaty. In effect, the president is disrespecting both the constitution and the senate in favor of submitting to the will of the one power on earth that could anhililate us in a heartbeat if we're ever foolish enough to allow them a significant upper hand. It's not good for our republic for a president to be behaving this way.

The discussion about the element of contention is very interesting. Several members of the senate are saying that the opening statements of the START treaty would limit our development of DEFENSIVE missile systems, even of missile systems for the purpose of defending ourselves from countries other than Russia! The President responded by saying it would NOT limit such development. But guess what? The Russians(!) have CONFIRMED it WILL limit our development of defensive missile systems. That is their objective in that wording! Good grief Mr. President. If the biggest superpower threat to us has admitted they ARE trying to limit us that way in a wording of their choosing, doesn't that validate our senate's concerns? Isn't it therefore their constitutional duty to consider the implications of that? For that matter shouldn't YOU consider the implications too if even the Russians believe it to be true?

For a guy who taught constitutional law President Obama has amazing ignorance of the extent of his authority and too little respect for either the senate or the constitution that he swore to uphold (ie, enforce).

Friday, December 17, 2010

Lame "Pig" Session

This congress does not deserve the title of lame duck. It has earned the title of Lame Pig Session due to all the pork it has rammed through or tried to ram through congress with little serious scrutiny or openness.

Didn't these guys 'get' the November message? Don't they understand the seriousness of the problem we face? Obviously not! We Americans want no more new debt! Period!

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Tax Cuts For The Rich: Democrats Care More About Idiology Than The Truth

ALL we hear about Obama's tax framework proposal from Democrats is how it's a giveaway to the rich (ie, extending the 'Bush Tax Cuts' for the rich) and to the GOP. Here are some facts about that compromise (in case you're interested in the truth!) that BOTH parties are being dishonest and irresponsible about (all info is from USA Today, 12/8/2010, page 2B):
  1. Democrats are saying that extending the tax cuts for the rich irresponsibly increases the debt. The way Dems carry on about it, the average American probably thinks that's BY FAR the most debt-hostile aspect of the compromise.
  2. In fact, extending the tax cut for the rich will increase the debt by $80 Billion and we'd all agree that's not a trivial piece of change.
  3. The way Democrats are carrying on you'd think that Obama totally caved into Republicans demands and are getting very little of what they'd want ... a big giveaway to the GOP, right?
  4. The fact you won't hear is the compromise includes other debt-increasing spending totalling $900 Billion!
  5. In Obama's compromise, 5 items totalling $544 Billion have bipartisan agreement.
  6. Of the items that have only partisan support, Democrats get 4 things totalling $336 Billion.
  7. Of the items that have only partisan support, the GOP gets 2 things totalling $103 Billion.
Let's see. On just the partisan items, Democrats get more than three times as much ... $336 Billion versus $103 Billion. How exactly does that translate into Obama "totally caving" into the GOP when Dems get a higher percentage of the partisan items than the percentage of congress they control?

Dems carry on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how the $80 Billion cost of extending the tax cut for the rich will blow up our debt but they don't have any problem adding over $900 Billion of OTHER stuff, $336 Billion of which is stuff only they wanted? Huh?

As annoyed as I am with how Democrats are reacting to Obama's compromise, I hafta say that all these people in congress who are willing to add this much debt are crooks and irresponsible spenders. Don't they understand how big a problem our debt is without even adding A TRILLION DOLLARS MORE TO IT? Weren't ANY of them listening in the November elections?

GOOD GRIEF!

Friday, December 10, 2010

Estate Tax: A Tool With Which Democrats Want To 'Redistribute The Wealth'

Unearned gain. That's what Democrats are calling an estate that family members inherit from a deceased parent.

FAMILY BUSINESSES, especially the family farm, were key to making this country successful. Upon the parents' death, the federal estate tax will require spouses, sons and daughters to give up what their family worked a lifetime to create together. In case you haven't figured out why, it's because the estate tax is based on net worth and few small business owners have enough money in the bank to pay it. Most of their net worth is tied up in the physical property associated with the family business ... real estate, inventory, machinery, etc. Therefore, the only way to pay the estate tax will be to sell the family business.

Never mind that the whole family made the business/farm successful and productive! The government has decided that the rest of the family HAS NO RIGHT to the net worth and will force them to give it up to pay federal taxes that the government has decided they have more right to than the remaining family that helped create that net worth.

THIS IS SICK!!!! IT IS CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT WAS MEANT(!) TO BE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION!

All parents worth their salt strive to provide a better future for their kids than they had themselves. They pour heart, soul and resources into their family business, their family home, and other items of material value so that their kids will have a more comfortable life before and after the parents' death. Most of us parents work hard to have a better life for ourselves AND to give our kids a leg up in life. WE PAY OUR TAXES ON ALL THAT WE EARN. Our net worth has been taxed already. So, when we die, the government thinks they have a right to ANOTHER BIG percentage of that net worth just because we die.

That means that net worth got taxed at about 35% when it was earned and ANOTHER 35% when the 'earners' die and try to pass it on to their kids. Why does the government think that they have a right to that much of our personal property? Why do they think they have a right to CONFISCATE some 2/3 of our net worth and give it to people who people who'd rather live on the welfare of others?

Democrats say they have a right to that money because it is like a 'windfall' to the heirs ... unearned!?!? The government has a right given to them by The People to collect taxes on profits from a person's labor ... NOT, I SAY NOT(!), FROM THE ACT OF DYING!!! GADS! The profits on that business have ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE PARENTS! Taxing that profit again upon a person's death is wrong and just plain stupid! What is it about Democrats that make them think this is either moral OR constitutional?

Of course this is ALL ABOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Nothing more nor less. Democrats will find many creative ways to justify taking one person's created wealth and GIVE IT TO OTHERS WHO HAD A WHOLE LOT LESS TO DO WITH IT'S CREATION THAN SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS ... AND WHO, TO A GREAT EXTENT WOULD RATHER LIVE OFF THE HARD WORK OF OTHERS THAN WORK AS HARD THEMSELVES. Taxing it once is one thing. Taxing a family's business into insolvency and bankruptcy is totally another.

A large estate tax is immoral, period! Democrats should not be allowed to get away with passing such a heartless, businesses-killing, family-destroying tax.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Idiology That Achieves Progress: The 'Art' And Necessity Of Compromise

In Federalist Paper #1, Hamilton admonishes Americans to be circumspect about our own idiological tendencies for the sake of the Republic. [Check out the Federalist papers, especially #1 at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp]

The Founders spent much time considering man's nature because they knew that, to ignore it would lead to a consitution and form of government that would ill-serve the causes of freedom and liberty. They knew that man's nature would, for various reasons and repeating at various times, motivate him to seek something on the whole not in the best interest of real liberty and freedom. They knew they needed to 1) establish some protections against that while at the same time, 2) base the new Constitution on truths and principles that are fundamental to the cause of liberty. They desired for this new Republic to be self-correcting to its intended goals, avoiding the pitfalls of momentary emotions and idiology du jour.

To his credit, while announcing his concern about the dangers of mindless idiological pursuits, Hamilton acknowledged his own idiological biases in Federalist #1. He did that not only to be fair and open in defending the proposed new Constitution but as an exercise in practicing what he admonished us to do likewise. That is, to be circumspect about, acknowledge AND ACCEPT THE FACT OF our own biases, the reasons for them and whether, while seeking some perceived perfection, those biases, if too strongly held, might do more harm than good in advancing the cause of true freedom and liberty.

Being human, the Founders (especially the authors of the Federalist Papers) knew that actions deriving from human nature, albeit for good intentions, could derail our country from the course on which they set it. Indeed, they had to overcome idiological differences themselves to achieve the Constitution in the first place. The course to a new Constitution was, indeed, not smooth sailing. Similar idiologies existed then as exist today. There were fairly equal numbers of liberals and conservatives among the Founders. (It just doesn't seem so from the fact of what they achieved as NO country had ever done before. They weren't as like-minded as most of us think today!) In the process of dealing with their idiologies, they set a good example both for the fact of idiologies existing as well as their commitment to not let that stop overall good progress toward the goal. Thankfully they did a good job documenting their experiences and beliefs so we could learn from them ... if we choose to do so. The BIG questions is, WILL we so choose?

The good news is that human nature, besides having the capacity (tendency?) to derail things, was also the diving force behind a real commitment to achieve a more perfect union for the purpose of freedom (ie, in spite of human nature). They believed that the human desire for freedom and liberty could remain the engine that keeps righting the ship as it rolls to the right and to the left. If keeping the ship afloat remains the primary focus of all effort, we can stay the course on which they set us, toward the ever more (although never) perfect union.

For the past ten years, especially the past four since Democrats took control of congress, idiology has too much trumped the overall good. The Founders sought to establish balance within and between the branches of government. However, it has become increasing partisan over the past ten years. While a Republican congress under Bush was fairly idiological and selfish, the Democratic congress of the past four years has become idiology on steroids. The Founders knew and we should recognize(!) that this is folly for our country.

We need to recognize that President Obama's compromise tax proposal is a VERY NEEDED step back from the idiological nonsense that has become too standard and too accepted by The People!

Instead of each side, when in power, creating idiologically biased legislation that the other side is duty-bound to spend valuable time UNdoing the next time it is in power, we need them all work to achieve some balance that will stand for a while. If both sides spend all their energy undoing what the other side did while it was in power, we'll go nowhere fast. While they're busy rearranging the deck chairs the ship of state WILL run aground.

I commend President Obama for backing away from his idiologically myopic pursuits of the previous two years in creating a tax change framework last week that achieves imperfect progress. Better imperfect progress than none at all. That's the model our Founders set in place and it worked pretty well for two hundred years. Question remains whether the Democratic congress will join President Obama and, in the process, ascede to the obvious will of The People who last month sent them a clear message. To them I say, serve the will of The People and our future prosperity, not your narrow idiology.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Al Gore's Ethanol Push: Truth Loses Out To Special Interests And Politics As Usual

Al Gore had a major role in getting ethanol added to gasoline, justified as benefitting national security and the environment. Likely, it wouldn't have been accomplished had he not championed for it so hard. Opponents, including me, opposed it for several reasons:
  1. Subsidizing corn grown for the production of ethanol would raise the price of all other corn-based food products because less corn would be available for human and livestock consumption. Prices for cereals and meat for example.
  2. Subsidizing corn would drive up the price of non-corn agricultural products too because farmers would switch from other agriculture products to corn.
  3. The production and transportation of ethanol would still require the consumption of almost as much oil-based energy as it saved. The result: it did little to decrease the demand for oil.
  4. Vehicles get worse mileage using gasoline supplemented with ethanol. The result: The use of ethanol would increase the consumption of gasoline.
  5. Gallon for gallon, ethanol is much more expensive to produce than straight gasoline.
  6. Ramping up corn production depletes groundwater faster than many other crops. Not so environmentally friendly, eh?
  7. Corn requires more intensive herbicides and pesticides than many other crops. That's not so environmentally friendly, eh?
  8. Corn depletes soil of its nutrients quickly. Not so environmentally friendly, eh?
We who kept harping on these disadvantages were called alarmists, stupid, anti-environmentalists, and worse all these years, especially by Al Gore. Well, guess what? He just announced that all the above are true. He also just admitted that he pushed for corn ethanol subsidies primarily to benefit the large agriculture industry and related special interests(!) in his state.

To quote the Oregonian (12/06/2010), a known liberal newspaper from one of the most liberal regions of the country (Portland), "[Congress] needs to sober up on ethanol and cut or eliminate [Gore's] tax scheme(!) built for a dream that just keeps refusing to play".

This begs one ask, if 'Mr. Environment' misled us on ethanol in favor of special interests, rather than real science (agricultural as well as others) that was well known at the time, what else has he misled us on knowingly or based on flawed/incomplete science?

Sunday, December 5, 2010

It's INSANE To Require Americans To Work Longer When No One Wants To Hire Them!

While I'm on the subject of social security reform (ck previous blog), the insanity of moving out the retirement age without another key reform needs to be addressed.

It is a FACT that age discrimination in hiring and firing is RAMPANT in our country, more in some professions than others. No one wants to talk about it for lots of reasons. Be resonable for a second. The social security retirement age is already well beyond the age when most companies are willing to hire older Americans. Moving the retirement age from 67 to 69 will do what exactly? Two things:
  1. It will help keep social security from going bankrupt and
  2. It WILL plunge many, many elderly Americans into poverty, some of it desperate poverty.
How many people do you know over the age of 65? How many of them do you think are having difficulty staying employed until social security's new retirement age of 67? How many people you know who will have to work until age 69 will be able to find work? What do you think is the real truth?

Note that I am NOT lobbying for keeping the retirement age at 67. 'All' I want to see is for a level playing field in employment for all Americans over the age of 50, most especially for those over 65.

Social Security reform MUST INCLUDE an EFFECTIVE resolution to rampant employment age discrimination. We must not require elderly Americans to work longer while ignoring the fact that few people/companies will hire them. In fact, something must be done about age discrimination if we do NOT move out the retirement age. Ignoring the fact(!) of age discrimination is irrational, uncivil, uncompassionate, irresponsible, and fundamentally immoral.

Yes Reform Social Security But What About Retirement Plans We Can Afford Even Less?

Social Security is set up so that, during retirement, recipients get back approximately what they put in. It used to be they'd get back quite a bit less. Not long ago it became break-even. Now they receive, on average, somewhat more than they put into it. Now that they are just beginning to get more out of it than they put into it, everyone is declaring that it must be reformed.

Okay, I'll say at the outset that I agree it needs to be reformed. It IS costing more than retirees have put into it and, therefore, it will bankrupt the country if benefit payments stay on this course. We all know the reason for this situation has everything to do with our elected representatives mismanaging the program and stealing the money we put in but that's not what I want to get into in this blog. But it IS worth this aside: we retirees didn't create this problem ... our and your(!) representatives created this mess by mismanaging and outright stealing the money they TOOK from us. We didn't create the SS program and we aren't the ones who screwed it up. So give us a break when you feel like criticizing us! Now to the reason for this blog.

I have to ask the following because common sense begs the question. What about all the unaffordable (non-SS) pension plans across the country? Those on social security already have to wait until age 67 to retire and they end up collecting only slightly more than they put into it. What about the other retirement plans around the country? On those plans one can retire at age 50, some with very generous medical and other benefits included. Oh, and most of them can ALSO collect social security. So those on pension plans can collect a bigger retirement check for twice as long as SS recipients. I invite you to do the math on which person collects more of other people's money ... those on SS or those on other pension plans.

Will the average (non-SS) pension plan employee contribute into their plans anywhere close to what THEY collect in retirement? Hardly! After 30 years of employment, their monthly pension income will be relatively close to what they were earning while employed. Will SS recipients collect anywhere close to what they were earning during their working years? Hardly! And SS recipients collect retirement money for half as long as pension retirees. Bottom line: private and public retirement plans pay way more in benefits to their retirees than those retirees contributed. Those retirement plans are FAR more underfunded than SS is (vis a vis the retirees' own contributions).

So, who pays for all the benefits paid to non-SS pension plan retirees above what they contributed? In the end, it's the rest of us one way or another .. in increased product costs, decreased product quality and, worst of all, direct bailouts from taxpayers to prop up bankrupt pension plans.

I agree that SS needs to be reformed but without apologies I have a big problem with people who have pension plans being so critical of the SS program when their own pension plans are less well funded by them to begin with. That's not 'free money' they are getting once they begin getting more back in benefits than they contributed.

Social Security is easy to pick on because it has an actual, rather simple balance sheet at the national level that's clear to everyone in the country. What other pension plans would stand up to such a balance sheet examination? Answer: NONE. Our country needs reform of ALL pension plans, not just social security.

Next time you feel like ragging on Social Security recipients as unfairly resisting deep reforms, please consider that we're getting way less 'free money' (ie, that we didn't put into the system) than retirees who also have a pension plan. Most of those who have non-SS pension plans are very hypocritical for complaining about SS.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

And We Wonder Why Nothing Important Gets Done In Congress!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) just made a 5 minute speech ON THE SENATE FLOOR(!) to brag about the University of Nevada beating Boise State in a football game last week. Pardon me sir but I seem to recall that there are several pretty important national issues that we need you to address. Yes, possible national bankruptcy and EVERY other issue the senate needs to tackle ARE more important than your state's university football team winning a game.

Here's an idea, sir. Do the job we sent you there to do and that we pay you to do!!! I have news for you ... not everything is about you!

I can't believe Nevada citizens just reelected that knucklehead. Good Grief!

Friday, November 26, 2010

Democrats Think Obama Policies Are Center-Right? Pardon me, but HUH?

According to the AP this week, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA and co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus) said this: Peolosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right". The president's policies are center-right? Huh? What planet does she live on? Oh, that's right. Planet California!

In her world, President Obama is operating center-right which means he actually doesn't support the new health care law, cap and trade, all the bailouts, etc. Oh, and he supports Fox news too ... thinks they're doing a fine job, right?

Good Grief Lady!

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Much For Which To Be Thankful

Thank God for the country in which I live. We're far from perfect but we live in a country where the founders established a form of government directed toward the goal of real freedom and opportunity. We haven't executed that vision perfectly by any means but we keep trying and that's the beauty and wisdom of it.

God Bless you and yours! God Bless our country to continue striving to live up to it's potential in all the good ways.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Making Nice-Nice With Dictatorships Is Not Only Unproductive, It's Dangerous

So, since President Obama began a new and kinder diplomacy with N. Korea what has happened? What has been their response to being nicer to them?
  1. Although Bush had achieved a preliminary agreement with N. Korea on stopping their nuclear plans in return for aid and a better relationship, that agreement was scraped by Obama in favor of one based more on 'mutual respect'. Mr. President, that can only work if there's a reasonable chance the other guy is even capable of being, much less willing to be, respectful. N. Korea has rejected all of Obama's overtures so, instead of having something that's better than what Bush's adminstration developed, we now have nothing at all. In fact, we just found out that shortly after Obama took office, they began construction of a new uranium enrichment facility intended to support nuclear weapons production. Talk about in your face! Their actions suggest they think they had a better chance of getting away with it than under the Bush deal.
  2. Obama recently went on a good will tour and apolgized to them again and asked them for a more cooperative relationship ... the new agreement he's wanted instead of Bush's. They gave him nothing. How's that new diplomacy working out sir?
  3. Shortly after Obama's recent visit N. Korea announced they not only began construction of the aforementioned uranium enrichment facility but that it's already becoming operational. The fact that it has some 2,000 centrifuges means ONLY one thing. They don't need that many centrifuges to enrich uranium sufficient for use in power plants. Guess what the plant's main purpose is! How IS that new diplomacy working out sir?
  4. Yesterday they launched a mortar (maybe rockets too?) attack on a S. Korean island. I'd call that pretty provocative. S. Korea didn't do anything deserving of something that aggressive and today S. Korea basically said if they do any more of that it'll mean "an enormous retaliation". Too close to war to suit me. That's the kind of thing that can get escalated beyond a country's ability to avoid a major conflict, especially when the leadership on one side is disinclined to be (if not incapable of being) rational. And even more especially if they think S. Korea's allies are too weak-willed to actually do anything about it! Major wars (I'm talking world war as well) have begun over less. How is that new, kinder/gentler diplomacy working out sir?

When they have gone so far as to make an agreement with Western nations, N. Korea has broken every one of them ... after they got what they wanted. To them, diplomacy is just another weapon to use on countries naive and stupid enough to believe they haven't been lied to.

Democrats have tried this before so why would supposedly rational people think the results would be different this time? Clinton famously negotiated an agreement with N. Korea not to develop nuclear weapons if we'd give them food and other aid. While (not even after!) they were getting the aid WE promised, they were breaking THEIR promise and were developing nuclear energy for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Don't the events of the past two weeks affirm anything rational? Is it more or less rational to expect them to build more and more powerful WMD's as well as delivery vehicles no matter how nice we are to them? Time to live in the real world Mr. President. This isn't a classroom. It's real life.

This is what bullies do and being nice to them only reflects weakness to them and encourages them to bully us and our allies more, not less. This pie-in-the-sky approach to dealing with dictatorships, bullies and psychopaths (that only 'works' in Harvard classrooms) is not only unrealistic and a huge waste of time, it makes the world a flat-out more dangerous place. History, if one were to examine 'real' history, shows time and again that this is what that kind of nutjob ruler can be counted on to do. It's tempting, in response to what N. Korea has done the past week, to think they're just unpredictable. In fact, history (if you're interested in facts) tells us this is exactly what we can expect from power-hungry thugs.

In fact, Iran is doing exactly the same thing as N. Korea has done for the past 20 years and our current leaders are acting as if N. Korea is an exception. N. Korea DID export its nuclear weapons technology to countries unfriendly to us. Iran WILL do the same thing but the really important difference is that Iran exports terrorism as well. Soon those terrorists will be armed with nukes! History tells us it's irrational to assume they won't do that. The 'new diplomacy' not only didn't work in N. Korea, it emboldened them against a perceived weak enemy. It would take ignoring history and human nature to conclude Iran is a different situation. Although, it IS different to the extent that the consequences there will be FAR worse.

This is a very dangerous game our current leaders are playing with international diplomacy, thinking that being nice to bullies, thugs and psychopaths will make them want to be nice back. As on the playground, if you don't stand your ground early and forcefully enough, they'll kick you in your 'junk'. Our current leaders think diplomacy is just a tool. To the likes of N. Korea and Iran it's a distraction and a weapon to use against those who rely on it irrationally!

Monday, November 22, 2010

A Something For Nothing Country

We've developed an odd attitude over the past hundred years or so. More people want more government services and societal support. They just don't want to pay for them.

I grew up in an era and place when/where we believed it was our responsibility to take care of ourselves ... dependency on others (including debt) was a thing to be avoided if possible. Indebtedness was to be avoided but if debt were necessary it was to be repaid fully and quickly.

Now we see ads on TV telling us we "have a RIGHT to pay back as little as 10 cents on the dollar". Sorry but you do NOT have a 'right' to bail out on a debt. Of course, you have a right to renegotiate the repayment contract but the person holding your debt has NO obligation whatsoever to let you change any aspect of it. There used to be stigma attached to non-repayment of debt unless you were and remained destitute. Now we're told we have a 'right' not to repay debt.

In the past we'd do without luxuries and many necessities in order to honor our word to repay a debt. Now wayyyyy too many people see nothing wrong with spending pretty liberally on themselves while claiming they can't afford to repay a debt. Two or three cars, two or three TV's, two or three computers, cell phones, cable TV with multiple add-on packages, a new car every three years rather than getting by on the 'old' one for a few more years, iPods, iPads, expensive vacations, eating out many times/week, a closet-full of new clothes. All those are more important than repaying a debt. My word and honor are disposible things but don't expect me to give up all my cable add-ons to honor a contract! Something for nothing. Gimme stuff but don't expect me to actually repay the debt that purchase created.

Half of Americans pay no income taxes which are used to pay for essential services from which all of us benefit. What's up with the mentality that a minority of people ought to pay for services from which we all benefit? Do you benefit from decent roads, schools, general government services, fire and police protection, emergency services, protection by the National Guard and military? What's up with a society where the majority of citizens don't feel any obligation to help pay for that? How has it become okay and even desirable(!) for other people to pay for everyone's derived benefits? Something for nothing. A lot of something for nothing!

You do not have a 'right' to get a free ride in life but, in a civil society (if you want to keep it a civil society!), you DO have a responsibility to not only take care of yourself and your family to the best of your ability but also to help take care of others who are truly unable to take care of themselves. It's the Christian and moral thing to do. Aside from that it's the civil, honorable and principled thing to do. Selflessness is becoming too rare but selfishness abounds and increases. Not good for the future of any civil society.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

So, How's That 'Play Nice With People Who Hate Us And They'll Cooperate' Thing Working Out Mr. President?

Ck this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40294341/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

For some reason most of us on the 'right' never understood, President Obama always said he could change the attitudes of people around the world, especially those who want to do us harm, by showing them a different attitude toward them. How IS that working out sir?

This link is but one more example that demonstrates we're disliked for a lot of reasons he has no clue about. And those who want to do us harm want to do that simply because of who we are and what we stand for, not because of what we (or he!) says or does.

Freedom stands for things our enemies fundamentally and often irrationally hate us for. Acts of a free people are hated by them as is the success of a free people. Yes, we stand up to the bullies of the world. It's what free people do who 'get' freedom. Bullies do what bullies do when someone stands up to their shennanigans. They get even or try to and will NOT stop being bullies if we try to make nice with them. They ONLY see that as a sign of weakness and it ONLY emboldens them. Human nature keeps getting in the way of what sounds good on paper at Harvard and too many people in power don't and apparently never will understand that.

(Just like human nature leads those in power to want more power and control for its own sake rather than for the sake of what's best to sustain a truly free society. They become the kind of bullies ... to their own people ... that real freedom is incompatible with but that's a subject for another day.)

Before you go off on how we can be a bully sometimes remember this. We're not the ones killing others simply because of what they believe. We're not the ones keeping our citizens mercilessly in poverty, ignorance and under an iron and uncompassionate rule. Focus on this: if other countries that are trying to do us harm would stop their tyrannical ways and focus on taking care of their own people, they'd find us using more of our resources to help them than defend ourselves against them.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Hypocrisy In Politics

"Political hypocrisy" is, of course, redundant. Nevertheless it's fun(?) to call out periodically. Take how 'reform' is characterized.

When the party in power wants to include in reform something 70% of Americans do NOT want, the politicians of that party dig in their heels and refuse to do it 'partially'. The only way you Americans can have ANY reform is if we in power also include the thing we want in spite of the fact that 70% of Americans don't want it. ANY reform in this area REQUIRES "COMPLETE" REFORM! NO piecemeal reform will be allowed. We can't have ANY reform unless we include everything we're dreaming of having.

That. ladies and gentlemen is exactly why we don't have immigration reform yet. Neither party will agree to do the part of immigration reform that 80% of Americans DO want until the politicians (both parties!) get amnesty ... for the umpteenth time.

Democrats, the party currently in power, have been doing that a lot (just as Republicans have done in the past) the past four years they've been in power. Repeatedly, they've refused to pass just the parts of legislation they could get general agreement on and held progress hostage to getting something included that most Americans don't even want. A recent legislative need illustrates the hypocrisy so well that it's worth noting.

After refusing to pass health care reform, immigration reform, finance reform, and many other reforms unless they got 'total reform', Democrats are saying we need to attack tax extensions piece-meal. Most Americans want all of the 'Bush tax cuts' extended because they've figured out that reducing the profits of companies that hire most working folks during a serious recession is not just undesirable, it's stupid. Idiologically Democrats are for more taxes for 'the rich' and against tax cut extensions for them. They cannot bring themselves to extend all the tax cuts for purely idiological reasons. No matter that most serious economists and most Americans say that'll hurt employment and recovery. So, after saying no to partial reforms on other legislation for the past four years, Democrats are now saying we have to do this one piece-meal.

Unbelievably (according to today's paper), they are submitting legislation to extend the tax cuts for everyone but those THEY define as 'rich'. They say THIS is a temporary economic reform that MUST be done piece-meal ... because WE are idiologically opposed to doing part of it.

This same party has blasted Republicans REPEATEDLY for opposing legislation because they want to attack various reforms more piece-meal is now saying piece-meal is required. When Republicans try to block 'comprehensive' legislation in favor of piece-meal Democrats say Republicans are the party of no. But when it's Democrats blocking comprehensive legislation in favor of piece-meal, and Republicans don't like that, Republicans are STILL 'the party of no'. Huh?

Friday, November 19, 2010

92% Of Afghans Don't Know What They Did To Us Or, Therefore, Why We're There!

Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40273302/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

So, 92% of Afghans don't know our country was attacked by Muslims FROM THEIR COUNTRY on 9/11/2001! Therefore, they don't know people in THEIR country are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths in our country! Therefore, also, they don't know why we're in their country. Therefore, no wonder they want us out and oppose so much of what we're doing there.

Wouldn't you be mad at people you thought were killing people in your country for no good reason? Wouldn't you strongly support the Taliban in getting that 'invader' kicked out of your country? Don't you think that this has EVERYTHING to do with why their countrymen are so easily recruited into fighting us ... not only there but everywhere in the world?

I wonder what possible reason Karzai might have for keeping this a secret from his country's citizens? Hmmmm. Corruption comes to mind. Maybe, just maybe, he's manipulating his country's citizens for nefarious purposes? Hmmm. Maybe the heroin trade? Hmmm. Maybe he has some shennanigans going on with rulers in various provinces in his country? Hmmm. Maybe if the citizens knew they might kick him out of office? Hmmm. Remember how he keeps telling his citizens how he wants us out quickly ... while telling us privately he wants us to stay? Hmmm. Maybe if his citizens knew the truth they'd not want him around?

This Karzai is NO friend of ours and it's a shame we're stuck with working with him. No wonder we can't get him to shut up about wanting us out and criticizing everything we do there. He HAS to do that because his citizens have no clue why were really there!

What are the chances we will EVER succeed in 'the mission' there when the president of their country keeps his people fired up to resist us? Does this nutjob help or hinder the fight against terrorism? On balance, does he do more harm in the war against terror than good? Maybe so!

The Crooks and Thieves In Congress

Okay. So GM is about to pay back a big chunk of the stimulus money they got from The People. (It was OUR money after all.) So what do you think congress is going to do with it? Same thing they've done with all the other stimulus money they borrowed from us. Spend it!

Do you remember that, upon hearing loud protests from The People about various stimulus plans from them, the Democratic congress did two things. They:

  1. Made them loans rather than gifts to the financial companies, GM and all the others and
  2. PROMISED the American people that, when the loans were paid back they'd give ALL that money back to those from whom they got it (US!) via paying down the loans used to get the money in the first place?
Question for you: So, what has the Democratic congress done with ALL of that returned money so far? They do what our government(s) do when they get their hands on our money. They SPENT IT ON STUFF =>THEY<= WANT DONE. ALL OF IT! They've turned all that money into their own personal slush fund! It IS a slush fund because they don't have to create any legislation in order to spend it. In case it hasn't occurred to you, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What does that make them?
  1. LIARS
  2. CROOKS and THIEVES
  3. VIOLATORS OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE (Violating, y'know, that pesky little document they swear to uphold and defend, the Constitution?)
  4. HOW ABOUT CORRUPT?

So, America, don't you care that they've LITERALLY stolen TRILLIONS OF $s from us and, in the process, violated their oath of office? I do! It makes me angry! Because, guess what? That debt created by borrowing the stimulus money in the first place IS STILL THERE ... EVEN THOUGH NEARLY HALF OF IT HAS BEEN PAID BACK!!! Guess what else? Guess who's on the hook to pay off that debt they didn't pay down as promised? We The People! Unfortunately, I'm not the one who's on the hook to pay it back. My kids and their kids will have to.

Y'know what would happen if you or I did that with money from OUR employer? We'd go to jail because when an ordinary citizens does something like that it IS a crime.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Rangel Betrayed A Trust And A Responsibility

Until he was charged with ethics violations, Charlie Rangel was the Chairman of the US House of Representatives Ways And Means Committee, one of the most powerful bodies in all of US government. They are, for example, responsible for our federal tax code.

He is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

He is also a military hero ... recipient of a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for sevice in the Korean War.

In 2008 he was charged by the US House Ethics Committee of ethics violations and failure to comply with tax laws (ie, TAX EVASION!). This month he was convicted on 11 of 12 house rules violations charges and has now been recommended to receive censure. Among the penalties recommended by the Ethics Committee was repaying taxes he failed to pay.

I don't believe his failure to pay taxes was from a devious intent but it surely is both negligent and irresponsible. It would be bad enough if he had 'average' responsibilities and roles in the House but he was chairman of the very committee responsible for the US Tax Code! OMG! As for all the other charges not related to tax evasion, whether one would consider all or any of them to be very serious, the fact that he's been convicted of 11(!) House rules violations doesn't speak well for his integrity and honesty does it? What does it say about his integrity that he allowed all this to happen without recognizing the wrongness? What does it say about his integrity that he fought against the charges strongly to the end?

Perhaps most sadly, the only contriteness we've seen from him was AFTER he was convicted. Seems to me a man of integrity would have owned up to the wrongness immediately and not spend two years denying he did anything wrong when it was so clear he had. What about showing some respect to the institution and to his colleagues by admitting the wrongness and apologizing? He doesn't say he didn't do those things, only that it wasn't intentional. Well, Mr. Rangel, that doesn't make them less wrong sir.

Apparently all the things of which he was convicted were 'accidental'. In that case, what is he? Incompetent? Irresponsible? Both? And he led one of the most powerful bodies in American politics. I feel sad for him. And then there's the loss of respect for and integrity of The House of Representatives. The House salvaged some respect by dealing with his misdeeds responsibly.

He is a man who earned and deserves much respect, regardless. Nevertheless, this is a sad way to end his career. It's truly sad that a distinguished career like his will be remembered significantly for this (minor by comparison) disgrace.

By the way, Ms. Pelosi was correct when she took over as Speaker of The House; there's much in 'the swamp' that needed to be cleaned up. I just don't think she was thinking of her own party at the time.

Friday, November 12, 2010

The President Gets Some Lessons On Becoming Dependent On Others; Will The Consequences Finally Register Before It's Too Late?

So, president Obama goes overseas, hat in hand, and gets rebuffed when he asks for help on his terms.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40143947/ns/business-world_business/

He's getting a lesson on the consequences of becoming economically (and otherwise) dependent on and beholding to others but the question is, will he 'get' it before it's too late for Americans ... if it's not already?

When you allow yourself to become economically dependent on others, you give them power over you. In the hands of a benevolent person, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the hands of someone who wants to 'remake' your life, it's a bad thing. Let's examine whether there's an analogy here worth discussing and learning from that could help us in our current and potential future dilemmas.

We conservatives really, REALLY hate becoming dependent on the federal government. For that matter, we strive really hard not to become dependent on ANYONE else. To us, it's a matter of an important principle. In fact, it's one which our founders believed was key to establishing and maintaining freedom. We understand history ... our history. We think it matters.

A tyrannical government held us in contempt and practiced arbitrary rule over us. We revolted and became the great nation we are today. The flaws that can result in becoming powerful are a fact for discussion another day. But becoming the opposite ... ie, subservient to others ... has consequences too ... consequences that we'll have no control over and which have the potential to RE-enslave us economically and otherwise.

Democrats, especially progressives, try to create a fear of us 'returning to tired old Republican ideas that got us into this difficulty or which never worked'. What too many people don't appear to understand is that progressives want to return us to an even older and truly insideous form of government that controls everything. We've been there people! It's why our ancestors fought and died to stop it over 200 years ago. We STARTED with the kind of government progressives want but what they want is that kind of government on steroids! They're counting on us not remembering what that was like. In fact, they've been working hard to remove that rememberance from the teaching of our history in public schools and replace it with the progressive view of benevolent governments being best for a people. It's nonsense! Not only is it a lie that it's good for us, it's been proven time and again throughout(!) history not to work!

President Obama and progressives in general strive to make us Americans dependent on them through various means of 'taking care of us'. That kind of paternalism is seductive to those who don't like the hard work of taking care of one's self and being responsible so they tend to want it. Many others, while not liking the consequences, allow it to happen because it appears to ease the troubles of life.

Look what our own government has done in the past two years. They passed legislation that most of us have said multiple times we don't want but they did it anyway because they think it's their job to take care of us. It WILL make us more dependent on and subservient to them. We'll accept their money, welfare and 'benefits' and, in return, they'll tell us how to live or not live our lives. Gone will be the incentive to succeed on one's own merit. That dependency on the federal government will literally enslave us.

Problem is, those very actions by our federal government will, in turn, enslave America to other country's whims and desires. There IS a legitimate analogy in this. In order to enslave us to federal welfare, they have to borrow extraordinary amounts of money from other countries and now that they've max'd out their credit with other countries, they're in the process of devaluing our GDP through the printing of tons of money. That IS enslaving us to welfare, to inflation and to control by others. SADLY, THIS UNFORTUNATE STATE OF AFFAIRS WAS COMPLETELY PREDICTED! And now that people are beginning to realize the folly of their utopian choices in the previous two elections, they're in the process of trying to correct it. Unfortunately many of the horses have escaped before we'll be able to get the barn door closed.

Obama and his fellow progressives WANT to enslave us to their 'protection' but they don't understand that what they're doing will do the same thing on a world scale. It will in turn enslave us to other countries to exactly the same ends and for exactly the same reasons.

Other countries want us weaker, just as progressive do. Other countries are no doubt enjoying having us become dependent on them for a change. Some for very nefarious reasons that could lead to our demise in fact. Obama and progressives do not understand the danger in what they're doing. They do not understand what economic dependency (slavery) does to people and countries. Their theories based on the unrealistic assumption of benevolence by government only work in a classroom but this is NOT a classroom experiment here. This is how REAL life works. They're in the process of destroying our economy and currency. Other countries WILL take advantage of that because, for the first time in our country's history(!), they have power over us. The enslavement in other ways that WILL follow is pretty unpleasant to contemplate.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Mortgage Crisis Is Getting Worse And The Experts Have No Idea How Bad It'll Get!

Guess what? They can't keep the lid on the news about those toxic sub-prime mortgages any longer. Y'know, the ones that no one wants to talk about that I've said multiple times are still(!) out there, ready to sink our economy even worse? Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40075142/ns/business-personal_finance/

Here are a couple of the eye-catching comments from that article. "When you look at the scope of the problem, it's a very, very large problem. We really don't know how deep the hole is." And here's a 'good' one: "Where you’re really going to see the hit is off in the future a few years, when there’s no money to pay your life insurance policy or when your pension is gone or when your mutual fund is unable to pay you the interest rate they promised you". OMG!

Now isn't THAT fun? Just a barrel of laughs, huh? Guess who's going to be hurt the worst? Yeah, it's the same(!) ones hurt the worst in the collapse of two years ago ... us retirees who, throughout our lives, have poured our life's savings into such 'investments'. While it's true that it hits everyone, we're retired ... couldn't work any more if we wanted (thanks to age discrimination but that's a story for another day). So, unlike younger people, we have NO way to make up for the these loses by future work and savings. We're done saving and the idiots who caused this problem are about to take blood from these turnips. It's not bad enough that we lost so much of our life savings two years ago. NOW we're about to lose EVERYTHING else ... insurance policies, pensions, etc ... even our homes because that's what happens when all sources of income evaporate and you have absolutely nothing left to live on.

To fix it properly, as I've been saying, we must understand the root cause. From whomever brought this about we should accept NO MORE of their nonsense. Let's review it. Q: What caused the collapse and is about to cause what the link above talks about? Ans: those 'toxic' sub-prime mortgages. Q: who created that program? Ans: Democrats. Q: when did we start down this path? Ans: during the Clinton administration, especially when Clinton, as a lame duck in the last month of his presidency, signed an executive order forcing Fannie and Freddie to make half of their mortgages be sub-prime mortgages. Q: who pushed them super hard the past ten years when everyone else with half a brain was telling them it would cause problems? Ans: Democrats (Thanks Chris Dodd and Barney Frank). I know it's hard to stop drinking the "Bush did it" Kool-Aid but, c'mon, doesn't the severity of this problem deserve some serious evaluation what really caused it?

Tell me something please. Has this mess gotten your attention yet? I mean your full attention. Are you prepared to face what has to be done to fix it or will you just continue marching along, drinking your Kool-Aid as if there's nothing wrong and expecting your paternalistic government to fix it like you expect it to fix everything else. I have news for you. They CAN'T fix it. They can diminish the impact if they start acting in a fiscally responsible way. With Republicans (esp with the Tea Party influence) in charge we at least have a chance of minimizing the impact .. which still won't be pretty by any stretch.

This REALLY sucks! Oh, by the way, I TOLD YOU SO!

Monday, November 8, 2010

Not Only Lying But Being The REAL Party Of No

We in the conservative ranks have been saying for 1 1/2 years that it was Democrats who were saying no to Republicans, not the other way around but the media and Democrats kept saying it was the Republicans who weren't cooperating. Hmmmm. Now that they've taken a thumping in the recent election, they're beginning to admit what was obvious to anyone not drinking the progressive Kool-Aid nonsense.

MSNBC's First Read reported this today: "From NBC's Chuck todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg: To us, the most striking part of President Obama's "60 Minutes" interview was his admission that he and his administration didn't compromise and work with the Republicans. Per Obama's 60 Minutes interview, "In terms of setting the tone and how this town operates, we just didn't pay enough attention to some of the things that we had talked about.""

Well, DUH! They ... Obama and his White House leadership, Pelosi, Reid, and Democrat leadership in general ... ALL promised during the 2008 campaign that they would bring a new spirit of cooperation to DC and would reach across the aisle. They promised(!) openness in all legislation. Thing is they did none of that. In fact, they set a new standard for exactly the opposite. Their two-year tenure has been the most closed and uncooperative reign in memory.

Now, president Obama is admitting that's what they did. So, I ask you, what exactly does that mean regarding his statements for the past 1 1/2 years ... incessant and insistent ... that he, his administration and Democrats in the legislature were NOT doing that? Obviously, they WERE doing that ... even he admits it now. Obviously, they knew they were doing it ... a conscious decision to behave that way. An average American behaving that way in the course of life would be called an arrogant liar and provocateur.

Are those character traits we really want/need in a president and legislative leadership? I'm reluctant to use such descriptors of any president so I'll just close with this: it's behavior unbecoming a president of these United States of America.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Independents: Conundrum and Contradiction

I don't get "Independent" as a political force, thinking or party. They always say they're independent thinkers, preferring to function freely and highly value their independence. So, why would such a party put Obama and the Obama agenda (ie, progressivism) in power by their vote in the previous two elections? Just look at what that wrought.

Are we more or less controlled by government? Are we about to be more or less taxed by government? Will independents fundamentally have more or less freedom to practice what they preach under progressives' rule? Considering how the election went this time, I think it's pretty obvious they decided they were wrong.

Only two years after leading the progressive overthrow of our government, independents now have credit for 'tossing the bums out'. It leads me to wonder what were they thinking in the first place?

Progressives told us exactly what they intended to do if we put them in power in the 2008 elections. Weren't independents paying attention? Or maybe they aren't nearly as independent as they like to think. They fell for the progressive nonsense hook, line and sinker. How independent IS that? The answer of course is, not very. Maybe they're not as smart and above-it-all as they'd like us to think?

To independents everywhere to whom all political analysts have given credit for the progressive takeover of 2008: thanks a lot! Those who you elected then have done a lot of harm to our country and to the spirit that you claim to embrace. At least you tried to correct your error this time around.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Regardless What You're Hearing From Obama, The Economy Is Still Really Sick

Does this sound like the economy is doing as well as the President is saying?:
  1. Banks folding faster than they have since the Savings and Loan crisis. YES, faster than at any time yet during this current recession. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40034941/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/
  2. Remember those "toxic investments" that sank our economy in the first place? Y'know the ones that Democrats created and pushed so hard ... sub-prime mortgages? Well, they don't like talking about it (for obvious reasons) but most of those toxic things are still out there. Foreclosures continue at a high rate. This suppresses the housing market and keeps alive the risk of a second, probably worse, recession if our unemployment remains high much longer.
  3. We retirees are suffering more than ever economically. What's left of a lifetime of savings after the stock market crash two years ago is evaporating rapidly because interest rates and, therefore, interest income are so low that we're cashing in all of our investments to live on. Soon many (most?) of us won't have any savings left. If it weren't for our savings propping up the economy you all would be in lots worse trouble. What'll you do when that's gone and you have to support us after we can no longer support ourselves? If the economy doesn't recover soon a large number of us will be dependent on you.
  4. The extraordinary debt piled up by Democrats ($6 Trillion in only four years) is about to create a devaluation of the dollar and inflation that will suppress, if not crater, our economy for years to come. Those of you in the current younger generations have never experienced either devaluation or inflaction and don't know how bad it'll get but we who are propping up the economy with our life savings remember and we know what'll happen when our savings run out.
  5. We have become a debtor nation; in fact, the biggest of all time. It thoroughly disgusts those of us who lived through world wars and other tough times because we know what that does to a country. Those of you who voted for this are about to learn it's harsh consequences. One BIG consequence is that we won't control our destiny again for a very long time. That alone has bigger consequences than you can imagine. Will we be able to afford defending ourselves for example? That's not an idle, irrational or inconsequential question.
Many of us warned about this type of economy coming from the policies of those currently in control of our government ... for only two more months, thank God. They've made a mess so big that it'll be very hard to clean up. We told you they were doing this and I guess you didn't think it was a big deal. Well, choices have consequences and the current generations that have lived so long without self-control and consequences are about to understand what that feels like because now that's unavoidable. We now have tougher choices to make than any of us want to even consider. Your worst nightmare is now a possibility, especially if we don't make the hard decisions we must make. Guess who pays even more for this than they have to date? Retirees, because we can no longer work to support ourselves, much less restore our finances that others(!) stole from us.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Different Standards For Republicans? Maybe Just A Little Hypocrisy By The Left?

I remember vividly as you should what Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and President Obama and his staff said after the 2008 election when Democrats took control of the Senate, House and White House. They actually, literally said, "We won so we get to do things OUR way!" And they proceeded to do exactly that, blocking Republicans out of the legislative process almost entirely. And President Obama flat refused to talk with Republican leadership about their ideas for various legislation including health care reform.

Republicans just won as big a victory in one election as Democrats did in the previous two elections. In fact, the swing in the House was the biggest in over 60 years by either party. So, what are Democrats and liberal media saying Republicans should do? Are we hearing "they won so they get to do it their way?" HARDLY!

Republicans are being lectured by Democrats that they need to compromise with Democrats. Maybe just a bit of a double standard? Maybe just a touch of hypocrisy? By the benevolent and fair Left? Naw, can't be! Hmmmmm.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The New Deal, EITHER Roosevelt's OR Obama's Version, IS A Raw Deal!

On another subject, this is what I've been saying for a couple of years:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251822/guess-who-thomas-sowell

'The Left' keeps preaching that progressivism works in spite of the fact that history proves it does not. History and facts seem to matter little to them ... 200 years of success under the constitution is an irrelevance and annoyance standing in the way of progressivism. The success of the constitution and the actual history about Roosevelt are inconveniences they cannot ignore so they revise the facts of both to suit and support their tired and failed philosophies.

Americans prefer not getting too involved in politics because they think that a government that is meant to be small and 'do' little should not need their involvement. Problem is, our government has gotten big and controlling over everything so we have no choice but to reign it in. The constitution IS relevant and it's what We (Most of) The People want governing us! It worked! So, LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY! Doesn't the FACT that government screws up pretty much everything it touches tell us anything? (Check out the blog two entries down.) HELLO?

It's What I've Been Saying: They Should Have Left The Stinking Economy Alone!

I've been saying for a long time that:

  1. You cannot prove a negative ... ie, you can't say what you didn't try would have been worse because you have NO way of knowing and
  2. Actual history shows our economy to be the strongest in the world. Left to itself, it'll tend to correct economic/market problems on its own. IF you don't mess with it!

There not only is NO evidence that what the president and Dems in general are saying ("the economy would have been worse if we had done nothing" ... therefore, "we saved the economy from a depression"), there is abundant PROOF from historical facts that our economy IS resilient enough to overcome most of the problems from the collapse of two years ago.

Reason I bring it up (again) is this article posted on The National Review website this week: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251635/two-kinds-recessions-michael-barone

Reputable media/analysts are publishing this truth about our economy. WE DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO FIX EVERYTHING! For two reasons:

  1. OUR economy is VERY capable of healing itself and
  2. The government tends to screw up everything it touches! HELLO!

Monday, November 1, 2010

Good Idea Mr. President; Let's DO Remember Who Brought Us This Mess!

I'll take your challenge at face value Mr. President. Here goes:

Problem: Sub-Prime Mortgages (NOT derivatives) cratered the mortgage and housing industries. Cause: Sub-Prime Mortgages were Democrats' program AND they were the ones who mismanaged it, thanks primarily to the 'sterling' leadership of that Dynamic Duo, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Problem: Economy cratered two years ago. Cause: The Sub-Prime Mortgage mess caused by Democrats.

Problem: National debt is about to bankrupt the country. Cause: While the Republican congress created considerable debt during its 6-year tenure, the Democratic congress, in its past 4 years has created nearly twice as much. (Subtract the Dems' various stimulus programs and you still arrive at an amount of debt equal to Republicans' ... in 2/3 the time.) Both parties created a ridiculous amount of debt but Democrats created more, faster.

Problem: High unemployment. Cause: Cratered economy which was caused by Democrats' Sub-Prime Mortgage fiasco.

Problem: High unemployment has remained high too long. Cause: Democrats' fix didn't help.

Problem: Social Security not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Social Security created and mismanaged by Democrats.

Problem: Medicare not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Medicare created and mismanaged by Democrats.

Problem: Health Care premiums and co-pays are in the process of skyrocketing. Cause: Democrats' National Health Care. That seems odd, by the way, because I thought the whole point of doing health care reform in the first place was some 80% of Americans wanted them to reign in costs so that high quality care could be affordable to everyone. Costs are skyrocketing and quality is about to go in the toilet (thanks to government 'regulation'). What exactly happened to what The People thought they were getting when they voted Democrats into total control of government?

Problem: Education system is among the worst among Western nations. Cause: Democrats created the Department of Education 30 years ago and our education system has declined steadily ever since. 30 years of experimenting with our kids' education by Democrats have taken us from best to worst. (Art Robinson, candidate for US House of Reps District 4 in Oregon was correct ... what we've done in producing uneducated kids, leaving them ill-prepared to compete for jobs in the world market place, IS a kind of child abuse.)

Problem: Illegal immigration STILL not fixed. Cause: Progress stymied by Democrats' insistence on not doing any part of immigration reform unless they could get amnesty included, contrary to the will of The People. They've held ALL immigration reform hostage to approval of amnesty. That's pretty irresponsible, especially now that illegal immigration has created a serious national security problem along our southern border.

If you've just arrived from Mars and don't understand how Democrats could possibly be responsible for all this, consider this. For 30 of the past 60 years, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority (not just a simple majority!) in one or both branches of the legislature. Republicans have held a veto-proof majority exactly ... ZERO times! You can't create much legislation or fix what's broken very effectively if you never have a big enough majority to do so. So, how exactly is it that the party that has NOT had enough political power to cause all these problems gets the credit for it?

Thanks for asking the question Mr. President ... you're correct, we SHOULD throw out the bums who DID cause all these problems! In fact, we're in the process of doing just that! :-)

Friday, October 29, 2010

What's Wrong With Big Debt?

Here's what's happened in the past 10 years. Republicans, in the 6 years they controlled congress (and, therefore, spending and debt), created $3 Trillion of new national debt. Democrats, not to be outdone, created nearly twice as much new debt in 2/3 as much time.

The Chinese own most of our $14 Trillion of debt. What can they do with the leverage that provides them? Whatever they want and we can't stop them.

Check out this sobering ad:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/the-phenomenal-chinese-professor-ad/64982/

It IS as potentially bad as it sounds. Scary enough for you? Scary enough to insist your representatives in the House and Senate at the national and state levels to DO something about it ... FAST?

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The Truth, Once More, About What Decreasing Taxes Does For The Economy

Another voice telling the truth, backed up by honest, straight-forward evidence. Maybe a world-class economist will convince you?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250954/brass-oldies-thomas-sowell

Every time that tax reductions are done to get the economy going they work. R U listening? It works! I won't bore you with my usual long-winded opinion. Suffice it to say that actual history(!) and the truth(!) about it show that it works, as the economist's link above describes.

The progressive approach to taking money out of the economy ... from businesses and from individuals ... for government to spend the way IT sees fit doesn't work. Government has a TERRIBLE track record on regarding waste, inefficiency and unwise use of our money. So, why would we want to keep giving them more?

Monday, October 25, 2010

The New Definition For Stimulate

Let's start with this doozy of a claim and proceed from there: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250673/stimulus-814-billion-flop-deroy-murdock

So, Ms. Pelosi recently said "It [unemployment payments] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name." Only in DC could someone make such a lamebrain claim as more unemployment payments is good for job creation. Pardon me for a moment while I digest that. [Pause] Okay, now give me a minute to recover from a really, really painful brain freeze that just came over me. That's an interesting idea ... except for the inconvenient FACT that government welfare robs people of the will to 'do' for themselves and returns to the private sector (where it'll do some good) LESS than it extracts from taxpayers. Only in DC can someone think that a net taking of money from the private sector stimulates jobs there. How about some actual facts Ms. Pelosi? Oh, and some sanity too?

Many reputable investigations into unemployment compensation at the level and duration of payment we have today have concluded that it significantly reduces the incentive to work. There's a reason why some 80% of those on unemployment find jobs within two weeks after their unemployment compensation runs out. Think about that. After being on unemployment for nearly two(!) years (99 weeks to be exact), nearly all unemployed people find work within two weeks.

One can logically and rationally deduce ONLY one thing from that: the only thing unemployment compensation (ie. becoming financially dependent on the government) stimulates is laziness and remaining unemployed. That also speaks volumes about the real truth of government welfare in general. The REAL truth Ms. Pelosi is this: facts, if you're interested in them, say that termination(!) of unemployment payments is THE best stimulus to getting people off their duff and back to work!

Only a liberal like Ms. Pelosi could come to the conclusion that government welfare stimulates employment in the private sector. The government takes money FROM the private sector to pay people to stay out of work in the private sector and she thinks the 'net' of it is more people working in the private sector. Of course, unemployment has that social safety net thing going for it and that's a good thing up to a point which we're well past.

We DO need unemployment compensation. But there's plenty of evidence that too much money for too long a time robs people below the poverty level of the motivation to look for a job. Personally, I think that after about 4 months of receiving unemployment compensation people should be required to do something worthwhile for their community (for no 'extra' compensation) in order to continue receiving that unemployment check. THAT would stimulate two things: the people paying them their unemployment money (ie. you and me!) would get some value from it and there'd be some motivation to find a real job. But that's a subject for another time.

Ethanol Added To Gas = MORE Greenhouse Gases Not Less

This link says it all for me: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250677/more-ethanol-means-dirtier-air-robert-bryce?page=2

More ethanol in auto fuel equals FOUR things:

  1. More engine repairs,
  2. Fuel costs more to produce,
  3. Cost of corn from which it comes increases and so does everything that's made from corn, and, worst of all,
  4. More polution, not less.

There were plenty of reputable people saying, before this nonsense began, that all those things would happen. They were labelled nut-cases and irresponsible. Sorry, but those four effects don't seem like a good deal to me. And now the federal government wants to increase the percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15% ... which, DUH, makes all the above worse! Only a government bureaucracy (and, especially, a liberal one) could think that's a good thing. The corn/farm lobbies love it and so do many environmentalists although the latter number is shrinking for some reason. Could it be that that inconvenient thing called reality is beginning to take root in their thinking?

Friday, October 22, 2010

But The POINT Of A Free And Independent Press Is To Protect Americans From Tyranny

The founders wrote frequently about the importance of a free and independent press (media) and it's role in helping to ensure we are never again subjected to government tyranny. A free and independent press was recognized and acknowledged as key to maintaining our freedom. So much for good intentions.

The 'press' referred to in the early years has morphed into a whole range of media that, in addition to 'press' in those days, includes radio, TV and internet news sources. So 'free and independent press' applies to them all in principle. Problem we have today is that, instead of protecting us against government tyranny (over-powerful government and/or political party) we find the press and other media will often champion, facilitate or turn a blind eye to the very encroachment on liberty they were 'socially contracted' to shine a light on and help resist.

Indeed, the right to free speech guaranteed in The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution) was meant to include that freedom for the press. In fact, the media consistently claims that constitutional protection for itself and frequently wraps itself in it. That would be fine if they did that in order to protect The People's interests but, too often now, they use it to protect their own narrow and politically biased views, agendas, interests, and objectives.

Case in point. We, the residents of one of the four largest populated areas of Rep DeFazio's district were denied the opportunity to hear him and his opponent defend their positions and qualifications. The local newspaper not only didn't fight for a free and open local forum to happen as Mr. DeFazio agreed to with his opponent, they published criticism and ridicule of his opponent for insisting on it. We the citizens who elected and pay Mr. DeFazio were robbed of our right to hear him square off against his opponent. That's a loss to both Republicans and Democrats. A little more detail is appropriate to explain it.

There are four general areas of population in Rep DeFazio's US House of Representatives district, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford (including Grants Pass), and the coastal area near Coos Bay. There were candidate forums between Mr. DeFazio and his opponent, Art Robinson, planned and scheduled in all four locales. Mr. Robinson preferred a debate format (in which the candidates debate one another in classic debate format) over a 'forum' format (which only collects questions from the audience that both candidates answer however they wish). The incumbent, Mr. DeFazio insisted on a 'forum' format and Mr. Robinson agreed to it on condition that it would be open and free to the public in all four locales. Mr. DeFazio said he agreed that the people deserve to have an open and free event so he agreed to Mr. Robinson's one condition.

Turned out that three of the areas had completely open and free forums but the one in the Roseburg area was limited to those with connections to the Chamber of Commerce and there was a $20 fee to pay for the included lunch. It was, in fact, closed to the general public. When Mr. Robinson rented the room next door and requested that at least the speakers be turned on in that room so the public could hear what was said, his request was flatly refused. It's no accident that this happened in the area of the four where Mr. Robinson enjoys his greatest support and Mr. DeFazio receives his greatest opposition. That was bad enough in principle, especially since Mr. DeFazio agreed up front that all four forums would be open and free.

Worse, the local newspaper, the News Review reported only on the complaints from the Chamber meeting attendees about Mr. Robinson insisting that "Mr. DeFazio tear down this wall" between the two rooms. So far, the newspaper has said nothing in support of having it be a completely free forum open to the public. No criticism of Mr. DeFazio for not living up either to his agreement to a free and open forum or to his obligation to do so as the person having been elected and paid by the people who wanted to hear the candidates square off. As our elected representative he is obliged to provide us the opportunity to hear him defend his record and ideas for the future. The Roseburg area has had NO forum between these two candidates for the US House of Representatives and the local newspaper seems to care less. Many have argued that this paper tends to be biased toward Democrats and strongly against Republicans. This situation would seem to confirm that. So much for a free and independent press!

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Who's Worse On Creating Debt - The Truth For A Change!

Here are the facts about debt creation the past 10 years according to the federal Treasury department:

Just before Bush was elected, the Treasury department reported that the national debt was already large: $5.67 Trillion.

Congress, NOT the president, is responsible for spending, taxing and, therefore, debt. Six years of a Republican congress (2001 - 2006) produced an increase in the debt of approximately $3 Trillion.

Four years of Democratic control of the debt (because congress controls the debt) has produced an increase of approximately $5 Trillion.

Bottom line: in four years, the Democratic congress has created nearly twice as much debt ... ie, in two less(!) years versus the previous Republican congress.

Yes, Republicans also created too much debt but do not believe the bald-faced lie that they were worse than Democrats in that department. The truth(!) shows that Democrats have a lot of nerve complaining about Republican-created debt and are hypocrits of the first order for doing so.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Might The Economy Be In Better Shape Now If Dems Had Done Nothing?

There's a truth in science that we don't talk about much in politics: one cannot prove a negative. In other words, you cannot prove that what you didn't do would have been worse ... or better.

Considering the sorry state of our economy after we let the current regime do whatever they wanted, it's NOT unreasonable to wonder, what if they had done nothing? Democrats have been very busy, especially the president, taking credit for it not becoming worse. They state as fact what is really ONLY conjecture: "Things would have been worse if we had done nothing!"

The ONLY fact about that statement is that they cannot possibly know whether that's true since they didn't do nothing. Considering the historical strength and resilience of our economy, it's not an outlandish argument to say that the economy might be in better shape now if Dems hadn't stolen several trillion dollars out of the economy. Did all that money do more good in the government's hands? We can't know for sure but, based on lack of results, one has to say maybe not.

Granted, something had to be done to stop the bleeding but most of what basically had to be done was done under Bush ... TARP. What might have happened after that if government had just stayed the heck out of the economy from that point on and let market forces do what they've always done better than government? It is NOT a wild and nonsense notion to consider that, just maybe, the people and companies could have done a better job of recovering the economy.

In fact, many, many economists have been strongly opposing what they've done and have been pushing for MUCH more help for small businesses. The current administration has steadfastly ignored that call for real, honest help to that critical sector of our economy. That many smart economists cannot all be crazy. What if they're correct? In that case, it DOES mean that Democrats HAVE BEEN going at this ALL WRONG. It's not 'evidence' they did the wrong thing but it's not an irrational notion is it?

The key thing I wanted to point out is this TRUTH (for those of you interested in actual truth for a change). Democrats DO NOT(!) know whether what they did kept the economy from getting worse. In fact, it's arguably possible that their meddling actually made things worse! But we won't know that will we? If we can't know that, then the Democrats have NO basis whatsoever on which to claim their intervention did more good than harm. It is nothing more nor less than conjecture. Therefore, We The People, have NO basis on which to believe it's true!

Friday, October 15, 2010

Want More Proof It Was Dems Who Pushed Sub-Prime Mortgages Then Blamed It On Bush?

Regarding the title of this blog entry, this link speaks for itself for the most part but I have to say something to Barney Frank that's well deserved: You, sir, are a flat-out liar, especially about your role in causing the economic melt-down!
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-caught-lying-about-his-record-on-home-ownership/

Don't Believe What I Said Below That What Caused The Meltdown Is Still Out There?

In case you still don't understand what really caused the meltdown and want to continue: 1) blaming it on Bush and 2) believing that Dems fixed what caused it, please check out this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249763/another-mortgage-mess-editors

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Time For Some Common Sense Re Economy

With Democrats STILL running against Bush and his policies, it's time for a sanity check. Got some questions for you.

Q1: Setting aside whatever you feel about Bush's policies (many Republicans and most conservatives never liked a lot of them either), what actual circumstance caused this economic collapse and is STILL a drag on the economy? Ans: all economists with half a brain have said it was/is, the glut of underqualified sub-prime mortgages.

Q2: But what about derivatives? After all, there was lots of talk about them as causing it and congress even passed legislation to fix this problem. Ans: Derivatives are NOT an investment; it is a means by which to package actual investments which was done with sub-prime mortgages. Derivatives are a way to sorta hide bad investments ... the underlying high-risk investments aren't as obvious and people who trade in derivatives have the warped view that packaging a whole lot of sub-prime mortgages together in a derivative somehow reduces the risk of all of them. These idiots think of it as some kind of insurance which IS a legitimate way to spread risk by packaging some risky things with a whole bunch of non-risky things. It's like health insurance which covers a large group of people. Sure, there are bad ones in the mix but the prevalence of healthy individuals helps spread the cost so unhealthy ones can afford to be sick. The sub-prime mortgages packaged as derivatives was a bad idea because ALL sub-prime mortgages are risky and there's very little about any part of them that's healthy. My point is this. If derivatives had not existed, the sub-prime mortgages would have still been there, just 'packaged' and invested some other way. If 'derivatives' had not existed at all, those sub-prime mortgages would STILL have collapsed the economy. It was the sub-prime mortgages, folks!

Q3: If the collapse was Bush's fault and, obviously, sub-prime mortgages caused it, what exactly were his policies that caused all those sub-prime mortgages? Ans: Actually you cannot name any because he had nothing to do with pushing these toxic investments and making the situation worse. None of his policies either created OR pushed sub-prime mortgages. It was mainly Democrats who pushed it, especially Frank and Dodd.

Q4: What things facilitated the proliferation of sub-prime mortgages? Ans: THE main thing by far was Fannie and Freddie policies which were pushed hard by Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd.

Q5: Why didn't congress see this train wreck coming and do something to stop it? Ans: Democrats were in charge of regulating this 'industry' for 1 1/2 years prior to the collapse. If ANY ONE GROUP can be held accountable, it HAS to be them. They had constitutional responsibility and authority to regulate Fannie and Freddie ... as well as the financial industry! IT WASN'T EVEN BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY to regulate it! (News Flash: the constitution holds congress, NOT the president, responsible for regulating these things!) In fact, many economists and congressmen saw this coming. In fact, Bush tried to stop it and the Democratic congress stopped him. Considering the roots of all this goes back to Clinton's administration and Democrats pushed it and Democrats had the best view of this train coming for 1 1/2 years before it hit us, how is it that it's Bush's fault? It completely defies logic ... how people can believe the nonsense blame-placing by Democrats is mind-boggling. Just because Democrats say it all the time doesn't make it true! Gads people! We've turned off our brains and let them tell us what to believe whether it's true or not!

Q6: Why is it important to understand what ACTUALLY caused the collapse? Ans: because you can't fix what's broken unless you understand and address the ROOT cause. 'Fixing' derivatives, for example, did nothing. Even if they had 'fixed' derivatives well before the collapse, the collapse would have happened anyway! That's because the toxic investment that caused it would still have been there ... just 'packaged' and traded some other way!

Q7: Didn't Bush do anything to cause it or make it worse? Ans: Not to cause it but he had a hand it making it more difficult to recover from the collapse after Democrats caused it by authorizing excessive spending and increasing our debt. Bush did cause us a debt problem but that didn't 'cause' the collapse, just made it harder to recover. That's bad in itself, but, again, that did not cause the collapse. It's important to keep that in mind because we need to fix whatever caused this so it doesn't happen again.

Q8: But there are so many people saying it's Bush's fault. Ans: Consider this. If a Democrat had become president instead of Bush (ie, if Bush had NOT been president), the collapse would have happened anyway. Why? Because that's the party that caused this by pushing sub-prime mortgages to wayyyyyyy too many people who couldn't afford them. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say it could have been much worse under a Democratic president who most likely would have pushed them hard (while Bush did not).

Q9: Okay, sounds logical all things considered but why bother with that now? Ans: Because we still haven't fixed the root cause. The toxic sub-prime mortgages are STILL out there, dragging down our economy and risking a double-dip recession. Also, the Democratic congress has seen fit NOT to fix the problem with Fannie and Freddie policies ... in spite of Republican pressure to address those policies (even though reasonable economists all agreee that was indeed at the root of the collapse), Democrats have steadfastly avoided doing so. The reason we need to keep talking about this until we understand it well enough is, congress has NOT fixed the root problem even yet! Gads!

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Politicians and Bureaucrats Have Failed Us On Public Education For 40 Years. Time To Fix It!

Prior to the mid-60's America had THE BEST education system in the world. The deterioration began then and it has now become among the worst among Western countries. Why has this happened and what should be done about it?

Answer to the second question first: it is so fundamentally screwed up that it's beyond fixing without changes that get to the fundamentals; therefore the best solution that'll fix it the best and fastest is to scrap it, beginning at the federal level.

If a company was the best in the world at what it did and a new regime took over that took its product in a new direction very heavy in bureaucracy that led to steady deterioration in the quality of its product and, therefore, in company sales/profitability that turned its stock into a junk level investment what do you think the board of directors would do? The directors, if they were interested in returning to the top of the heap would get rid of the management and practices that caused it. They would strip out all the bureaucracy and get back to the basics. They would basically start over.

Our nation's K-12 educational systems are so screwed up in bureaucracies and mismanagement that it should be scrapped and we should get back to the basics. The alternative is perpetual mediocrity. Is that acceptable or not?

What do we have to lose by totally cleaning house and starting over? Realistically, it couldn't be any worse than what we have now. I'm certain that if ALL state and federal education system bureaucracy were made to disappear, local schools would be totally capable of keeping the education going all by themselves. We could then rebuild 'the system' from the bottom up.

The federal department of education should never again have such control over education. Control should be strictly maintained primarily at the local level with modest support at the state level.

Our first priority: ensure the restoration of discipline at the classroom level. For example, talking in class and being otherwise disruptive is FLAT UNACCEPTABLE. There should be discipline for students doing that ... going to the principal's office, suspension and reporting unacceptable behavior to parents for example. 'Old School' discipline worked!

Second, enforce a policy that it's the students' responsibility to become educated with strong support from parents and teachers.

Third, evaluate students' performance and let the control of it be at the local level. Return to the same kind of evaluations we used 50 years ago. In grade school that included citizenship, cooperation, attitude, and the like. Attitude of the students MATTERS!

Fourth, re-establish control of the classroom AT THE CLASSROOM/TEACHER level and give teachers complete authority and support to make it happen.

Fifth, re-educate parents on their role in their kids' education and re-establish the PTA and it's authority.

Sixth, restore schools' ability to easily get rid of incompetent teachers and to reward competent ones according to their achievements as teachers.

Seventh, ensure politics (government AND unions) is removed from what happens in the classroom and never is allowed to return! Teachers at the local level MUST have primary control over what is taught and HOW it is taught.

Eighth, return subject matter taught to the basics, including our ACTUAL history especially in the areas of our founding and founding documents. Knock off the 'progressive agenda' stuff!

Ninth, create two levels of education tracks in all high schools, one geared toward four-year college preparation and one geared more toward trades and other work not requiring a four-year college degree.

Tenth, the fix needs to be drastic. When something is THIS badly broken for THIS long a time, it is near impossible to fix it by tweaking on it. All the festering bad stuff that holds down our educational system is so systemic, so ingrainged, so intertwined and twisted that the only way to fix it the way it needs to be fixed is to tear it down and start over. That's what any sensible company would do with something that's broken this badly. That, for example, is what a builder would have to do to a house that was so screwed up. Tear it down to the foundation and get back to the basics that work. To start with, I'd argue that we don't even need a federal department of education and ALL evidence says that this federal bureaucracy has accomplished absolutely nothing to improve education in the 40 of its existence. In fact, ALL evidence strongly says this bureaucracy is the chief reason our schools stagnated.

THE big failing in education today is that government and even students think it's government's responsibility to 'give' an education to our kids. That is So wrong! Becoming educated is an active task on the part of the student. They will only learn well what they WANT to learn. The best, highest-paid teachers cannot make a student learn if the student doesn't want to. Money and bureaucracy ARE NOT the answers! Discipline and properly placed responsibility are THE ONLY things that'll work well.

It is NO ACCIDENT that our education system has gone steadily downhill ever since the federal department of education was created. It should be eliminated, PERIOD! Totally, completely! And it should never be reinstituted. It has become a destructive and inhibiting force that has destroyed our education system. Our system is the worst it has EVER been in our history. Take all that money poured into education 'systems', methodologies and bureaucracy and use it to reward effective teachers.

Democrats are making a huge deal over several Republican candidates' call to eliminate the federal department of education. This not only is NOT ridiculous, IT IS A NECESSITY! What's ridiculous is the sorry state that government, bureaucracies and unions have gotten our education system into.

When Art Robinson, running for Congress from Oregon, called for the elimination of the public education system he was talking a mixture of metaphor and fundamental need. The public education system IS totally failing our country. It deserves to be and should be done away with as it exists today. It's not as ridiculous a notion as it sounds. Nothing less than doing away with it as it exists today will do much to fix the mess government and unions have created.

THE PEOPLE need to take back their education system. It is OUR system, not the governments' nor the unions' but they have been allowed to make a mess of it ... badly. It's wll past time to do what's necessary and take it back folks! We owe it to our kids and to posterity!