How Shallow Are We?

When Kim Kardahsian is considered "relevant talent" to have at a New Year's Eve party, that's shallow.

When said appearance at TAO in the Venetian room on New Year's Eve is seen as worth $600,000, that's shallow.

What exactly IS KK's "talent"?

Those are all rhetorical questions in case you haven't figured that out. So please don't bother telling me what you think are the answers because I have no interest in knowing. After all, anything about KK is beyond boring and irrelevant.

More On America's Moral Decline

Some interesting links ... food for SERIOUS thought ... for your consideration following up on my previous blog:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286820/thatcher-vs-decline-rich-lowry
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286822/growth-not-redistribution-michael-barone

What Defined Us In 2011: Do We REALLY Want To Go There Ever Again?

This link pretty much describes what I've thought all year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286807/2011-you-can-t-win-losing-jonah-goldberg

We're becoming pretty nutty here aren't we? Narcissists and knuckleheads completely lacking in self-control and common sense. In contrast, here's what we ought to be about posted on Facebook by my daughter-in-law, Heather: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/23/praise-flows-for-pastor-joe.html

Compassion, humility and selflessness with NO "PC" motivation ... and NO government 'taking care of people'. Just love and doing the right thing. Say what you will about our being a Christian nation but the latter link demonstrates what fundamentally separates us from most. We need to get back to individuals(!) doing more of this simply because it's right.

If You Want: 1) To Know More Details About Cosiness Between Wall Street And Politicians And 2) A Headache, Read This

Honestly, I'm so dumbfounded by this that I have no idea where to start with comments of my own. Does this sound like the dealings of honest 'representatives' who are trying to make us believe they're on our side against the greed inherent in Wall Street?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson

Check Out "Family Facts" Website Run By The Heritage Foundation: How Broken Families (Esp Broken Men!) Affect Our Kids' Lives And Why Government Can't Fix It

Check this out:
http://www.familyfacts.org/

Several things are clear from that website's statistics and are consistent with what I've been harping on for a couple of years now:

• Our kids are failing in many areas of life/living. School is just one but an important one.
• Broken homes, especially broken men/husbands/fathers, are mostly to blame.
• Government action/money CANNOT fix this.
• American men need to man-up and start putting their families first.

Obama And Reid Subvert Legislative Process In Order To Cast Unfounded Blame On Republicans

There are several things about what the Democrats did regarding the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that ought to ALARM us. They should bug any American who really cares about maintaining the integrity of our Democracy, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

You need to understand how the legislative process is supposed to work in order to appreciate the subversion going on. Briefly, here's the process that Democrats subverted:

1. Either House or Senate body may start their version of needed legislation.
2. Once the bill is passed in the first body it is sent to the other body.
3. The second body either approves it as-is, amends it and send it back to the first one, rejects it and does nothing more, or rejects it and sends back a totally different version of their own.
4. If the legislation is not dead or signed as-is from the first body that means they both want some form of it passed but they're too far apart to agree yet. If they each have their own separate versions then it is supposed to go to a 'conference' committee to iron out a compromise between the two versions.
5. Once the conference committee, composed of representatives from both the House and Senate, has a version on which they mutually agree, then it goes back to both bodies for passage.
6. The back-and-forth process can continue for multiple iterations until it finally does pass in both bodies.
7. Then it goes to the president who can sign or veto it as he/she chooses.

If you need proof or further information regarding this legislative process, this link provides it: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/legprocess.htm

In the case of this payroll tax reduction extension legislation, both houses produced their own versions and neither agreed to the other body's version. At that point both of the bills were supposed to go to conference where the various differences are worked out into one bill that provides a fair balance of 'gain' and 'loss' for each body. In fact, that's what Speaker Boehner asked to be done. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN THIS TIME.

Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the extension and then the president said the House MUST accept the Senate's version. In other words, the president picked which one he would sign instead of a conference committee producing one that balanced both bodies' interests.

Think about that. Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the needed legislation and THE PRESIDENT PICKED(!) which one he'd sign under threat of doing nothing and blaming doing nothing on Republicans. The constitution did NOT set up the process to work this way!!! The PRESIDENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY to pick whether the House's or Senate's version HE WILL ALLOW to come to his desk.

Think about that in terms of the constitution's balance of powers principles. If anyone has final and ultimate authority it is CONGRESS(!), NOT THE PRESIDENT. While the president can veto a given piece of legislation, his veto can be overcome by a 2/3 veto override vote in both congressional bodies. The constitution was set up specifically to ensure that CONGRESS, NOT ANY ONE MAN/PRESIDENT, has ultimate authority. In this case the president decided that the House MUST sign the Senate's version. He has NO SUCH authority.

Think about the wisdom of that by our founders. They understood that if one person had authority to control legislation it could lead to "tyranny". They said so in various writings! That kind of tyranny is why their ancestors fled their countries of origin in the first place. They were dead-set against one man being able to say which congressional body would have control or which of competing parties would 'win' a particular vote. The constitution makes the president ULTIMATELY subject to congress' authority, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So what Obama and Reid did this week was a total subversion of the constitution, both in its content and its principles.

And to make matters worse, the president and Democrats in general are being rather successful blaming Republicans for not cooperating better. Boehner in fact asked the president to support a conference action to happen, consistent with the constitution and the president refused! Good grief folks! The president doesn't even have the authority to stop congress from sending it to conference. Republicans were following the constitution. Democrats blamed Republicans for not accepting the Senate version immediately. And Democrats(!) are winning that argument?!?! Does that make any sense?

Perhaps the most important questions to ask you are, how comfortable are you with:

1. Subversion of constitution-based principles and procedures by Obama and Democrat leadership?
2. One person having that much power over what legislation gets passed?
3. One political party subverting the constitution and then blaming the other party?
4. The President playing such partisan games PURELY for the sake of polical gain, not for the sake of getting done what needs to be done?
5. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they're not even aware of how the constitution-based processes are being subverted?
6. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they have no problem with one person having so much control over congress?
7. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they don't understand why it's important that the president should not be able to tell congress what to do (without declaring a state of emergency)?

But Aren't You Getting Tired Of Congress, Especially The Senate, Kicking Debt-Related Legislation Down The Road?

As I said yesterday, I think Boehner's rationale for opposing the Senate's Two Month Payroll Tax Cut Extension is bogus. However, that doesn't mean I think the House should pass it. I only objected to his nonsense rationale. There's a better reason to reject it.

A two month extension is stupid from the standpoint of buying a short amount of time until they can work something out that is based on a one-year extension which the House, Senate and White House all seem to think is necessary. It's ANOTHER(!) example of deadlines and 'need dates' meaning nothing to those knuckleheads in congress, especially among Senate Democrats.

In other words, the Senate screwed up by not working out a one year deal in the first place. It's the same Senate that hasn't passed a budget in over two years because they don't want to face the problems in that area head-on. I think Senate Democrats are cowards for not moving aggressively to get sensible legislation done.

The House has submitted many debt-reduction bills this year that the Senate Democrats refused to even bring to the floor for debate, including a budget. Rather than debate the version of the current legislation that the House submitted, the Senate passed yet another stop-gap version and are trying to kick yet another problem down the road. The House did their job. The Democrat-controlled Senate punted. AGAIN!

What makes NO sense at all is that even the Senate wants a one-year extension. If they didn't like the House version, the Senate should have produced their own completely unique version of a ONE-YEAR extension. That would represent an honest effort to extend this tax cut. But they chose to punt again. It's what they've been doing for over two years and it's unacceptable. Note that they were doing this kicking our problem down the road when Democrats controlled the House as well. What are they thinking?

We're beyond ready for the Democratic Senate to roll up their sleeves and get required legislation done by the need dates. That includes budgets. That includes deficit-reduction and debt-reduction. Isn't this a big enough crisis yet for them to actually want to do their jobs on the People's behalf instead of playing political games and rarely producing legislation that actually fixes things?

Speaker of the House Boehner Is Playing A Stupid Political Game By Rejecting The Senate's Payroll Tax Cut Extension

Speaker Boehner spoke complete nonsense today in his reasoning for rejecting the Senate's payroll tax cut two-month extension. First, a link to one report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45715200/ns/politics-white_house/

Boehner said his reason for rejecting it is the uncertainty businesses have as a result of extending the payroll tax cut only two months. Problem with that is, that payroll tax cut or even letting it expire does NOT help or hurt businesses in any way.

The payroll tax cut only reduced what EMPLOYEES pay into the Social Security (SS) 'trust fund'. The portion of the payroll tax that employers pay has not been touched in any way. What most Americans and, apparently, Speaker Boehner(!) don't understand is that the payroll tax is half paid by employees into SS and half paid by employers. The payroll tax cut that congress approved during this economic trouble only cut what EMPLOYEES pay into the SS trust fund. The amount that employers pay into the system wasn't affected.

Therefore, companies' ability to hire is UNAFFECTED by these increases and decreases. The tax cut put money directly into the hands of employees, not employers. To say, as Speaker Boehner did, that extending the tax cut OR even letting it expire has ANY effect on a company's bottom line or, therefore, on its ability to hire or otherwise run its business is illogical and obviously strictly political.

It does NOT matter to businesses whether the payroll tax cut is extended for two months, for one year or even if it's allowed to expire.

Speaker Boehner is being untruthful in order to play political games against Democrats. This kind of behavior that BOTH parties have been practicing the past five years is irresponsible to the extreme.

The President's Speech In Kansas Last Week: Idiologically Scary

So President Obama wants to double down on policies and strategies that have been miserable failures? Not good folks. See Heritage's analysis here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/07/morning-bell-the-last-incarnation-of-barack-obama/

Step back from the political spin for a moment and consider, as objectively as possible, the extent to which his policies have worked. Do we really want him to double down on them in another term? Rhetoric won him his first term. Now it's time for his results (or lack of same) to stand on their merit and be the measuring stick for justifying a second term.

We need action, not flowery smart-sounding speeches. Time to stop blaming other people and take responsibility for one's record, especially when we consider he had FULL control to do anything he wanted his first two years. In fact, he did exactly what he wanted (running over Republican opposition in the process), all the while PROMISING that it would fix the problems we have. We need to think for ourselves whether more of this will be good for us irrespective of how smart President Obama looks and sounds. Results (or lack of same) MATTER!!!

Time to get realistic about the progressive approach to fixing these problems. We let him try. He failed, period!

ANOTHER Year Of Congress Doing NOTHING?!?! R U KIDDING ME? In THIS Economy?

Well, we gave congressional Republicans ANOTHER chance to fix this mess and what did they do this year? ALMOST NOTHING! If it weren't for the Tea Party folks among House members we wouldn't have even had a budget proposed. Establishment Republicans in the House and Senate are a truly sorry lot. I'm disgusted with the lot of them.

In BOTH the House and Senate, Establishment Republicans AND Establishment Democrats have PROVEN themselves to be incapable of doing their constitutional duty to control the federal budget and runaway spending/debt. This year we're spending more than last year ... AGAIN!!! Don't these people 'get' how much trouble we're in?

No wonder Gingrich is so popular. Why would we want to vote someone into the White House with whom Establishment politicians of either party are happy or 'comfortable'? It's time for them all to be uncomfortable don't you think? We need someone who will go in there and kick some serious butt!

The Heritage Foundation recently published a critique of these politicians' nonsense and a strategy to get our country headed in the right direction:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/appropriations-endgame-one-last-shot-at-fiscal-credibility

Doesn't Heritage's critique make you mad? Isn't it extraordinary how incompetently both(!) parties have performed this year? Are you mad ... at BOTH parties? I am!

Doesn't Heritage's proposal sound like it contains some common sense ideas? Someone has to start somewhere. These yahoo's in congress had better get their act together soon or our economy is going to be flushed down the drain altogether.

WISE UP CONGRESS!!! WE WANT NO MORE BAND AIDS!!! WE WANT REAL FIXES!!!

So, Establishment Republicans Don't Like Gingrich. Big Deal! That's A POSITIVE In His Resume!

Words fail me in expressing how mad I am at 'establishment' Republicans. For the past ten years they've done a TERRIBLE job so if they don't like Gingrich's principles or his way of leading, that makes me want to vote for him more, not less!

They haven't the backbone to propose a sensible budget in these tough economic times. Yes, Ryan proposed a budget that was a REALLY good starting point in reducing our spending and the establishment Republicans voted it through ... only because it would be political suicide not to. But it was a Tea Party guy that produced that, not establishment Republicans! Where HAVE the ESTABLISHMENT Republicans been all year? I see no real leadership of the kind we need most. Indeed, Speaker Boehner has been acting more responsibly but he isn't leading as if the historical conservative core of the Republican party matters in really tough times when we need it most.

What has the Republican controlled House done in 2011? They've had the ability to at least put a halt to increasing spending but, BY CHOICE!, they haven't even done that at a time when it's clearly insane to keep growing it.

Establishment Republicans are mad at Gingrich. ALL Democrats are mad at Gingrich. I say, FINE! Establishment politicians of BOTH PARTIES GOT US INTO THIS MESS AND THEY'RE DOING NOTHING TO GET US OUT OF IT! Do we REALLY want someone in the White House that keeps THOSE GUYS happy? REALLY?

Why Are Only Republicans In Congress Decrying The Need To Balance Congress' Budget?

Let's see. Congressional Democrats patently refuse to even offer a budget. It's obvious why. If they created a proposed budget they'd have to defend their irrational spending spree in these tough economic times AND and they'd have to submit to controls over their appetite for progressive spending. Because the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't offered a budget they are conveniently free of both of those 'problems'. Never mind that the constitution SAYS they must make a budget every year. Never mind that their oath of office says they'll adhere to the constitution. Never mind that both The People and our circumstances demand the create a responsible budget and stick to it.

Honestly, when was the last time you heard a Democrat talk about any need to get the budget back in balance? Either when addressing The People OR in speeches on the floor of the House or Senate? They cannot do it because then they'd be obliged to walk the talk. Better not to talk about it so they can continue their irrational spending unencumbered by having to defend/explain their spending choices.

Republicans have been talking about the need to balance the national budget for a long time. That is SO welcome because they started this precipitous slide down the debt cliff. Yes, they did it too but at least they are now both admitting they screwed up AND ARE trying to do something about it. They are not only talking but walking the talk.

Democrats keep talking about nibbling around the edges of our enormous debt. House Republicans have been submitting bills ALL YEAR that would have made a difference but they are being ignored by the Democratic Senate. It's well past time when congressional Democrats started acting responsibly and stop complaining about the past. They cannot do anything about the past so they should stop complaining about it (especially since they're at least as much at fault for this mess!) and do their constitutional duty.

Why Are Congressional Democrats So Opposed To Even Talk About Spending Cuts Much Less DO Some?

Here we are, nearly at year's end and congress has passed NO spending cut legislation except a few very minor ones that barely nibble at the edges of our debt problem. Why is that? Our debt is at $15 TRILLION and still rising at a historic rate. Let's consider who has taken actual legislative action and who hasn't.

Republicans have gotten several spending cut bills passed in the House that were then totally ignored by the Democrat-controlled Senate. If congressional Democrats are so big on compromise, why didn't they allow a discussion to even begin? How can you simultaneously declare yours is the 'real' party of compromise yet refuse to allow Republican legislation to be discussed/debated? Isn't that hypocritical? Honestly, isn't it?

The Republican-contolled House submitted a budget early this year containing many significant spending cuts. What did the Democrat-controlled Senate do? They refused to even debate it. Which party was standing in the way of compromise then?

The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't produced a budget for the past two years. How can a party claim to be THE party of compromise but not submit a proposed budget so that it CAN be debated and compromised on? If you're so big on compromise, how do you get compromise going if you're not willing to contribute but, rather, choose(!) to sit on the sideline? Isn't that hypocritical too? C'mon, isn't it really?

Besides being hypocritical isn't the refusal to consider Republican spending cut bills and budgets also irresponsible? C'mon! Why isn't a $15 TRILLION debt a big enough problem for them to feel responsible to do more than sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at Republicans who, as a matter of record and fact, have been sending them spending cut bills to consider?

How is compromise possible if one party refuses to even discuss multiple, formal constitution-based proposals from the other? How this kind of behavior is okay with any citizen is a total mystery to me. How any citizen can find acceptable Democrats' refusal to produce a constitutionally-required budget is an equally big mystery to me.

This year congress will still spend much more than it takes in and the year is ending without any serious spending cuts having been made. While I feel congressional Republicans should be far more aggressive in spending cut legislation, I appreciate that they've been trying to get it done while Democrats have been sitting on their hands, afraid to submit a budget because that would require having to defend things they want to keep in the budget.

Since congressional Democrats don't want to act accountable much less be held accountable, they refuse to submit to the people's will, their oath and the constitution. They're thumbing their collective nose at us and we should find it offensive and unacceptable.

Reducing The Payroll Tax As A "Jobs Creator" Perfectly Illustrates What's Wrong With Democrat Thinking

The "Payroll Tax Reduction" is one of the major tax reductions that Democrats support. But there are THREE HUGE PROBLEMS with their claim that it creates jobs.

Problem #1: IT IS NOT A JOBS CREATOR! Reducing the payroll tax does NOT increase businesses' profits and therefore does NOT give them more money with which to hire people. What's reduced is the amount employees pay into Social Security and Medicare. The payroll tax is money the employer withholds from its employees and sends to the government. It is NOT the company's money. The employees get a bigger paycheck but it has no direct effect on the employers' profits nor therefore on their ability to hire more people. It is NOT a jobs creator for the companies who send less money to the government because its their employees' money that's no longer sent to the government, not the employers' money.

Problem #2: TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS INCREASE IN TAKE-HOME PAY IS SPENT BY EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE GIVES SOME COMPANIES MORE PROFITS FROM INCREASED SALES, IT DOES NOT LEAD THOSE COMPANIES TO HIRE PEOPLE! This tax reduction is clearly temporary. What Democrats don't seem to understand is that temporary tax reductions don't help create very many jobs. The reason: Employers may have more money (from higher profits on increased sales) but they know two things about that. First, next year when the tax returns to normal levels people will stop spending more so the companies' sales will go back down. Second, the consequence of that is, if the company hired more people while the payroll tax was decreased, they'll have to fire those whom they hired whent the tax goes back up. This is the pitfall of temporary tax decreases (regarding jobs creation) that Democrats completely don't get. TEMPORARY TAX DECREASES DO NOT INSPIRE COMPANIES TO HIRE MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO FIRE THEM ONE YEAR LATER WHEN THE TAX GOES BACK UP. No manager with an ounce of common sense will hire people when he/she knows he/she will have to fire them a year later!!! What is so hard to understand about this?

Problem #3: THIS TAX REDUCTION MAKES THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SOLVENCY PROBLEM WORSE! This is not a free money tax reduction. It has consequences. Since this payroll tax money is what supports Social Security and Medicare, federal revenue into Social Security and Medicare DECREASES!!! What is it about this that Democrats don't understand? When they decrease the payroll tax they make the Social Security and Medicare insolvency happen SOONER!

This perfectly illustrates the most key difference between Democrat and Republican approaches to stimulating the economy. Republicans know that a temporary tax reduction does not create jobs!!! Watch the kinds of tax increases or decreases that each party supports. Democrats like temporary tax reductions (erroneously thinking that creates jobs when it doesn't) and permanent tax increases (to fund more and more entitlements regardless of the fact that entitlements are sucking the financial life out of our economy). Republicans like the opposite ... permanent tax reductions and only temporary tax increases for reasons and logic stated above. The Republican approach creates private sector jobs and reduces government jobs. That is simple fact. The Democrat approach reduces private sector jobs and increases government jobs ... which in turn creates a permanent bigger tax burden on citizens to pay for those government jobs. That is also simple, logical fact.

The Absolute Absurdity Of Democrat Claims About Republicans' Willingness To Reduce The Debt

First, please read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284052/norquist-myth-charles-krauthammer

So, President Obama IGNORES conciliatory agreements by Republicans on reducing the debt, even those by his own commission created to find solutions, and then blames Republicans for things they did NOT do.

The article above provides sufficient PROOF that Republicans are NOT opposed to tax changes that reduce the debt. In fact, it's Democrats who oppose such changes, especially Obama. The tax changes they support such as repeal of Bush's tax cuts and taxing the rich more would barely put a dent in our debt problem but claiming the untrue opposite is a populist message that buys them votes. (Which goes to show how shallow-thinking we Americans have become.) Republicans oppose such changes largely because they won't really fix our problem. They're changes that are nothing more than window dressing on a problem Democrats not only created but are choosing(!) to ignore. Talking about Republicans in such ways is a useful distraction from discussing the changes that are actually needed but are too painful for Democrats politically. After all, attacking Republicans is more fun than attacking the root causes of our problems.

It IS true that Republicans are most focused on reducing spending but that does NOT mean they're opposed to tax changes that substantially reduce the debt. Democrats are focused on tax changes that sound good as partisan political talking points but which do very little to control our debt and, arguably, will likely make it worse. As the above article points out, it is entitlements that are driving our debt the most and will crater our economy SOON if we don't rein in such spending. Even Obama TALKS about entitlement spending as THE problem but he's unwilling to support changes that FIX the problem. Talk is cheap but it apparently buys votes.

One has to wonder why he and most Democrats in congress do that? The answer is very, very simple. ALL THE BIG ENTITLEMENTS AT THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEM (INCLUDING THIS RECESSION!) WERE CREATED AND MISMANAGED BY DEMOCRATS. Therefore, they are fundamental to keeping Democrats in office. (See the details in my November 22, 2011 blog.) The Democrat agenda is heavily rooted in entitlements for too many people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. The growth of entitlements is what keeps Democrats elected. That they're willing to trade the economic security of our country for votes ought to disgust us all.

Big and BIGGER government is not the answer. A healthy capitalistic (ie, FREE!) economy IS. More private sector jobs, smaller government and much smaller entitlements will stop sapping the financial life out of our economy and return it to a healthy condition that can support sensible entitlements.

I'm Thankful And Fearful For Our Country

I'm thankful for the blessings of liberty and freedom. At the same time I'm fearful where we're headed. So, my prayer today is twofold. It's partly of gratitude for where/when I live and the blessings derived from that, especially the opportunity to worship God as I please and for my sweet wife and three kids. It's also partly for freedom to prevail over the winds of progressive change for the worse.

To understand what I mean by the latter part of my prayer read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283326/what-constitutional-conservatism-yuval-levin

One thing that's odd about what Mr. Levin says is that pretty much all people from other countries 'get it' (about our liberty and freedom) better than most of us Americans. We should be alarmed at these winds of change that will blow us in directions that are SO not good for the cause of freedom here. Too many Americans don't understand the consequences of these changes or what's at stake.

So, my followup prayer is for Americans to wake up ... thank God Almighty for our blessings and smell the flowers of liberty that our founders sewed for us.

The Quackery Of The Progressive Approach To Economics and The Economy

This link describes Progressives' nutty if not completely nonsensical approach to economics very well.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283666/obama-s-economic-quackery-victor-davis-hanson

So now we have three years (five years if we include the first two during which Democrats controlled congress) of actual results on which to base an assessment of where the Progressive Socialist agenda leads ... invariably so if you study the history of progressivism and socialism.

The choice between capitalism and progressive socialism couldn't be clearer, nor could the consequences of each choice. Can anyone rationally and with a straight face claim that three years of Obama's Progressive 'solutions' leaves us better off than we were three years after Bush's 2003 biggest tax cuts (ie, record high revenue and very low unemployment)?

All the government programs (ALL are entitlements) that caused this recession and are about to bankrupt our country are Democrat creations: Sub-Prime Mortgages (root cause of the recession), Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And don't get me going on the results of 30 years of Democratic control of our education system. Democrats created and mismanaged them ALL. And they claim that all our economic problems were caused by Republicans! Are they totally insane?

It's No Wonder Democrats Are Objecting To Opposition. They're Used To Getting Their Way!

Democrats are blaming Republicans for vigorous opposition to compromise the way Democrats want. What they fail to recognize much less acknowledge is that they've pretty much gotten their way on important domestic program issues the past century. Now that they're finally receiving strong resistance to their progressive agenda they're whining about not getting their way for a change. Consider these points:

• Our country is going bankrupt because of the ridiculous cost of social programs that Democrats created by running over Republican opposition.
•  The Sub-Prime Mortgage entitlement that was the primary cause of the current recession was created and mismanaged by Democrats.
• Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are about to bankrupt our country were all created and mismanaged by Democrats.
• There was Republican opposition to all of the above programs and there were reform attempts by Republicans but Democrats steamrolled right over that.
• It is the SPENDING on all the above TOTALLY PROGRESSIVE PROGRAMS that's causing our problems. Even in the bad economy we have today federal revenue is HIGHER than it was when Bush took office! Revenue and taxes are NOT the main problem! HELLO!
• Republicans HAVE compromised on tax/spending issues many times in the past and what happened? Democrats gleefully took the tax increase concessions yielded by Republicans but ALWAYS(!) refused to honor their promises of lower spending in return. Democrats ALWAYS got what Republicans compromised on. Republicans NEVER got what Democrats promised in return.
• You think Republicans have had equal opportunity to fight off that progressive social legislation that we clearly can't afford? Think again. Democrats have held a veto proof majority in one or both houses of congress nearly half of my 60 years while Republicans have had that ZERO times in either house! Just how much opportunity have Republicans had to get their way really? Which is the ONE PARTY that has actually had enough power/control to reign in these programs and avoid our current problems including this recession?

Okay, now Republicans are standing firm in their insistence on spending cuts FIRST! Why in the face of all the above history is anyone surprised? Democrats have directly caused this Republican intransigence by never holding up their end of compromises on social program spending vs revenue.

It is PROVEN FACT that no amount of tax increases on the rich will fix this problem we have (out of control spending and $15 Trillion debt) yet Democrats keep insisting on it. Therefore, what they're insisting on isn't even logical, much less rational!!!

All respected economists agree that our biggest problem is spending. Rational people ought to attack that first and as aggressively as possible but Democrats refuse to do so unless they get a tax increase. They're so used to always getting tax increases that they seem to think it's their God-given right even though it makes no sense as a fix for our problems. Republicans are supposed to trust them that if Republicans give Democrats their desired tax increase, Republicans can count on support for spending cuts? Based on what historical evidence that they have any desire to honor their promises?

Democrats insist on tax increases even though historical facts show that Bush's tax cuts resulted in the immediate improvement of both employment and federal revenue. (See my many previous blogs for proof of this ... if you're interested in truth rather than propoganda.)

Democratic leadership also insists on no entitlement cuts. That's literally insane because EVERYONE agrees entitlement spending is what's going to bankrupt us AND that higher taxes on income of the rich will hardly put a dent in the problem. Why nearly half the country think that the Democratic position and history in such matters are just fine is a total mystery to me.

Chris' Senior Recital Is Coming Saturday ... YAY Chris!

Chris' Mom and I are heading down to San Jose State University to be there for his recital. It'll be great fun! We're so proud of you Chris!

Bust a chop son! (Isn't that the wind instrument equivalent of 'break a leg' to actors?)  :-)

What About The Power Of Unions Over Government And Elections?

Sovereign states ought to, of right, be free (of undo, especially excessive external influences) to conduct their business in due/effective consideration of what's best for their own citizens' short-term and long-term interests. That's not to say national or regional interests should be disallowed from consideration at state and local levels. However, when a nationally-organized and considerably strong special interest pours monumental nationally-derived resources into influencing a state's voting it can make it difficult if not impossible for that state to self-govern in its citizens' best interests. In fact, they become mere pawns in a nationally-organized, nationally-targeted agenda. That's not freedom of the kind envisioned by our founders is it?

The unbalanced biases created by a highly organized external political publicity onslaught in effect renders the state's citizens unwittingly subservient to that external political agenda in the interests of biases not really the citizens' own. Sensible opposing political interests within the community and/or state, lacking the ability to match the national resources coming at it, may find it impossible to mount an effective opposing campaign. The battle is over before it even begins. Brute force wins over sensibility and due, independent and wise consideration.

When a semblance of balance of interests is achievable there's no harm done. In fact, the resulting debate (ie, education on issues) is healthy. But if a national special interest with a virtually bottomless pocketbook lays siege to completely defenseless thinking of a state's population, the result may not be good for the state's citizens. Additionally, such a win can provide important leverage to the national special interest making it easier to expand its agenda elsewhere more easily, including into the courts and congress.

I wonder whether unions are becoming too powerful and influential in gaining outcomes that serve their own interests too much. (What else do they serve, really?) We see what unions have done and are doing in places such as Greece. It's not good for any state in the end, much less a nation. I don't think one special interest ought to have such power to influence outcomes simply by outspending individual states until it gets its way nationally via a simple majority of politically key states. Manipulation of political outcomes on this scale is not ... I say not ... a good thing for our republic.

Citizens ought to be educated on issues, not brainwashed by an unmatchable external(!) onslaught of biased publicity and fact-twisting political machinery. Citizens effectively become mere pawns at the mercy of a national political agenda which they have neither the will nor capacity to assess or resist appropriately by way of their own independent thinking, rationale and effort.

Political interests which have as their goal, the protection of a state's citizens' rights, property and prosperity are doing the good work intended by our founders. Political interests which have as their goal the advancement of their own narrow and selfish interests (invariably at a high price to those who oppose them and to those who aren't members of their group) have no business exercising the kind of power that unions are trying to exert, indeed succeeding. Conscience and morals do not prohibit them from taking whatever they are able to from non-members or even from their own unwitting members. Whatever they can get away with in the near term is by their definition (which is the only one that matters to them) good, regardless its long-term consequences to the community, state or nation. Even regardless the long-term consequences to their own group/organization.

Thoughtlessly killing the golden goose is never an issue with them as long as there's goose on the dinner table this week. We should be asking the average Greek or citizen of other EU countries in a similarly precarious economic condition, how it has worked out for them!

To Democrat Leadership: Why So Mum About The Occupy Folks?

While the TEA Party protests were gathering steam Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other Democrat Leadership wasted little time condemning that and demanding that it stop. Obama said he wanted us to be quiet. Pelosi called us un-American. Various Democrats called us haters. They demanded we be civil as if we weren't already. We even cleaned up after ourselves everywhere in American that we assembled.

They all said we lacked a sensible cohesive point. Yeah, I guess that wanting lower spending, lower debt and lower taxes are pretty much the opposite of what we've been needing. It's pretty clear we were all pretty wrong, huh? Not just wrong but stupid if not insane.

Fast forward to the Occupy movement. Let's see, hundreds if not thousands arrested. Public and private property destroyed. Burning stuff on the streets. Disallowing the public from using public places they pay for. Hateful messages from far too many of them including racist rants. Anarchists abound and act out in outrageous ways.

So, where's your outrage over the Occupy outrages Democrats? Oh, I get it! THAT'S YOUR BASE. Don't want to offend THEM (especially all the unions that are participating) in spite of their outrageous behavior. Your hypocrisy and knuckleheadedness are showing! Again!

Tell Me Again, Which President's Economic Policies Actually Worked?

By this time after the biggest part of Bush's economic (tax) policies went into effect (ie, on May 28, 2003) the unemployment rate had decreased to Clinton levels(!) of 4.4% which, in turn, produced federal revenue that was a record $2.4 Trillion (in fact, 25% higher than Clinton ever achieved).

Undeterred by facts, liberals (especially progressives) still claim that Bush's tax policies did not work but Obama's policies have worked even though unemployment is still stuck at 9% (with commensurately lower federal revenue), over twice as high as what Bush achieved!!! I completely don't understand how that's rational.

To liberals I say, argue what you will philosophically about whether you think tax cuts help the economy but please recognize that if you claim Bush's tax cuts didn't help, you do so in total denial and contradiction of actual historical facts.

Hypocrisy And Unfairness Of the Media And Liberals

Isn't it interesting how The Media and liberals have been spinning these "Occupy ..." protests? Their amazing contortions trying to portray these as rational, reasonably well-behaved, possessing legitimate concerns, etc are completely laughable are they not?

Remember how they jumped all over very, VERY mild issues in the TEA Party protests and went out of their way to discredit them and talk endlessly about the most minor things? I guess the TEA Party goals of lower taxes, less spending and less debt WERE complete nonsense, eh? Yeah, those goals are complete nonsense ... we have no need for that at all do we? But the "Occupy ..." folks are completely rational, well-behaved and even noble. Huh? The TEA Party goals weren't anything needing actual attention when the groups started up and those still don't need attention, huh? Totally irrational for sure.

TEA Party protesters all pretty much behaved legally and respectfully of people and property (always cleaning up after themselves, including that very large protest on the national mall last year!). How does that compare with these Occupy protests?

By the way, have you noticed The Media investigations into who is financing these Occupy protests? If you'll check into it you'll find it's a who's who of leading progressive groups/organizations/people. have you heard the hate expressed by the leadership of the unions supporting them?

You want to know what anarchy and anarchists look like? Keep an eye on the Occupy protests and learn. How much property damage is resulting from this? How many arrests have there been? How many business have been hurt, including small and medium businesses that had nothing to do with our economic problems? How can city leaders condone and even support this?

C'mon folks! Can you rationally claim, much less believe, that the TEA Party protesters and their goals were less legitimate, less focused. less clear, and that those protesters were worse behaved? I mean, really!!!

Got an important question for you. Which is the truly "angry mob", the label that congressional democratic leaders tagged onto TEA Party protesters?

The Sad State Of American Work Ethic, Especially With Younger Generations

One of my sons was updating his work history on Facebook recently. The detail he's adding got me thinking about my own work history in similar detail. What I came up with brought me to the realization that the average young person (through age 40 or so) has a much different sense of responsibility than folks of my generation and older.

Here's my list of jobs in rough chronological order:

1. Electrician crew helper at a zinc smelter.
2. Zinc production crew which entailed standing over long rows of cells filled with a sulfuric acid mixture and pulling out metal sheets with zinc plated on them from the electrolysis process. The acid fumes ate through our pants ... a new pair of jeans lasted barely one week. Every night found me treating acid burns on my feet, legs and hands with hydrogen peroxide to neutralize it. It couldn't have been a good environment for my lungs, eh?
3. Electrician crew helper at a lead smelter. One task that lasted three months was inventorying and servicing (mostly lubricating) the hundreds of motors covered in lead dust. We wore no masks in such work. And people worry about minute amounts of lead in anything these days?
4. Forest fire fighter. Probably the hardest work I've ever done. 12-14 hour days in hot and dangerous conditions. Sleeping in paper bags.
5. Timber repair in underground hardrock mine. Dangerous and physically demanding work a full mile underground.
6. Enlisted(!) in US Air Force in the midst of the Viet Nam war. Never made it to Viet Nam but it was an 'interesting' time to enlist in the military. Sometimes I wonder what was I thinking? Most of the time I'm convinced it was both patriotic and (much needed!) maturity-growing.
7. Just a note: My life took a positive turn the first night after I enlisted. From that point on I completely owned responsibility for my life ... what it would or would not become. Below is what followed four years of honorable military service to our country.
8. Computer repair tech for Honeywell. I took a correspondence course in electronics to make that possible.
9. After 4 years of #8 I began taking night classes at San Francisco's Heald School of Engineering.
10. Got married and completed Foothill Junior College's engineering prep curriculum.
11. Transferred to Stanford, getting BS and MS in computer design.
12. CPU designer for Amdahl, the most state of the art computer design company in its day.
13. Various engineering department manager jobs in various high tech companies.
14. Various project/program management jobs in various high tech companies.

The point I wanted to make of all this has nothing to do with bragging or a self-congratulatory attitude. My point boils down to four questions really, comparing how people used to think about personal responsibility with what's going on these days. 1) How many young people in recent generations take real personal responsibility for their lives? 2) How many young people are willing to do physically demanding work if that's all that's available or is about all they're qualified for? 3) How many young people these days would do whatever it takes to earn a living, not expecting anyone else to take care of them or their needs? 4) How many young people do the responsible thing, live within their means and postpone material and other gratification until they're financially and otherwise able to handle it?

What made our country successful through the 1970's or so were strong work ethics, strong sense of responsibility, strong sense of personal accountability, etc. Too many young people these days don't get it and our country will be far worse off for it. We're headed in a really, really bad direction with so many people thinking that others owe them things they haven't earned (entitlement) and that it's okay to mortgage their future (and that of others) for completely selfish and highly materialistic self-gratification in the present. We live in the country with the greatest opportunity to succeed and excel based almost entirely on one's own desire to do whatever it takes. What are people doing to take advantage of it based on a strong sense of personal responsibility, honesty and integrity? What I see going on isn't encouraging about our country's future.

The Alternate Reality In Which Harry Reid And Other Progressives Live

This link pretty much provides the background for the title of this blog:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281911/washington-dems-clueless-jobs-deroy-murdock

We Americans NEED our representatives to understand the reality of situations because we can't trust them to fix problems, certainly not their root causes, properly if they're clueless about what's really going on. Ignorance of the facts on this scale is beyond unacceptable. This guy has no business being in congress, much less being the leader of the senate. Gads!

TO OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS: CONGRESS (NOT BANKS OR WALL STREET!!!) Caused The Housing Collapse AND, Therefore, The Resulting Recession

THE MOMENT those sub-prime mortgages were signed/approved this recession was guaranteed. It doesn't matter who ended up holding that worthless paper. Yes, Wall Street created packages of these worthless investments AND the insurance policies intended to protect those investments but if they hadn't owned that stuff, someone else WOULD have and the housing market would still have collapsed, taking our economy with it.

So, the only rational argument is which of the following are most responsible for causing those mortgages being created in the first place:

1. The borrowers who actually couldn't afford the mortgage,
2. The banks who lent money to the borrowers, knowing they were risky or
3. Congress who cooked up this sub-prime mortgage scam in the first place and forced banks to approve them.

The common sense answer to the question, who caused the housing collapse and, therefore, our recession, is Congress, PERIOD. If they had never created the sub-prime mortgage program GEARED toward putting risky borrowers into homes, this problem would not have happened. That alone makes Congress most complicit in our economic collapse. However, they then made failure evven more of a guaranteed thing by forcing banks to make loans that banks KNEW were too risky. Here are the facts about that:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

Fannie, Freddie and various progressive congressmen told banks they were required to make the loans but not to worry because Fannie and Freddie would guarantee the loans. When the government tells you that you must do something or you'll have a big price to pay, what do YOU do?

So, progressives created and pushed the sub-prime mortgage program AND forced banks to loan to people who were unqualified under normal guidelines. How can a rational person say it was the banks' fault?

The last parties to consider as responsible are the borrowers. C'mon folks! When a person without the resources to buy a home is told he doesn't qualify BUT he can have one anyway, what do you expect him to do? Especially if he's a product of a failed education system and can't figure out how bad it is for him to have such a mortgage?

As for the claim that Republican opposition to regulation caused any part of this, that's even worse nonsense. It is progressive resulation that caused this! They're the ones who told Fannie and Freddie what they must do. (News flash: that IS regulation.) And two months before the collapse, it was the progressive (Barney Frank) in charge of regulating Fannie and Freddie who still(!) resisted regulating them because, he said, they were safe and stable and in no danger whatsoever(!) of defaulting. Republicans didn't resist regulating sub-prime mortgages. Progressives did, even when people with half a brain could see the train wreck coming.

It's Hypocritical For Democrats To Denounce Republicans For Wall Street Connections

Bernie Madoff was active in the NASD (securities industry regulatory(!) organization) and served as chairman of the board and on the board of governors of the NASD. All the while he was perpetrating one of the biggest Wall Street frauds of all times. Oh, and he's a Democrat.

Now we hear that MF Global has filed for bankruptcy and that millions of dollars have mysteriously gone missing there. Jon Corzine runs that. He once ran Goldman Sachs before becoming a US Senator and then NJ governor. There don't appear to be any charges against him so far but this is fishy at best. Another Wall Street insider. Oh, and he's a Democrat too.

So much for the Democratic myth that only Republicans are associated with the immoral, unprincipled and illegal things going on in Wall Street. Someone ought to ask the Occupy Wall Street protesters what they think of this.

I think it's time we all took a deep breath and stopped the nonsense partisan rock-throwing. There's plenty of blame to go around. One thing is abundandantly clear. Democrats are on pretty thin ice trying to claim it's only Republicans who are criminally involved in Wall Street excesses.

So if neither party has clean hands, whom do we get to bring sanity and principles to Wall Street? How rational is it to expect it'll get fixed any time soon?

The TOTAL ABSURDITY Of What Many Try To Pass Off As Acceptable K-12 Education In America

This article which uses John Stossel's "Stupid In America" as a starting point is one of the best I've read about the sorry state of K-12 'education' in America. It gets right to the heart of the matter.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

Here's one of Stossel's commentaries that covers education's problems all pretty well with lots of interviews and examples: http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/. Especially view the video in that article. If this doesn't bring you nearly to tears, perhaps you don't get it yet. This is not only our kids we're messing with, it's their future ... our country's future!!! Doesn't any of that matter?

The following interview with Michelle Rhee, the fired head of DC schools, is heart-breaking to me. How can we excuse the resistance to this woman's commitment and sensible efforts to fix the problem with DC's schools? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Irx9o7DjO8

[While you're at it you may want to check out other of Stossel's articles in his ongoing series of commentaries about how we're "Stupid In America". Here's one search that will help you do that: http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=stossel+stupid+in+america. All them basically attest to how poorly our schools are doing and how stupid our priorities are.]

As for K-12 education in particular, I don't think we have a chance of achieving the quality of education we need to ensure a healthy and productive society in the future unless and until parents wake up to the travesty of government failures running education in America. Based on Stossel's commentaries and investigations I think parents who don't get it or, worse, don't care(!) are the biggest impediments to fixing our truly broken and simply pathetic K-12 education system.

That leads my arguments full circle back to my previous blogs about the problem with men in America. It's well past time that men began caring about this problem and doing something about it. If men across America would get their priorities straight again ... off themselves and on their family, community and living responsibly ... pretty much all that's wrong in and with America would be corrected in very short order.

To men in America I say, GET OVER YOURSELVES ... BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!

Aspiring To Be Good At Gaming The System (Ref Previous LIRR Blog)

Thinking about my previous blog about the LIRR fraud case, I've come up with at least three things that should be said about 'Gaming The System':

1. When 'the system' becomes too oppressive or cumbersome it invites, even demands (for thrill or survival sake) people find ways around whatever rules there are whether those ways are illegal or 'only' immoral.
2. There are too many people who accept doing this as a challenge and that to be victorious is a good thing. To them, there's honor in dishonerable actions.
3. There are too many people for whom the immoral aspect of it is irrelevant. This 'moral relevance' thinking based on one's own desires being more important than others' is destructive of civility in a society. If you haven't noticed, it's increasing dramatically in the USA and elsewhere.

An over-reaching and/or too bureaucratic and too 'nanny state' government always leads to this. It's a historical truth. As I've said in recent blogs, it is simple human nature to behave this way. Either the survival instinct kicks in or people find their motivation to do bad things in the thrill/challenge of finding ways to benefit from not following the rules ... to benefit from the pain (economic or otherwise) of others. Their pain is irrelevant. My gain whether deserved or earned is all that matters.

We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.

We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.

Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.

History screams at us: beware what you wish for!

Union Benevolence Run Amok: The LIRR Fraud And Corruption Case

This is no trivial matter is it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281597/public-employees-busted-retirement-scheme-nathaniel-botwinick

So much for unions doing what's 'fair' much less what's right. Unions spend much effort trying to convince us that they only stand for what's fair and deserved. Hmmmmmm.

How can so many average Americans think it's okay to do something like this? It's disgusting and the root of it has everything to do with my previous blog today about men (people in general but men in particular).

American Men: "Deadbeats Or Players". On Human Nature And Choices

In my previous blog I commented on President Obama's lamentation over Americans losing their entrepreneurial and industrious spirit. The sorry state of K-12 education in America is most certainly behind it. The question is how do we fix that? Where can we start that is both 'necessary and sufficient'? That's a high tech term for fixing something that actually fixes a problem and is not overkill. Unfortunately, what government does to 'fix' things is too often neither of those things.

Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.

Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen

The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.

Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)

American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.

Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.

Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.

Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?

Per President Obama: We've Lost The Entrepreneurial And Industrious Spirits! Well, DUH!

It's interesting to hear President Obama lament the decrease in entrepreneurial spirit and the decrease in industriousness to create and make things. It's interesting because the progressive agenda has everything to do with that.

One of the root causes of what finally(!) concerns President Obama is the stagnation in K-12 education that began the day that progressives breathed life into the federal department of education whose charter was to control K-12 education. In the past 30 years since the federal department of education was created our kids' scores in math, science and reading have gone from best to worst among developed nations. 30 years of experimentation with old math, new math, open classrooms, closed classrooms, tenure, huge increases in teacher pay and compensation, etc, etc, unfettered by conservative interference has produced exactly what? Maybe because we don't understand math and logic any longer we're too stupid to add 2 to 2 and get 4. We're incapable of connecting dots and making rational objective judgements why we're in this pickle because we've been dumbed down by that very system.

With these education results, is it any wonder that both our desire and ability to analyze, innovate, create, and build has decreased? A Harvard graduate ought to be able to figure this out. It's not too complicated.

Too many of you (mostly under 50 years old) don't remember our national discussions about the loss of industry. We were beginning to lose our lead in steel and other metal industries, auto industries, appliance industry, and many, many others. We conservatives became alarmed and the progressive political class patronizingly told us "yeah, we're losing those but don't worry because we'll do fine shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on the service industry".

When was the last time any president promoted high tech or industry as a genuine national policy that he actively pursued? Remember what happened when President Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon before Russia did? That national call to arms helped promote one of the greatest expansions of interest in those areas that now concern Obama.

Obama is lamenting this loss but what is he doing about it? Nothing. In fact, he can't do anything about it because what needs to be done pretty much requires thinking and action that's the opposite of the progressive agenda. He doesn't know what caused it, much less how to fix it.

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to excel in school? "Programs" alone won't do it and in fact haven't.

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to be personally responsible for one's life and success?

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to control one's impulses? Instant gratification (on a personal level and by politicians who want our votes more than they want a healthy economy) has been running amok and caused national and personal debt we have no choice(!) but to pass on to future generations. This is not just 'unfortunate'. It's sick!

Where's the national inspiration to work in the private sector versus the public sector? (One sector produces all the things that sustain a vibrant economy; the other only sucks the vitality/life out of the economy.) Work in the public sector is noble. Work in the private sector is only okay if you promise not to become successful and become one of the 'evil rich'. (So why do it?) Work in the public sector where you're guaranteed a job regardless of your performance versus work in the private sector where you actually have to work hard ... every day ... and run the risk of losing your job if you goof up even once. Work in the public sector and have a guaranteed retirement at your ending salary or work in the private sector where there are no guarantees. Security regardless of work ethic and performance versus having to work hard simply to keep your job much less get any pay increase.

In one breath President Obama blasts the successful rich as inherently bad. In the next he laments why there's not more people with the motivation to become as successful as they possibly can. The lack of logic in that is breath-taking!

Bigger government made to control increasingly large amounts of our lives and our industry results in decreased quality of both. It's a historical and logical truth. So, it's 'interesting' to hear President Obama lamenting what progressives have been going about destroying for the past hundred years. We conservatives have been telling you for at least 40 years this would happen if they continued doing this. Now progressives want us to help pay for their bad ideas and choices that were poorly thought out. And progressives wonder why the TEA Party got so much traction?

The Occupy Wall Street Crowd Don't Seem To Understand That Government Is The Bigger Problem By Miles. In Fact The ROOT Cause!

So, the two main things I'm hearing from the Occupy Wall Street crowd is that:

• The wealthy class is unfairly rich and the government should do something to redistribute their income and
• They want government to give them free or nearly free college education.

Sounds good on the surface because, for sure, it's not fair for people to get so wealthy while being partly responsible for the economic mess we're in. Also, for sure, a college education costs too much.

But have you considered:

1. The contribution the wealthy make to creating jobs and providing resources for new business start-ups?
2. The ROOT cause of our current economic mess lies federal government policies and regulation (regarding sub-prime mortgages)?
3. The ROOT cause of the high cost of education significantly lies in federal government policies and regulation? The government took our tax money to cause this problem and now they're supposed to take more of our money to fix it?

Regarding #1, the following article makes some points you may not have considered. It pretty much speaks for itself so I won't comment further. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281292/equally-poorer-michael-tanner

Regarding #2 AND #3, when the federal government intervened in our free economy's natural checks and balances they became the root cause of the problems we have in those (and other) areas today.

Everyone who understands economics knows that competition helps keep prices down. Free Enterprise has been key to our country's economic success. Competition drives innovation too ... make a cheaper product that's a better one and you'll be successful. Competition is good on a personal level too (motivates a person to do more with his life and do it better). Government regulation is needed to keep the competition fair and lawful but when government tries to level the playing field out of a progressive desire for economic equality, it discourages competition and personal/corporate responsibility.

Pretty much every time the federal government steps in to force the leveling of a playing field they make things worse by discouraging if not nullifying competition. Every time the federal government subsidizes something, the cost goes up, if not on the specific thing they're tinkering with then on a competing product.

Take the ethanol push. The government didn't 'force' any farmers to grow only ethanol corn but what did they expect farmers to do when ethanol subsidies made it very profitable to grow ethanol corn? Not only did the availability of consumer food corn decrease, so did nearly all other food products because farmers switched from whatever they were growing to corn. The price of ALL food went up dramatically. It made world hunger a bigger problem too because of the cost and unavailability of food in poor countries.

Around three decades ago the government decided that a higher education needed to be more readily available to the poor. Noble intent gone wrong. College subsidies were extended to pretty much ALL students over time. Guess what colleges did in response? The government was guaranteeing they'd be paid no matter how much they charged students. Competition for student dollars evaporated and colleges no longer had to worry about keeping costs down so that the average person could afford it. The cost of college has skyrocketed primarily(!) because the federal government subsidizes it. There's a HUGE irony in all of this. So, government's well-intentioned meddling drove college costs up (which taxpayers have been paying for already) and now these protesters want the people in government who caused this problem to take MORE taxpayer money to pay for the problem government created.

The exact same thing happened to cause our current economic problems. If the federal government had not subsidized homes for people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages we wouldn't be in this mess!!! Sure, I understand that Wall Street made money off this arrangement but that's not the root cause. Those mortgages were unaffordable and WHATEVER entity ended up owning them would have been in financial trouble. It just happens to be that Wall Street packaged these nonsense loans into high risk packages and traded them around among themselves in the total disillusionment that they could make money off them. Well, IF they were inclined to consider how risky those investments actually were, what was their motivation to avoid pushing them? Answer: NONE! Why? Because the federal government guaranteed(!) their money was reasonably safe ... all those mortgages had Fannie and Freddie backing. While it is true that Wall Street was immorally motivated to trade/invest these things, why did they do it? If the ill-advised sub-prime mortgage progam had never been created OR had been run by Freddie and Fannie with an ounce of economic sense, people who actually couldn't afford to pay the mortgages wouldn't have gotten them!

The big question is why did Fannie and Freddie push sub-prime mortgages (the ROOT cause of our troubles)? Answer: congress and Clinton told them to do it. In fact, one of the last executive orders Clinton gave was for Freddie and Fanny to make half their mortgages be these sub-prime types. The ONLY way Fannie and Freddie could do that was to loosen the qualification requirements so much that there really weren't any. The root of our current economic troubles is that sub-prime mortgages were pushed by government, mostly progressives in congress and the White House. Yes, Wall Street made it worse. But ONLY 'worse'. The housing market would have collapsed even if Wall Street had stayed out of it because whomever had owned those mortgages would have gone under. This problem would never have happened ONLY if progressives in our government hadn't tried to regulate nearly everyone into a home whether they could afford it or not.

The Occupy Wall Street folks are protesting the wrong culprits. Sure, Wall Street has dirty hands and college costs too much but if these protesters want the root cause of both problems fixed at the cheapest cost to taxpayers they need to protest congress, especially progressive regulation and other meddling. The 'fixes' they're calling for will mostly make the problems worse. If college already costs too much, what do you think will happen to the cost if it's subsidized even more? C'mon folks. Think about it.

What's hilarious is that so many people think that lack of regulation is what caused the sub-prime mortgage and, therefore, housing market collapse. In fact, it was government regulation that caused it by forcing (ie, regulating) Fannie and Freddie into lowering their loan qualification standards below what made any economic sense whatsoever.

One ought to consider what progressive-ism has brought us in recent decades. Their push to subsidize student loans and home mortgages is fundamentally at the root of our current economic troubles. The federal government is absolutely key in causing problems with both programs by forcing taxpayers to subsidize them and now we taxpayers are expected to pay more to a government that created the problems? The logic completely escapes me.

Son Matt Has Been Busy Professionally With His Music

As I've blogged before, both of my sons have hearts and skills for music. I just blogged below about Chris' accomplishments at San Jose State University and I have to brag how fortunate I am that my younger son, Matt, has been professionally engaged with his musical gifts as well. Here's a link to samples of that:  http://mattoldsmusic.wordpress.com/music/

Matt's talents in writing and playing music blesses us so much. We really enjoy hearing him express himself in the variety of ways he's found to do that. Go Matt!!!

Son Chris Has His Senior Recital Scheduled For Nov 12th! Yay!!!

Son Chris is a student at San Jose State University, majoring in Music Ed. He's nearing the end of that journey and has his senior recital scheduled for November 12th. His Mom and I are very proud of his accomplishment and are looking forward to attending it and celebrating this important milestone.

Go Chris!!!

Law Of The Land In Libya: Sharia Law. So Much For The Hope Of Freedom.

If you know anything about Sharia law, you know it's very anti-freedom. 'Arab Spring' government overthrows are moving countries in that direction and that's not a step toward either freedom or peace in that part of the world nor in other parts of the world where the consequences of it are felt. The following quote is from MSNBC today.

"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."

I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?

Actually, President Obama Is Meeting Bush's Promise On Iraq Withdrawal

From MSNBC and most media, including FOX News: End of war in Iraq is a major campaign promise kept by Obama.

Well, I'm as happy as the next guy that we're getting out of Iraq but that claim is nothing more nor less than spin (or poor memory) of the highest order.

Actually, removing troops from Iraq by the end of this year was Bush's promise cast in an agreement with the Iraqis several months before Obama won the general election. Prior to that agreement that Bush made with the Iraqis in mid-2008, Obama's consistent campaigned-on date was "16 months after taking office" ... June 2010. All Obama can honestly claim is not screwing up a promise Bush made to Americans and Iraqis.

In case you're interested, the facts and timeline are:

Through 2007:
Here is a quote repeated by many sources: "Obama will immediately [upon taking office] begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month [starting day 1 of his presidency], and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months (ie, by June 2010)."

February 19, 2008 (At his Texas primary victory speech):
Per CBS News report: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009" ... ie, during(!) his first year in office. So, a few months after saying he'd get them out by June 2010, he said he'd get them out 6 months earlier than that ... by December 31, 2009. That may have been a gaffe because he consistently said "16 months after taking office" in all other speeches during his campaign.

March 7, 2008 (Per Politico.com):
Obama's campaign website describes Iraq withdrawal within 16 months of taking office (ie, by June 2010).

August 4, 2008 (Per AntiWar.com):
"Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by June 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011." This anti-war group has no reason to bend the truth and they weren't happy he changed his mind at the last moment to the date Bush already agreed to with the Iraqi government.

So, throughout his campaign, Senator Obama consistently(!) said he'd get the troops out by June 2010. It wasn't until after he'd won the Democratic primary and was all but assured of winning the general election a scant three months later that he said he'd bring them home by the date Bush previously established by written agreement with Iraqis, December 31, 2011.

It's completely irrational to claim Obama campaigned on bringing them home by the end of 2011 when for all but the last three months he said he'd do it by June 2010. He ran his entire campaign on bringing them home by June 2010. It wasn't until the campaign was effectively over that he conceded to do it by the date previously established by Bush ... the end of 2011.

Let's give credit where credit is due. What's really happening is that we're bringing the troops home by the date Bush promised to Americans and Iraqis. The only thing for which we owe Obama credit is not messing that up.

Fear-Mongering Is What This Adminstration Does; And Then There's Hillary!

I don't really know where to start in response to VP Biden latest tirade. Every time Obama's team sends him out on the war path this is the kind of nonsense we get from him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280849/joe-biden-cops-and-crime-andrew-stiles
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280847/biden-sticks-playbook-jonah-goldberg

He does this all the time and it's just so lame to see our country's VP act this way.

And then there's Hillary's amazingly inappropriate comments about Herman Cain Thursday. Her disrespectful, condescending, mocking, and generally insulting comments about him in front of other countries' leaders(!) are beyond inappropriate for our Secretary of State. (Never mind that the leader she said it to, Afghanistan President Karzai of all people, is arguably corrupt and routinely hostile toward America.) Check out a video ... from the HuffPost(!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/hillary-clinton-herman-cain-hamid-karzai_n_1021700.html

Mr. Cain's accomplishments are the epitome of the American Dream ... that one can rise from the worst of circumstances one is born into and accomplish pretty much whatever he/she can dream. He is the walking embodiment of MLK's American Dream. Okay, so Mr. Cain isn't as sophisticated as you, Mrs. Clinton. Irrespective of his gaffes here or there, his accomplishments and his character deserve respect, not criticism and mockery. After all, this country IS a place where peanut farmers [;-)] and pizza entrepreneurs can accomplish pretty much whatever they can dream.

What's not to like about a person with this kind of background and accomplishments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280727/cain-restaurant-years-katrina-trinko

Can you imagine anyone with real class such as Condi Rice behaving that way? Of course not! Mrs. Clinton and her boss owe Mr. Cain a personal, very contrite and very public apology. In fact, they should apologize to all Americans too who deserve to have their Secretary of State carry out her duties with more respect for her own fellow citizens and our democratic processes, especially when there's a chance other countries' leaders could end up having to do business with the man whose character she just trashed.

What's up with the people in this administration? Mean-spirited, hateful, arrogant, elititist, disrespectful, and dishonest are descriptions that suit them very well. It's a major reason I have little respect or patience with progressives, especially among the 'political elite'. They seem to act all nice until someone gets in the way of their agenda. Then they get downright mean and nasty.

MSNBC Lost It's Credibility A LONG Time Ago In Judging Truth, Much Less What Taxes Do

Latest headline from MSNBC: "[Tax and other] facts took a beating" in last night's debate. Never mind that MSNBC has been purposely(!) lying about tax increases for years in total denial, if not ignorance, of the facts.

For example, they continue to claim that the Bush tax cuts hurt both employment and federal revenue when the facts are these:

80% of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't cut in until June 2003. When they did, very good things happened to the economy.

Unemployment turned around the next month(!) and decreased UNWAVERINGLY to 4.4% which is considered full employment and is as good as Clinton did.

Federal revenue started back up a couple of months later after more Americans returned to work and the federal government therefore(!) began collecting more revenue. Immediately after Bush's biggest tax cuts were implemented, revenue increased UNWAVERINGLY to a RECORD $2.5 Trillion, 25% HIGHER THAN CLINTON ACCOMPLISHED AT HIS 4.4% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. (Yes, revenue decreased after the 2008 collapse but it had nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts ... it was caused by the collapse of the housing market. It's an economic fact folks!)

Equally hilarious is how MSNBC twists the facts in explaining other claims of erroneous statements by Republican candidates. MSNBC routinely(!) ignores or at least excuses Democrats' bogus claims and then goes out of its way to mischaracterize statements made by Republicans. They wouldn't acknowledge, much less recognize, a fact if it body-slammed them to the ground. Anyone who thinks MSNBC deserves any respect or credibility in their political reporting is misguided at best.

When Is A Mob Not A Mob?

Answer: when it's espousing socialism and the progressive agenda.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House, called peaceful Tea Party rallies mobs? They weren't occupying streets, parks or government buildings for weeks. They weren't costing cities millions of dollars in police and cleanup costs. They weren't damaging property. They weren't being arrested by the hundreds. But it's the Tea Party rallies that were mobs and the Occupy Wall Street folks who ARE doing all those things are not. Double standard and hypocrisy by the liberal political elite and The Media? Naw, they never do that!

Congressmen Cannot BE Honest As A Matter Of SELF Control ... They Need A LAW Saying They HAVE TO BE!?!?

Is this really a surprise to anyone?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279235/appeal-honest-budgeting-andrew-stiles
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280187/class-dismissed-andrew-stiles

The "Affordable Care Act" is proving to be one of the most dishonest pieces of legislation EVER! We conservatives have been telling you that for two years. All the while, the Obama adminstration and others among the progressive class in government kept telling you we were liars or stupid or both.

It turns out that Democratic and White House leadership KNEW we were correct and went to extraordinary efforts to hide it from the American people by various intentionally devious and manipulative means.

Now congressmen are saying that such deviousness and dishonesty is now so ingrained in their very nature that it's impossible for them to simply stop. Even being caught in their dishonesty is not enough to make them to quit, cold-turkey, and change their ways. They admit they cannot simply stop lying and conniving. They need a LAW IN PLACE TO STOP THEM!!! HUH???

What they appear to need is some kind of 12-step program to break the hold this dishonesty addiction has on them.

What worries me is the implication this has for getting our debt under control. If they're so completely lacking in self-control, what are the chances they're capable of fixing our fiscal problems? Not too good I'd say. This is kinda scary, is it not, considering what's at stake (the very survival of our economy)?

Are you all ready to accept what we in the Tea Party have been saying, that it's time to get back to the basics of honest republic-form government as the founders intended?

The 'Unruly' Don't Define This Protest Movement ... But Such Types DO Define The Tea Party?

Let's see. Where Tea Parties gather, if one loon hitching himself to the message does/says something insane/inappropriate it DOES brand the whole Tea Party movement to be just as loony, racist or whatever.

In the current "occupy Wall Street" protest, when far worse happens (hundreds of arrests, trashing city parks, occupying government buildings, shutting down traffic, expressing racist views, causing millions of dollars in both police presence and cleanup), it DOES NOT define that movement?

In fact, I agree that a small percentage of folks engaging in outrageous behavior should not automatically 'define' the anti-Wall Street 'movement'. But the far milder actions of some people who attend Tea Party rallies ought not define the Tea Party either.

The unfair and generally untrue claims against the Tea Party deserve endless coverage, disdain, criticism, and harsh judgement by The Media and liberals. However, these current protesters can get away with actual crime and civil disobedience and that's okay or is to be excused.

No hypocrisy or irrationality there, right? Not by The Media. Not by the current protesters. Certainly not by the 'high-minded' liberals in congress who irrationally pontificate about how evil the Tea Party is due to the actions of a much lower number of loons.

I have news for you. The Tea Partiers have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to their protests as these "occupy Wall Street" protesters do. In fact, the Tea Partiers have, arguably, more right to theirs because they have consistently(!) been 100 times more civil and lawful about it for a number of years now. Freedom of speech applies in fair measure to all or it isn't freedom at all.

Who, Six Years Ago, Said The Founders' Goal Was To Avoid Tyranny Of The Majority?

It was Senator Obama!

Think about it.

Founders Said The Form Of Government They Created Was Intended To Protect The Minority From Tyranny By The Majority

I have a question for you. Who said the following during some confirmation hearings about 6 years ago?

"The Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

See the answer to that question in my blog tomorrow.

In the meantime, let me add that the quote above is in fact true. Our Founders proclaimed exactly that which is why they consciously set up our government as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Indeed, they feared tyrannical rule by the majority if we allowed 'the majority' to fully control all legislation.

Nevertheless, the quote above sounds like something you'd hear from crazy "constitutionalists" or the evil Tea Party, right? "Tyranny of the majority" is crazy talk, right? That's "old constitution" talk, not "living constitution" thinking, right? Not so fast. See my blog tomorrow for a real eye-opener.