Waiter, Some Perspective, Please

The outcry from the gay rights crowd over Rick Warren's appointment to deliver the invocation at the Presidential Inauguration next month (separate from the outcry that Lord Obama's Cabinet, chock full of Leftists, is desperately short of Leftists) is certainly a sign of the times. Barack Obama, a socialist of the deepest hue, recognizes that despite his decisive victory over John McCain and strong majorities in the Congress and state legislatures, he must reach out to the Right to avoid Bill Clinton's mistakes of 1993-1994, when the Fornicator in Chief decided to govern without Republican support and paid a steep price. Thus Obama seeks opportunities to mollify his political rivals, displaying magnanimity where he can afford to do so, opportunities that include asking a well-known, amiable, center-Right pastor to speak at his Inaugural. Rick Warren is no fire-breathing battler of Satan like Billy Sunday, nor a soft-spoken but unwavering Southern Baptist like Dr. Charles Stanley, nor a towering evangelist like Billy Graham, but as Rev. Graham withdraws from public life, Mr. Warren is the closest thing we have to a national pastor. His Christianity has a distinct California flavor, flowered shirts, flip-flops and a friendly smile, but the thought of him on the podium on January 20 has inflamed the Left. Magnanimity, you see, is the last thing they have on their minds. They prefer revenge, they prefer payback for forty years of conservative resistance to the homosexual movement, they prefer to have their enemies' heads on a stick, and Rick Warren speaking anywhere is to them the most egregious betrayal imaginable. How dare His Serene Loftiness do such a terrible thing?

Beyond his tanned and outgoing exterior, Rick Warren's faith is founded on bedrock. His best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Life, emphasizes that God should be at the center of our lives, that life is not about what we can gain for ourselves, that acknowledging sin and accepting Christ as our personal Lord and Savior is integral to a happy, satisfied life. He supported Proposition 8 that established marriage as one-man, one-woman in California law, a position also rooted in Biblical principles and consistent with his overall message. This is what is so objectionable about Rick Warren as far as the homosexual lobby is concerned, that a laid-back, T-shirt and jeans preacher from Orange County won't budge from the Bible. They would prefer someone more pliable, more flexible in their interpretation of God's Word, some stooge who will tell them what they want to hear. They want someone to say that God doesn't condemn homosexuality as an abomination but rather approves of it and encourages it, that God doesn't care who marries who as long as it makes you feel good, and they know that Rick Warren isn't that guy. They see any adherence to traditional Christian values as a return to the Spanish Inquisition and anyone resisting them as Torquemada himself, and overreact accordingly - paranoid doesn't quite capture their attitude. Like the pagans of ancient Rome who hated Christians not because of any harm the Christians caused them but because of what Christians did not do - sacrifice to false gods, worship the emperor's genius, attend gladiatoral games, engage in public depravity - the gay lobby isn't satisfied if they are simply left alone. Everyone must accept them, everyone must approve of them, they must have everyone's full sanction and support, and if a Christian doesn't assail them but only refuses to yield his principles, then that Christian must be crushed, in which case I say: Have at it. Whether or not the gay community crushes Rick Warren is completely under God's power. They can crush him if it fits God's plan but they can never, and I say again, never crush His Word.

Sooner Than We Thought

The arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday on Federal corruption charges brings us the first scandal of the Obama administration, albeit 42 days before it officially begins. Now after the election, I reassured my stepson that, liberals being liberals, Barack Obama will find a way to open the door right into his own nose. There would be a scandal, it would be big and splashy and embarrassing, it would happen sooner rather than later, and voila! here it is.

Naturally, President-elect Obama was "saddened" by the news of Blago's arrest but distanced himself from the governor's nefarious activities, since His Serene Loftiness is above such stuff. I couldn't help thinking, though, that I'd heard this before. Here we have the President-elect, a veteran of corrupt Illinois politics - a redundancy, I know - who endorsed Blagojevich for governor twice, who served as a top strategist for his first gubernatorial victory in 2002, who knew him well, repudiating his buddy while simultaneously casting their relationship as almost casual, like passing each other in the hallway occasionally: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Really? Are you sure that you didn't talk to the governor about your replacement in the Senate? Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod sure thought so when he interviewed with Fox News Chicago on 23 November, when he said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." Hmm...seems a little, well, contradictory, doesn't it?

Remember former Sixties bomb thrower William Ayers? How did the Emperor of the Americas respond to questions regarding his thirteen-year relationship with an unrepentant terrorist? "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

And Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama's pastor for twenty years, who officiated his marriage to Michelle and baptized his children, who brazenly declared, "We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God"? "Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."

And convicted real estate swindler Tony Rezko, who donated at least $60,000 to Obama's various political campaigns, who arranged a suspicious property purchase for Obama while Rezko was under Federal investigation (Obama paid $300,000 below the asking price), who's known Obama since 1990? How did His Lordship answer the press then? "I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago. "

In technical terms, this is what we call a trend. Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has willingly associated himself with crooked politicians, America haters, demagogues and criminals and then denied the associations for political expediency. For the 58,343,671 people who voted for John McCain, this is what you were trying to stop. For the 66,882,230 people who voted for Barack Obama, this is what you elected to the White House. And this is just the beginning.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Source: http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Jeremiah-Wright-Quotes.htm

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.html

Source: http://townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection

The Case for a Playoff

In a departure from my usual commentary on politics and foreign affairs, I'm devoting a few lines to the debate concerning a playoff system for NCAA college football. This may not be as important a topic as taxes or national security policy but the NCAA has stoked the fires yet again and it deserves some scrutiny.






For 139 years, organized major college football in the United States has steadfastly resisted a playoff to determine the national champion, relying instead on coaches' polls, sportswriters' polls, some combination thereof or, since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series. Despite conducting 91 championships for 37 other sports it oversees, the NCAA refuses to establish a true playoff system for Division I-A football, the sport that generates the highest attendance, revenue, television ratings and public interest. It seems a screaming contradiction that the NCAA's biggest sport should be left to twist slowly in controversy for fourteen decades, especially given that the public appears to favor a playoff so strongly, but as with most issues, a real college football championship can be boiled down to one word: Money:



a) The presidents of the elite football universities stoutly refuse to accept a playoff system because of the threat it poses to their income. A team chosen to play in a lower-rung bowl game like the PapaJohns.com Bowl can make $300,000 for their school while the major bowl games - the Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls - pay out $17 million to their participants, which equates to a huge incentive to keep things exactly where they are, the fans and the general public be damned.


b) The bowl games themselves make huge sums from ticket sales, merchandising, television and sponsors, and the host cities count on bowl game revenue as well. Airlines, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, nightclubs, all make money when college football comes to town.


c) The TV networks and sponsors like the present system because they can showcase each bowl individually rather than as one game of a series. A playoff system would threaten the specialness of their games and the income thereof.


Aside from the money, the NCAA likes to excuse the lack of a playoff because of "tradition." This is how "tradition" has worked before:

• 13 November 1993: Florida State, unbeaten and ranked #1 in the country, plays Notre Dame, also unbeaten and ranked #2. In an epic contest in South Bend, Notre Dame prevails 31-24 and replaces Florida State as #1. Strangely, Florida State only drops to #2 even though Nebraska (ranked #3) remained unbeaten in their game. The next week, Boston College beats Notre Dame on a last-second field goal. Florida State resumes #1 but in a departure from the previous week's precedent, Notre Dame drops to #3 while Nebraska assumes #2. On New Year's Day 1994, Florida State beats Nebraska 18-16 in the Orange Bowl to claim the national championship while Notre Dame edges Texas A&M 24-21 in the Cotton Bowl and finishes the season in second place, despite having beaten the Seminoles fair and square. This arouses suspicion that Florida State - having lost the previous two national titles - received special consideration, first in dropping no lower than #2 after their loss to the Fighting Irish and second, in not having to play them again.

• 23 November 2001: Previously unbeaten and #1 ranked Nebraska is crushed by Colorado 62-26 but is nonetheless invited to play Miami in the BCS title game. The Hurricanes easily defeat the Cornhuskers 37-14 in the 2002 Rose Bowl, casting doubt on the decision to invite Nebraska as a worthy contender for the national championship.

• 06 December 2003: In a near repeat of the 2001 season's debacle, previously unbeaten and #1 ranked Oklahoma is routed by Kansas State 35-7 in the Big 12 Conference championship game but is invited to play in the Sugar Bowl against LSU nonetheless, the NCAA citing Oklahoma's "overall strong record." The Tigers beat the Sooners 21-14 to claim at least a share of the national title. Because the decision to invite Oklahoma was driven by computer calculations of a team's overall record, strength of schedule and wins over quality opponents, the NCAA drops those considerations prior to the 2004 season in favor of more human opinion, hoping to avoid another embarrassment. It doesn't work. In the 2005 BCS championship game, the first-ever meeting of two Heisman Trophy winners (Jason White of Oklahoma and Matt Leinart of USC), Southern Cal humiliates the Sooners 55-19, once again calling the validity of inviting Oklahoma into question, as well as the BCS system itself.

• 30 November 2008: Oklahoma is selected to play in the Big 12 Conference championship against Missouri, despite having finished the regular season tied with Texas and Texas Tech with identical records (7-1 in the conference and 11-1 overall) and despite having been defeated by Texas 45-35. Texas, having defeated both Oklahoma and Missouri, is ignored, their chances for playing in the BCS championship game all but erased, raising suspicion yet again that the fix was in.

The NCAA established the Bowl Championship Series in 1998 as a means of short-circuiting a true playoff system and maintaining the status quo for as long as possible, never intending that an actual national college football tournament should ever be established, for reasons already mentioned. As awkward, confusing and stupid as it is, as unfair and unpopular and illogical as it may be, the BCS has served that purpose ably. However, pressure is building across the country to scrap the BCS - as much as I disagree with Barack Obama on nearly every other issue, we share common ground here - and the NCAA would be better served to develop a playoff scheme themselves than to wait for a scheme to be imposed upon them. In that vein, here is the system I propose:

1. Limit the regular season to eleven games, period. Start the first weekend in September and finish by Thanksgiving weekend. This would put every Division I-FBS university on an equal footing.
2. Eliminate conference championship games. They consume an extra week that could be devoted to a playoff and are unnecessary since conference championships were determined for 75 years without them.
3. Cast a wide net. Select not four teams or eight but sixteen. This would ensure a wider array of talent, it would eliminate the pressure to go undefeated since teams with one or two losses could still be chosen and teams at the lower tier would still have a legitimate shot at the national championship.
4. Copy the basketball model again by establishing an NIT-style playoff for lower-ranked teams from #17-#25. Teams with three losses could still play in the postseason, it would provide coaches with ammunition for recruiting, minor bowl games could still be used and generate revenue and fan and media interest would be preserved.
5. Divide the competition into regionals of four teams each across the country. Force warm-weather teams like Miami and Southern Cal to play in Lincoln and Columbus in December, mix it up so teams are forced to adapt and the strongest teams emerge, while leaving lower-seeded teams a chance for an upset.
6. No byes. Every team plays every week until a champion is determined. Sixteen teams equals four games with the championship game played on New Year's Day and the college football season not extended even one week longer than usual.

This plan would not diminish the value of the regular season as the NCAA has warned, as a team's performance would determine rewards like seedings and home-field advantage. The season would conclude at the same time it always has been, and the championship would be legitimate, earned on the field and not by computers, opinion polls or personal agendas. Any coach or university president who objects to a true playoff system like this one, who prefers the skulduggery of the current mess to proving their team's mettle on the gridiron, who prefers politicking their way to the national championship over winning it fair and square, is not worthy to be considered.

Caution: Liberals at Work!

Normally, I never get an opportunity to watch the Sunday morning talk shows because my wife and I are in church, but yesterday we were bringing our son home from the hospital in Bethesda and we flipped the TV on while we waited for the doctor to release him. The set happened to be tuned to WJLA Channel 7 so I left it there for This Week with George Stephanopoulos and came away with the following observations:

1) It's been done to death but there's no way that George Stephanopoulos is a journalist. Upon the death of David Brinkley, ABC News simply replaced one over-the-top liberal with another over-the-top liberal - for continuity, of course.

2) It's also been done to death but there's no way that four liberals and one conservative equal fair and balanced discussion. George Will was outnumbered by David Brooks of The New York Times, Arianna Huffington (yikes!), Robert Kuttner who's glorified Barack Obama in his latest book and the Boy Wonder himself, so the overwhelming message that ABC News wants the public to hear is liberalism, liberalism, liberalism. And they wonder why people watch Fox.

3) Mr. Brooks thought that selecting Tim Geithner for Treasury, Larry Summers for Director of the National Economic Council and HRC for SECSTATE are shrewd moves by Obama to satisfy the Republicans, but Mr. Kuttner lamented the dearth of "progressives" in Obama's Cabinet, "progressives" being the code word that liberals use to describe themselves since "liberal" provokes the same reaction as "pervert." This was the first of the intellectual potholes I noticed in the roundtable discussion, that liberals would think that Republicans would be pleased with a lamp-throwing harpy like Hillary and wouldn't notice socialists like Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle and Obama himself in the new administration.

4) Intellectual pothole #2 came when Arianna Huffington criticized the Big Three Detroit CEO's for flying into Washington, DC, on private jets when she defiantly justified her use of the same to Sean Hannity a couple of years ago, then followed it up with intellectual pothole #3 by insisting that the senior management of the major US automakers should be sacked, because in her opinion, the same people who created a mess cannot be trusted to clean it up. By this logic, of course, trusting the Federal government to clean up an economic mess that they created (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Congressional Black Caucus and other liberal pinheads leaning on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Treasury to provide home mortgage loans to people who couldn't pay them back) is a mistake, but that's why America is such a special place: Even an idiot like Arianna Huffington can be on TV.

5) George Will tried valiantly to talk some sense into these people. For example, he correctly observed that the New Deal was a failure because, among other things, the worst loss of manufacturing capacity in US history occurred in 1937, four years after the sainted FDR introduced America to socialism. He only wanted his colleagues to acknowledge that the "new" New Deal that's got the Left all atwitter - the $700 billion boondoggle that Congress wants to blow in January, beyond the $700 billion boondoggle that Congress approved last month, beyond the $120 billion approved last Spring, and beyond the $1 trillion in new spending envisioned by Barack the First, Emperor of the Americas - would only be necessary if the original New Deal were a failure. This observation naturally incurred Arianna's and Mr. Kuttner's wrath since there is no higher god in the liberal pantheon than FDR and failure is never failure to a liberal...it is the nobility of a person's intentions that matter, not catastrophic results. Mr. Kuttner, in his excitement, then drove into intellectual pothole #4 by noting that employment in the United States fell to zero by 1942 under FDR's leadership, by which reasoning we should credit the 32d President with starting World War II.

6) Mr. Kuttner used the phrase "casino capitalism" to mock the Big Three Detroit automakers, the major Wall Street investment firms and by extension, the Bush administration, calling for more regulation of the market, which if anyone has been watching for the past few years, is a patently stupid thing to say. Did he not notice the Feds raiding and prosecuting white-collar crooks at Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Tyco and Adelphia? Did he not notice Congress approving stringent new regulations for the financial system? And like I mentioned earlier, did he not notice Congress (who can regulate or not regulate as they choose) using Fannie Mae like a piggy bank to reward their low-rent constituents, something even worse than putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop? Hence intellectual pothole #5: What Mr. Kuttner considers "casino capitalism" is a market already heavily regulated. It would seem , then, that the only thing that would satisfy a Leftist boob like him is a joint press conference with Danny Ortega, Hugo Chavez, El Comandante Castro and His Eminence Barack announcing a total transition to socialism and free cigars for everyone. Jeesh!

7) Given the choice between cutting taxes so people can spend their own money and raising taxes so the government can spend it for them, liberals prefer the latter. They instinctively distrust individual judgment, even though our history proves that free enterprise is the fastest, easiest and most productive way to prosperity. If His Serene Loftiness gets everything he wants, and there's no reason to think that he wouldn't, the Federal government will engage in $2.5 trillion of new spending between last Spring and the end of his first term, starving the market of a huge amount of capital at the very time it is needed most. In spite of repeated failures in this country and elsewhere, liberals positively adore socialism, that glittering jewel of equally-distributed mediocrity, and will tax whatever they need to tax, spend whatever they need to spend and break whatever they need to break to make that nightmare come true, which is the very definition of insanity: Following the same failed policy and expecting a different outcome. Voila! Intellectual pothole #6, and for God's sake, let's not hit any more.

Workers of the World, Unite!

As the euphoria surrounding Barack Obama's election continues to build, those skeptics among us pry a little closer into his agenda to discern what he actually plans to do, pageantry be damned: A well-dressed disaster is still a disaster, after all.





American unions have been taking it on the chin for nearly thirty years now. Membership has plunged to 8.2 % of the total workforce from its zenith in the 1950's. Twenty-two states have enacted right-to-work laws that have eroded union strength. President Reagan, himself the former president of the Screen Actors Guild, fired every striking air traffic controller and dissolved the PATCO union during the strike of 1981, delivering a body blow to aggressive union tactics, and of course, every attempt to organize the employees of Wal-Mart has failed. So it comes as no surprise that the AFL-CIO and its sister organizations would spend $360 million to elect Democrat candidates this cycle and what they expect in return for their money is nothing less than a complete overhaul of labor regulations in this country, courtesy of the United States Government.

One hand washes the other. Labor unions are a core constituency of the Democrat Party. If they are weak, the party is weak. Next January, the Democrats will have strong majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate and a majority of governorships and state legislatures, and with this power, the most radical pro-union Democrat ever to assume the Presidency intends to change the game permanently in their favor by eliminating the most basic of constitutional freedoms: The secret ballot. You see, when union representatives campaign for organizing the workforce of a given company, an employee knows that they can promise to support the union when approached in public but cast their ballot in perfect anonymity in the actual election. Although the results reflect the employee's true opinion, the scenario frustrates union designs, wastes their resources and represents another defeat, especially where Wal-Mart is concerned. Thus the Employee Fair Choice Act - a misnomer if there ever was one - seeks to replace the secret ballot with a "check card" system in which an employee voting for organization would have to check "Yes" or "No" on a card in public and under the gaze of union thugs, a system designed to intimidate reluctant workers and guarantee union victory.

What about union complaints about employer interference and manipulation? Is a change to something besides the secret ballot justified? Not objectively, no. Figures from the National Labor Relations Board indicate that unions win an average of 61% of elections and that 95% of all complaints involving employer misconduct are resolved within six months. So why opt for such drastic measures? Why eliminate a fundamental right of our democracy? Because the unions and the Democrats realize that without such action, their slide toward total irrelevance will be complete. Arresting their decline can only be accomplished by attacking individual choice. It is, of course, patently undemocratic and hypocritical (given that Barack Obama and his Party were the beneficiaries of the secret ballot twelve days ago), but this is about power and the American Left will stop at nothing to get it. Taken together with their threats to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to throttle conservative talk radio, passage of the Employee Fair Choice Act would be the Democrats' most aggressive effort ever to choke the opposition and establish a permanent socialist state. And after that, what's next? What other facets of democracy do they find objectionable? The Big Three American automakers are slipping toward bankruptcy, in large part because the high cost of union labor makes their products less attractive than their Japanese counterparts. Detroit invested heavily in big SUV's, pickup trucks and minivans when gasoline cost half as much as it does today and are furiously laying off worker and closing plants to stop the bleeding. They've asked for, and Congress wil likely approve, a $50 billion bailout package. What if, as part of that bailout, Congress mandates "target sales" for those gas guzzlers to protect union jobs? What if a customer at a car dealership is informed that the cute little economical hybrid they wanted is "unavailable" but they can have a Ford Expedition instead? What if the same scheme were applied to cell phones and refrigerators and furniture and everything else?

If this sounds too crazy to be believed, consider what we're discussing now and think again. Someone who doesn't like democracy will try to get rid of it, which applies to Barack Obama and his gang of socialist true believers, and my guess is that this is not the kind of change that his millions of hypnotized supporters voted for.

Source: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1359.cfm

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356643,00.html

Maverick Is His Name

My name is John McCain. I am the senior United States Senator from the state of Arizona and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, but most recently I was nominated by the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States. I was defeated by Barack Obama, who will become the 44th Chief Executive and the first black man to hold that post.

I've been defeated before. I ran for President in 2000 and was leading George W. Bush until the South Carolina primary. I would have beaten him then except for some hardball tactics he used that turned the tables on me, and he went on to two terms in the White House instead of me. I've never forgiven that SOB and I swore I'd get even.

I pressured W. on campaign finance reform and he caved. Russ Feingold is a left-wing radical and a rabid partisan but he shares my view that the Republicans have enjoyed a financial advantage for too long and it's time to rein them in. He also shares my view that there's too much free speech by third parties in political campaigns. (Look what happened to my friend and colleague, John Kerry, in 2004. It proves my point.) It doesn't matter to me if a third party is telling the truth, it matters that it disrupts my vision of political discourse and it has to stop. Some people have complained that it's unconstitutional but that's just tough.

I also hijacked the process for approving the President's judicial nominees - that was great. I rallied thirteen other like-minded Senators to my cause: not a one was conservative. You see, I interpret conservatives fighting for their principles as partisans, while liberals fighting for their principles are gallant patriots. Dubya might have been the President but if he wanted anything done on the Hill, he had to go through me, and that was sweet.

...but we have common cause occasionally, as with the immigration reform bill we worked on in 2007. This bill would've allowed 21 million illegals to stay here mostly undisturbed but Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative die-hards stirred up the rednecks against it and we just couldn't get it done, and that really fried my bacon because I know what's best for this country and people keep getting in my way.

In many ways, I identify more with my liberal colleagues than I do my own party, and John Kerry even asked me to join his ticket in 2004, but I turned him down. You see, I'm a maverick. Mavericks get their credibility by rebelling against the norm and if I switched parties, I'd be just another Democrat. I'd be fighting Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid for airtime on the Sunday talk shows so I could bash the Republicans and I'm not about that. Wolf Blitzer and Larry King love it when a Republican criticizes his own party and that strokes my ego, so why would I give that up? Heck, Chuck Hagel figured that out a few years ago and it's a little flattering to see somebody try to emulate me, but not too much: If it's one thing a maverick doesn't like, it's another maverick.

Sarah Palin...well, that was just something I had to do. All I wanted was a respectful debate on issues I owned with a minimum of cash and outside influence so my natural superiority would stand out, but Barack Obama went and broke his promise to accept Federal money - that bastard! - and he was beating me everywhere I looked, so I had to do something. The moderates and the independents weren't flocking to me the way they should have and the only option I had left was to energize the Republican base, which was awkward given that I'd repudiated them for the past eight years, but part of being a maverick is switching from idealistic liberal lover to pragmatic politician and back again without upsetting my self-image of the angry old man who wants the Presidency as validation. So I went for it and boy, did I look like a genius! The rubes went crazy for her at the convention and on the campaign trail, and money and enthusiasm were running all over the place. Of course, my Democrat pals and the liberal media smeared her and I kind of took my time in defending her because she was stealing my publicity, and I sure didn't want the conservatives to hijack my campaign, but overall, she worked out: Choosing her proved that I was still capable of throwing the deep pass on fourth-and-long. The old guy's still got it, doesn't he?

In the end, I lost by a touchdown if I can use another football metaphor. Obama just had too much money, too many volunteers, he looked and sounded great on TV, my liberal friends in the press had a love fest over him while they threw me under the bus, the economy chose this exact moment to tank and voila! Eight years down the tubes. If I were an introspective guy - I'm not but let's say that I was - I'd say that my strategy was wrong. Undermining Dubya should have impressed people with how independent I am but it may have appeared as selfish and bitter. Refusing to criticize Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Tony Reszko and Reverend Jeremiah Wright (except at the very end when it wouldn't make a difference) should have demonstrated my loftiness but the base - like Joe the Plumber, for God's sake - saw it as a missed opportunity, even stupid. Sucking up to the liberals for eight years should have guaranteed their loyalty but they turned on me as soon as I finished off Huckabee, and criticizing conservatives for being too partisan while palling around with Joe Biden may have looked hypocritical. But like I said, I'm not an introspective guy.

Sure, I'll go to the Inaugural...why wouldn't I? And I'll go back to the Senate so I can help President Obama get his agenda through because I know his heart is in the right place. Like I've said for years, you have to be willing to set ideology aside and reach across the aisle to get things done in Washington. It's just funny that the Democrats never seem to do any reaching themselves.

I Voted for Senator Obama Because...

I voted for Senator Obama because I need health insurance and I want someone else to pay for it.

I voted for Senator Obama because I bought a house that I can't afford and I want someone else to pay for it.

I voted for Senator Obama because he opposed the war in Iraq and he opposed the surge, and now that we're winning, he'll bring our troops home so we can spend that $10 billion per month on my health insurance and my mortgage.

I voted for Senator Obama because he'll raise other people's taxes, not mine.

I voted for Senator Obama because he looks better and sounds better than John McCain.

I voted for Senator Obama because the Europeans love him, and I want the Europeans to love us again.

I voted for Senator Obama because he was endorsed by Warren Buffett, who's really rich, and by Colin Powell, who's pretty cool for a Republican - he's pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and doesn't like President Bush. (It's a little strange that HAMAS endorsed Senator Obama but I dismissed it.)

I voted for Senator Obama because he promised me a middle-class tax cut even though I don't pay Federal income taxes. I don't understand how he can do that but it doesn't bother me.

I voted for Senator Obama because he promised to bankrupt the coal industry because they pollute the environment and I like clean air. I don't worry too much about the fact that coal produces 40% of our electricity, nor that my electric bill may skyrocket, nor that hundreds of thousands of working-class people would lose their jobs...he'll make it all work out.

I voted for Senator Obama because he represents working-class people like me, not working-class people like Joe the Plumber. Joe shouldn't have embarrassed Senator Obama the way he did, but Senator Obama would never come after me they way he went after Joe.

I voted for Senator Obama because I don't want to feel guilty anymore about being white.

I voted for Senator Obama because I would never lose my job because he raised taxes.

I voted for Senator Obama because some people have way too much money and ought to share it, and if they don't, they're being selfish.

I voted for Senator Obama because if he confiscates everyone's 401(k), he'll leave mine alone.

I voted for Senator Obama because his relationships with Tony Reszko, William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright aren't important to me. I don't particularly like someone defrauding pension funds or throwing bombs or murdering police officers or shouting, "God damn America," but I don't think about it too much.

I voted for Senator Obama because I think he'll send my kids to college for free.

I voted for Senator Obama because there's no way that Sarah Palin has the experience to be President. (Not that experience is all that important. That's what Senator Obama says.)

I voted for Senator Obama because that guy from Iran will chill out now.

I voted for Senator Obama because when we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone. Al Qaeda would never attack us here.

I voted for Senator Obama because illegal immigrants should have the same rights as I have. After all, they only want a better life.

I voted for Senator Obama because he will give me everything I want, it won't cost me a thing, and because he can turn water into wine.

Every Man A King

It was one of Huey Long’s favorite slogans. At the height of the Depression with one-third of America unemployed, bankruptcies and foreclosures through the roof, stockbrokers committing suicide and credit paralyzed, the Dictator of Louisiana advocated his Share Our Wealth program to provide a basic level of financial security for every American family. The program would have worked like this:

- Every American family would receive a one-time grant of $5000
--2007 dollars: $76,682.62
-Every American family would receive an annual subsidy from the Federal government of $2000 - $3000
--2007 dollars: $30,673.05 - $46,009.57
-Education, from kindergarten through a bachelor’s degree, would be free
-Senior citizens, veterans and farmers would be subsidized
-The work week would be reduced from forty hours to thirty

To pay for these benefits, personal fortunes would be taxed at the following rates by the Federal government:

The first $1 million of net wealth 0%
The second $1 million 1%
The third $1 million 2%
The fourth $1 million 4%
The fifth $1 million 8%
The sixth $1 million 16%
The seventh $1 million 32%
The eighth $1 million 64%

- All private assets above $8 million would be confiscated
- All annual incomes of $1 million or more would be taxed at 100%

This meant that someone with $9 million in total net assets would have 25.2% of their wealth seized by the Federal government, and someone with $100 million in total net assets would lose 93.27% of those assets. The richer the individual, the more he would lose.

Share Our Wealth and its most vocal exponent were wildly popular among the poor and helped bolster the Kingfish’s chances for the Presidency in 1936, given that so many people were suffering and that so many felt that even President Roosevelt’s radical reforms didn’t go far enough to resolve the country’s most serious economic crisis. It was Long’s view that too much of the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of too few selfish millionaires, industrialists and speculators, and the only way to relieve the nation’s agony was to impose draconian measures. An assassin’s bullet ended Huey Long’s life before he could challenge for the White House but the populist agenda he championed has been echoed through the decades by such luminaries as Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Tom Harkin and now Barack Obama.

It sounds simple enough. Someone has more money than they need, someone else doesn’t have enough. The government takes the surplus and divides it more evenly. What could be easier? No-one advocates for poverty, right? How could anyone oppose a “fairer” distribution of wealth? But has been demonstrated wherever socialism has been tried, this approach has very limited benefits and very extensive costs. First, the very definitions of “surplus,” “too much,” and “not enough” are relative – how much is “too much” and how much is “not enough”? Second, stiff taxes punish success and reward poverty. Why work harder if your efforts result in someone else taking the profit? Third, as successful people and companies lose their assets and their willingness to take risks (and to profit from those risks), the surplus shrinks until it disappears and the redistribution of wealth becomes the redistribution of poverty. The vast social welfare programs that are the vehicles of redistribution struggle, the families grown dependent on those programs struggle, and the government faces a difficult choice of either slashing the programs it created or increasing taxes again to maintain the level of spending, which only deepens the crisis. These three points form the conservative opposition to redistributionist policies.

So given the volumes of data proving the failure of “soak the rich” schemes, why would Senator Obama endorse another one? Why increase taxes at the very time that the markets need more private capital, not less? For two reasons: The forementioned popularity of such schemes among low wage earners who want someone else to pay for benefits they cannot afford themselves; and a fundamental belief that government should decide how to spend money, not the people who earned it - socialism. Although the liberal elite enjoy the rewards of capitalism (George Soros, Ted Turner, the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Bill and Hillary Clinton and certainly the Obamas themselves), they want to force everyone else to share the mediocrity of socialism, an hypocrisy that never seems to dawn upon them. They see capitalism as inherently unfair because of its emphasis on opportunity and not results, and seek to reverse that unfairness through confiscatory taxes and lavish government spending. Anyone who objects to higher taxes is considered selfish, hence the Obama campaign’s indignant response to “Joe the Plumber’s” simple question about the Senator’s tax policy. An average, middle-class, blue-collar worker, a person that Senator Obama claims to represent, dares to confront him directly about his plan and the liberal smear machine tries to destroy him. This obsession with uniformity, this aversion to excellence characterizes the liberal position on a variety of issues, from taxes to health care, from housing to education, from unions to transportation, from agriculture to energy, from the environment to foreign policy, though not morals: Abortion, homosexuality, drugs and pornography are powerful gods in the liberal pantheon. They prefer the security of sameness to the chance to achieve, an attitude that is regrettable in an individual but catastrophic to a society. This attitude we must resist at all hazards, and though the Kingfish did not deserve to be murdered, his socialist dream – now Senator Obama’s – must be administered the coup de grace.


Source: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

The Long Lens of History

With the seventh anniversary of 9/11 behind us and the election of a new President before us, it may help those who are wavering in their decision and even those who are committed to one candidate or another to provide a frame of reference for their choice, a frame of reference that relies less upon the current economic frenzy than upon the inescapable record of history. That record indicates that it is not our stock market or balance of trade or our tax policy that is most important to our survival but our security. Security is the bedrock of our country, the foundation upon which all else is built. The loss of security would extinguish our national life forever, so as important as our economy may be to us and to the world, it is our national security that is the paramount concern.

We are engaged in a Global War On Terror against agents of Islamic empire, the latest campaign in a war that has raged for nearly 1400 years. Americans of the early 21st century tend to have short memories, tend to focus on the here-and-now, tend to consider war - no matter how necessary - as a gross distraction from the more important goal of self-indulgence. But we are engaged in a fight not only for our own survival but the survival of Western civilization, and the desire of some Americans as articulated by Senator Obama to simply pack up and go home is ludicrously irresponsible. Beyond that, wars conclude when both parties stop fighting, so the supposition that worldwide militant Islam will simply stay put while we retreat is similarly ludicrous. It contravenes both common sense and the historical truth of Mohammed's religion:

circa 610 AD: Mohammed begins preaching Islam in Mecca

630 AD: Muslims capture Mecca

636 AD: Muslims capture Jerusalem

633 - 642 AD: Muslims conquer all of North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iraq

710 AD: Muslims conquer Spain

721 AD: A Muslim invasion of Gaul is stopped by Odo the Great, Duke of Aquitaine, at the Battle of Toulouse

732 AD: Another Muslim invasion of Gaul is stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, likely saving Western Europe from Muslim conquest

1291 AD: Muslims capture Acre, the last Christian stronghold in Palestine, ending the Crusades

1389: Muslims defeat a Serbian army at the Battle of Kosovo, ruining the Serbs' dream of independence

1396: Muslims defeat a Christian coalition at the Battle of Nicopolis, extending Muslim domination of the Balkans

1453: On their sixth attempt since 1390, Muslims capture Constantinople, capital of the eastern Roman Empire for a thousand years, and push Muslim control as far west as Hungary

1492: Christians reconquer Spain

1522: Muslims capture Belgrade and force the Christian Knights of St. John to abandon their base on the island of Rhodes

1529: A Muslim invasion is stopped at Vienna

1565: After a three-month siege, the Knights of St. John defeat a Muslim invasion force at their new base on the island of Malta

1683: A Muslim invasion is defeated again at Vienna, marking the beginning of 250 years of decline in the Muslim world

Let's look closer at just one of these events. On Friday, 18 May 1565, a Turkish invasion fleet appeared off the coast of Malta. Two hundred galleys, the largest and best artillery train in the world and 38,000 men had been sent by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent to destroy the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, the last of the Christian Crusading orders, once and for all. Opposing them was a force of 900 knights and about 8000 native Maltese volunteers. For 113 days, these mortal enemies shot and slashed and burned and stabbed each other to death while the entire Mediterranean hung in the balance. When the Turks overran little Fort St. Elmo after a month of fierce resistance, they massacred the defenders, decapitated them, crucified the remains and dumped them in Grand Harbour to terrify the survivors. In retaliation, the Knights executed their Turkish prisoners, decapitated them, loaded the heads into cannon and fired them back across the harbor. It was war to the knife, savage, ugly and pitiless, but on 08 September 1565, the Turks retreated, having failed to break the Christians' will to resist.

It is very plain that Islam waged an unrelenting war of conquest against the rest of the world, but especially against the Christian West, for over a thousand years. Constitutional democracy did not exist, the United States, Israel and the "Palestinian question" did not exist, the major reasons cited by Muslim extremists to justify their violence, yet militant Muslim armies slaughtered and burned and raped half the known world for Allah. The only explanation for these ten centuries of brutal conquest is the nature of Islam itself, an aggressive and brutal religion driven to enslave humanity and to destroy whatever it cannot enslave. Thus Senator Obama's proposed withdrawal from Iraq and overtures to Iran are a ridiculously naive vision of foreign policy at the very least, certainly betray an ignorance of historical fact, and are an invitation to disaster at the very worst. Listen to the words of Queen Elizabeth I commenting on the Turkish invasion of Malta 443 years ago: "If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow the rest of Christendom." Meaning that Islam will not be satisfied until their bloody flag flies over the entire world. Senator Obama, and your near-sighted one-world supporters, take heed.

USSA

We had a very interesting encounter with an Obama campaign worker yesterday afternoon that illustrates the very real and very deep philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. This young man was canvassing our neighborhood about 3:30 PM when he knocked on our door, and when my wife and son answered, he proceeded to ask them to support Senator Obama's candidacy. When my wife told him that we are registered Republicans and that we intend to vote for Senator McCain, the young man retorted that "we're headed for socialism" and refused to obey my wife's instructions to leave immediately. After my wife called for me and I repeated her order to leave, the young man continued to hover on our front walk and stated that "we're headed for socialism" twice more in a triumphant tone of voice before finally moving on.



This incident gets under my skin for a couple of reasons. First, the kid wouldn't shove off when we told him to do so, as if defying us would convince us to change our minds and support his candidate: Liberals have a problem with private property, after all. Second, and this is the more important aspect, this young man is absolutely convinced that a President Obama will lead us into a sort of socialist workers' paradise. What would excite him so much? Maybe the prospect of higher taxes so the bottom thirty percent of American wage earners who pay no Federal income taxes at all can receive a "rebate" from the Treasury Department? Maybe the prospect of sending another $85 billion overseas every year for "poverty relief" or of negotiating with Mahmud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions"? (As an aside, since the nutcase Iranian president refuses to abandon his country's nuclear program, what exactly does Obama think he would negotiate? Our surrender?) Maybe the prospect of rationed health care or rationed higher education or rationed energy or rationed housing? Maybe the prospect of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants or retreating from Iraq? Are these the facets of an Obama presidency that make him swoon?



Socialism has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried, and please don't offer up Scandinavia as a shining triumph: When an individual in Finland faces combined national and municipal income taxes of 53.5% plus "luxury" taxes of 17% on food and 8% on medications, that ain't success, brother, but highway robbery. Socialism destroys prosperous economies by attempting to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who don't, punishing success and rewarding poverty. Businesses fail, unemployment rises, interest rates go up as banks tighten credit, taxes go up to maintain high government spending and the economy stagnates - a very reliable way to commit financial suicide. My family and I lived in Germany for over six years where we saw the result of centralized planning first-hand, and I've seen it in East Berlin and North Korea: What moron would wish that kind of misery on our country? If socialism were such an incredible system, why aren't we watching American boat people risking their lives to sail to Cuba? Why doesn't George Soros work in La Paz, or Barbra Streisand vacation in Pyongyang? Because socialism sucks, my friends...it sucks out loud.

The door-knocker who was so enthusiastic for Obama yesterday was guilty of being young - ignorant, inexperienced, more energy than sense. But the candidate he represents has given him a rather evil hope, that we can be transformed into the United Socialist States of America, and I will resist that hope with all the strength I can muster.






Source: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/finland/fin_other.asp



Source: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/finland/finland_tax.asp

Charles Rangel, Nincompoop

People get desperate when they're backed into a corner. Representative Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, knows about this situation. He is accustomed to doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, with no repercussions and no pushy reporters asking questions. So it is understandable that, after his pattern of lawlessness has become known (using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem as a campaign office, using official stationery to solicit donations for an education center built in his honor, filing fraudulent Federal tax returns and failing to pay taxes on a rental property he owns in the Caribbean), he would lash out. The problem is that Charles Rangel made himself look like an absolute idiot in the process.

Mr. Rangel was being interviewed last weekend by WCBS TV Channel 2 in New York when he was asked about GOP Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Since her nomination, Governor Palin has become wildly popular but has also become the target of vicious criticism from the American Left, and rather than attempt to debate her qualifications reasonably, Mr. Rangel dove for the gutter by describing her as "disabled." Here is the exchange:

CBS 2 HD: "Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity?"
Rangel: "You got to be kind to the disabled."
CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?"
Rangel: "Yes."
CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"
Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live."

Mr. Rangel has since issued a statement "clarifying" his slur but even with the TV reporter trying to help him out, his instinct was to insult Governor Palin with the foulest terms. He knew, as we all do, that Governor Palin gave birth to a Down Syndrome child only last Spring, so to use this kind of crude language to demean her speaks volumes as to Mr. Rangel's desperation and his character. It also speaks volumes about liberals in general, that rather than debate the issues in a reasonable, adult manner, befitting the gravity of our times, they resort to mud wrestling. If this is the sort of leadership the citizens of Harlem and the Bronx expect from Mr. Rangel, then they should be humiliated, and if I were Todd Palin, I'd punch Charles Rangel in the mouth.



Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/rangel-ethics-woes-take-scandal-spotlight-off-gop/



Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPOYv8qrqUwMbJfQ487S2_dSyHLwD93A6OC80

Paving the Road to Hell

President Bush's announcement Saturday morning of a new massive Federal agency that will buy bad loans from financial institutions in an attempt to stabilize the United States economy is the latest sad episode in our national soap opera, General Insanity. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson estimates that it will cost the U.S. taxpayer about $700 billion to sort out this mess, which averages about $2333 for every man, woman and child in the United States over and above the trillions of debt we've already accumulated, or, since the bottom thirty percent of Americans pay no Federal income taxes at all (a dirty little secret that Senator Obama and his liberal colleagues don't like to advertise), about $3333 for every tax-paying American. If there's a better word than "staggering" to describe such a figure, someone please tell me.



The near-collapse of the financial market - Federal bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, frantic reorganization for Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs - is of course tied to the struggling American housing market. Millions of people have either defaulted on their mortgages or are close to it, so that the institutions who own the mortgages or insured them are also threatened. So why are so many people in this financial distress, how did they get here? Because they were bad credit risks to begin with, and were approved for home loans that they couldn't afford. Bankruptcy, late payments, missed payments, heavy consumer debt, prior defaults, judgments, nothing seemed to completely disqualify this demographic for a mortgage, and if we multiply this scenario by two or three or ten million, we arrive at our current pathetic state. So then we ask the next question: Why would so many otherwise responsible institutions loan money in the trillions to people who wouldn't or couldn't pay it back? Because of that bulwark of social engineering, the United States Congress.



During the Clinton administration, those wonderful years of Whitewater, Travelgate, Elian Gonzalez and the stained blue cocktail dress, Congress got it in their collective heads that the American dream of owning your own home should not be reserved for those who could actually pay for it. The idea was that home owners make better citizens, which is a pretty traditional view, and if "underserved" people could somehow obtain a mortgage, helped by the Federal government, then they and America in general would profit. Look at this quote from the HUD website:



Voluntary Activities


The Fair Housing Act requires HUD to develop voluntary programs to achieve fair housing goals. For example, HUD's Voluntary Affirmative Marketing program is designed to engage the private sector, including builders, developers, lenders, and the real estate industry, in national and local efforts to improve housing choice. Voluntary efforts include local agreements to further fair housing, the establishment of citizen Community Housing Resource Boards (CHRB) to maximize communication among racial and ethnic minorities, women, and the real estate industry, in connection with enforcement of the agreements.



Source: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/promotingfh.cfm



This means that the Federal government coerced banks to lend lots of money to people whom they knew would have a hard time paying it back. Congress didn't consider the disaster that would ensue if the scenario played itself out, as we face now, they didn't consider the cesspool of bankruptcy, foreclosure, the tens of thousands thrown out of work and the Everest of debt now heaped upon America: Congress just thought it was a good idea, and so here we are. So if you're looking for someone to blame for this train wreck, call (202) 225-0100 and ask for Nancy.

The Bullet Train to Hell

Last Thursday the 18th, the Episcopal Church ejected Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, from its ordained ministry. The House of Bishops voted 88-35 for Mr. Duncan's removal, which is a pretty clear majority, and this body has full authority to take such action, but what is remarkable about this situation is that Bishop Duncan was removed not for disobeying Scripture or some personal misdeeds but for his obedience to Scripture. Bishop Duncan has been a leading conservative dissident within the Episcopal Church over the past five years, a vocal and active opponent of its lurch to the Left and was advocating the alliance of the Diocese of Pittsburgh with a larger conservative movement with that denomination. Thursday's action, timed as it was before the Diocese's vote to split from the official Church, is viewed as a preemptive strike by the Episcopals' liberal leadership to prevent such a split.

Just as liberals have spent the past forty years trying to reinterpret the U.S. Constitution to find rights that don't exist (abortion) and to bury rights specifically and explicitly included (the right of individual citizens to own and carry firearms), liberals have spent the past 1900 years trying to reinterpret Scripture to justify conduct otherwise strictly prohibited. The Episcopal Church wants to recognize and perform gay marriages and to ordain gays into their active ministry, actions that clearly contravene the Bible, so rather than address the behavior itself, the Church "reinterprets" Holy Scripture to their advantage and suppresses dissent thereto. (Isn't it odd how Inquisition-like the liberals behave - the same liberals who find the Inquisition everywhere within conservative organizations - when people disagree with them?) Bishop Duncan is being punished for adhering to the Bible, not for departing from it; for preaching the Word, not liberal dogma; for obeying Christ, not his temporal superiors; and for worshipping the great and glorious King of Creation, not the false and corrupt god of "tolerance." Thus I applaud and salute Robert Duncan, formerly Bishop of Pittsburgh, and wish him well...he will fare much better and be rewarded more handsomely than those who rejected him.