A contradiction in terms!

In every news source today, there is a story on Obama's announcement to practice fiscal restraint while being a big spender. These two goals are mutually exclusive. At any rate, I could get this story from any number of places, I'm using the Fox News source simply because they got it posted to my RSS feed first. So, while I really like this statement from Obama: "To make the investments we need," he said at another point, "we'll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well, something I'll be discussing further tomorrow." I'd really like to see someone cut the federal budget significantly. However, this is what I'm afraid will really happen. Obama will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Welfare programs while at the same time creating and expanding his ill thought health program. In addition, he'll probably cut some of the military and then he'll start cutting all the smaller programs found in the budget. You can't cut the budget this way, at least not significantly, but this is what he'll do, I'd bet. He said he'd announce more details today, so we have to wait and see, but here goes what I expect to see.

First, let's examine this last budget. Where can Obama cut, really?



This graph is taken from Wikipedia and is attributed to one of its users, Skiddum. It is a graphical representation of where our money goes. So, where can Obama cut. Social Security was 21 percent of last year's budget and this number continues to grow annually, but he won't cut this. Medicare is more than 13 percent and Welfare is more than 11 percent, while Medicaid is 7.2 percent, totalling 31.7 percent. He won't cut these, in fact, he'd end up expanding these significantly if he tries to pass his health care plans. That's 52.7 percent of the budget right there. In addition, over 9 percent of the budget is the interest on our debt, which is surely to grow significantly now that we've indebted ourselves out the door with these bailouts. That put the total of "the stuff that can't be touched" at 62 percent. So, what can be touched? Technically, the discretionary spending can be touched. The above items are not discretionary, unless we vote them away, they MUST be paid. So, where can we cut? Obama has said in the past that he'd cut NASA. Well, would that save us anything, really? NASA only takes up .6 percent of the budget. During the golden age of NASA (travelling to the moon) their share of the budget was significantly higher. I suspect the only way to save money with NASA would be to privatize the whole thing and get the government out of the space business. While this may be feasible soon, I don't believe it is yet and it would cripple the local economies in the area where I live because of the huge impact that would have on Florida. But, Obama might be able to squeeze a few million out of NASA. Now, the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Labor and Transportation all make less than .5 percent of the budget each. You won't be able to cut there, probably not even a few million, so don't bother looking. The departments of Agriculture, Justice and Energy all take up less than 1 percent of the total budget, so again, maybe a couple million dollars, at most, but nothing significant. Now, we've dealth with more than half the government and how much of the budget is being spent? That's right, 4.4 percent of the total budget covers ALL of the stated discretionary items so far. 4.4 percent. Where are you going to cut Mr. Obama? Oh, some things actually get money spent on them? Okay, let's look at the items that actually get more than 1 percent of the budget spent on them:
Dept. of Homeland Security - 1.2%
Money given to states and international programs - 1.2%
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development - 1.2%
Off budget discretionary spending (stuff that shouldn't be being spent) - 1.3%
U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs - 1.4%
"Other" on budget discretionary spending - 1.8%
U.S. Dept. of Education - 1.9%
Dept. of Health and Human Services - 2.4%
War on Terror - 5%
All of these items put together equal 17.4 percent of the budget. Now, you can actually save here. How? Well, you won't cut Homeland Security or aid to states and other countries and it would be bad PR to cut Veteran's Affairs. That leaves the war (easy to cut here, but not immediately), Health and Human Services (likely to get expanded with Obama's health plans, not cut), Dept. of Education (easily cut since it isn't constitutional anyway, but the student loan programs probably make up the majority of this, so you'd be able to cut, maybe a percentage point), "other" spending (this includes a LOT of tiny programs, many of which might be able to go away), off budget spending (this should just go away, period) and that's pretty much it. How much did I just save? Maybe 4 percent of the budget just got slashed. Oh wait, we still have military spending to discuss. This makes up over 16 percent of the budget. Can't cut this during wartime, so it isn't going anywhere this year, but perhaps there are ways we could cut in the future, maybe saving another 1 percent. I think that my total overall has now reached 5 percent of the budget. Guess what this means. The ONLY way to save money is to ignore discretionary spending and to cut cut cut cut cut the mandatory spending. This isn't going to happen under Obama, so don't hold your breath. In fact, even if he did cut 5-10 percent from discretionary spending, it would immediately be re-spent on his "new" programs. Don't expect fiscal restraint from this President.

Wisdom on "unity" from our founding fathers

Read Federalist # 10, by James Madison. In addition, read Federalist # 51 by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison. These two writings, in defense of the Constitution, clearly outline that factions will form in a free society and it outlines the dangers of factions. Notably, from federalist 10 is this quote: "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." Does this sound familiar? Of course, in my opinion, both of these result in the loss of freedom because the only way to "give" every citizen the same opinions, etc. is to coerce them, better known as indoctrination. So, it is important for us to take a quote from the same source a little later: "The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." This means that we should only control the effects of faction, not try to remove it. So, freedom can be preserved by preserving freedom, not by trying to control what people believe (political correctness anyone?). At any rate, what this shows is that the founding fathers intentionally designed the government to NOT be unified. The idea of unity in our system of government would be anathema to the founders. They saw unity as a method of damaging freedom, at least based on the writings in Federalist 10. So, how about 51? The opening statement in Federalist 51 tells us all we really need to know from this one. I quote: "TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places." This clearly shows that the founders wanted there to be separated power in the government. No branch was to be too powerful. For instance, we've recently had a lot of trouble getting judges appointed because the Democrats don't like the fact that those judges don't agree with them. They want unity on the court. That'd be great, it would also endanger our freedoms. If a President appoints a judge, then the Congress has the responsibility to make sure that person can do the job, not put them through the ringer and smear them to the populace in order to prevent someone who may not "think" like you do from getting on the bench. This is also why we have a President that can wage war and a Congress that can declare it. Who do I blame for the wars? The Congress. They voted to give the President power to wage war without giving him a declaration of war. No President should be allowed to wage a war overseas (meaning if we aren't being directly invaded) without a declaration of war from the Congress, in my opinion. Federalist 51 goes on to support my argument, in my opinion, above with this quote: "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them." Finally, Federalist 51 goes on a similar track as Federalist 10 with this argument: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Again, the writer is clearly demonstrating their belief that it is dangerous to have all authority in the hands of one group because that endangers the freedoms (rights) of the minority. Another reason not to allow partisan politics to determine the outcome of judicial nominations. So, for all of you out there who are so excited that the Democrats have won control of "almost" everything. Your reality check is our own founding fathers. The Republicans had a great opportunity when they controlled the House, Senate and the White House and instead they decided to act like spend, spend, spend Democrats and squandered that opportunity. Since I see the Democrats spending even more, not less and since their ideas are far more dangerous to freedom than Republicans ideas are (I can prove this if anyone really wants to challenge me on it), the danger is even greater now that they have full control. Our government is supposed to answer to the people and the people have elected this bunch of fools into office (I'm referring to all of them, both Republicans and Democrats so don't be offended unless you are one of the fools of course), so we get what we desire, so to speak, except that 60 percent of the electorate has controlled the outcome of elections in this country for far too long. Where are the other 40 percent. This country will only work and survive if these people get off their butts and make their voices heard! Unity is not the answer, it is an illusion that is actually dangerous. Division actually prevents the government from interfering with our liberty, so a government that does nothing is actually a good one, while a government that does "anything" just to do something is actually a very bad one. I am no fan of unity in the political arena.

A free press? Really!

So much for freedom of the press. This article reveals that People magazine paid 14 million dollars to Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in exchange for photos of their children and allegedly for "positive" coverage, meaning the magazine would not publish negative content about them, as well as editorial rights. The New York Times goes on to allege that this positive coverage is for future coverage as well, not just for the current story. Hmm... maybe the media needs to consider this as a new business model, especially in regards to politicians. Oh wait! That would require showing clear bias for one candidate over another and wouldn't be fair to the American electorate. Oh, they're doing that for free. Guess they aren't really good businessmen after all.

Who elected Obama?

Here is a quote from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:

"At JBHE we have been doing some calculations on the importance of the black vote in the 2008 presidential election. If Obama kept all the Hispanic vote that he won but lost all of the black vote that he won, Obama would have lost Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

This would have shifted 107 electoral votes to John McCain. This would have resulted in a 280-258 victory for McCain in the Electoral College.

Clearly, African-American voters were responsible for electing the nation’s first black president."

I'll ignore for now that they stated Florida twice. Oh, I guess I didn't *sheepish*. At any rate, while winning 95 percent of the African American vote was certainly important in electing Obama President, this isn't really significantly different than winning 90 percent of the vote from blacks, which just about every Democrat has done for decades. In addition, if you take away the Hispanic voters (67 percent voted for Obama) and keep the Black voters, then in Florida for sure and probably Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia as well, you'd end up with similar outcomes. How does that change the election. My point is this. The logic they used above is faulty from the start because it assumes that simply by removing the black vote from the equation, he would not have won, which overstates the role of the black vote. After all, 66 million people voted for Obama. 95 percent of the black vote, 62 percent of the asian vote, 67 percent of the hispanic vote and 43 percent of the white vote. So, using the logic stated in the above quote, their statement would most likely be true if you removed Hispanic voters as I stated above or definitely if you removed white voters. So, I could plug in Hispanic and White into the statement above and "clearly" conclude that whites are responsible for electing the first African American President, could I not? If there is a mathematician out there who would like to correct me, please do so, I'll admit if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. After all, whites make up approximately 74 percent of the population while blacks make up 13.5 percent, approximately, so surely the 43 percent of whites who voted for Obama was a much greater number than the 95 percent of blacks and therefore had a greater impact on the outcome of the election. Still don't believe me? Okay, let's do an exercise in math. If the 60 percent of voters remained true across racial lines, then of 300 million people (for the purpose of this exercise, we'll assume they can all vote), 222 million white people are eligible to vote for Obama (yes I know this is simplistic because I don't have any numbers for voting eligible persons). At any rate, that would mean that 4 million, 500 thousand black people are eligible to vote for Obama. So, which number is greater, 43 percent of 222 million or 95 percent of 4.5 million. That would be 95.5 million whites and 4.6 million blacks voting for Obama. So, who had the greater impact on the outcome of the election? I'm just saying. After all, their reasoning made me laugh, so surely they know it to? For a visual representation of what I'm trying to point out here, go here at the New York Times and click on the option to size bars according to share of the electorate and see what happens. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should vote, so I was actually disappointed by a 60 percent turnout, as I always am with every Presidential election, but this statement was just so funny that I had to point out its flaw.

Who did this person vote for?

So, can you tell who this person voted for? I know I can. So why is it that Al Franken's campaign to win the Senate seat in Minnesota over Norm Coleman is challenging this ballot because the "intent" of the voter is unclear. Really? Seriously? Okay, so, are the Democrats going to challenge ever single close election in this way now? Is this the legacy of Al Gore's 2000 challenge in Florida? You didn't see Ted Stevens (the crook) trying to win with last ditch efforts and challenged ballots. He gracefully (to his credit) bowed out. That is what Mr. Franken should do. Finish the recount, sure, but this vote is so obviously for Coleman that I can't imagine it being challenged. So, stop this craziness already Mr. Franken, you lost, albeit be only a couple hundred votes, but you lost. Get over it.

And we should all be proud of the "informed" American electorate!

If you go to this site, you'll find a very interesting video of Obama voters, taken after they voted on election day. It isn't a scientific poll by any means, but the results are sadly interesting. Since it is not a scientific poll and because of the one sided and completely inaccurate nature of the responses, the conservative, former radio talk show host, John Ziegler, commissioned Zogby International (a well respected polling firm) to test the electorate on their knowledge of these questions. This was a scientific poll, which has been criticized as a "push poll". One can disagree with the questions, but it isn't a push poll, it doesn't even fit the definition, as Zogby was forced to point out. What it showed was a depressing lack of knowledge of the Obama voters who were polled. So, either these people have been lied to, are willfully misinformed, only get their news from one source (an obviously biased one at that) or they simply were voting on one issue or with their party and didn't care to be informed. I must admit, I'd respect them more if it was one of the earlier ones than if it is the last one because that is just plain stupidity. I think everyone should vote (which they don't) but I also believe that those of us who do choose to vote should make sure we are as informed as possible in order to make the best choice. This poll shows that many (and perhaps you'd have similar stupidity among McCain voters so if anyone wants to do this poll, I'd love to know the results) people who voted for Obama are simply uninformed, at best. This is no way to run a republic. The ancient Greeks stood around in the town square and debated the issues before they voted. This was smart and resulted in everyone having their say. This poll shows that the only say that gets heard is the one the media chooses to highlight. Even the Washington Post stated, after the election so too late in my opinion, that their coverage was biased in favor of Obama. While one could argue that the obviously Obama favored media coverage did little to change the outcome and it was the poor economy that was really the highest contributing factor (and they'd have a point), this shows that the media failed us and didn't do the job they should and therefore may very well have changed the outcome of the election. After all, 57 percent of respondents couldn't accurately say that the Democrats currently controlled Congress. That means that that 57 percent were probably inaccurately blaming the "Republicans" in Congress for the economy as much as they were Bush. Isn't that a logical assumption on my part? Maybe not, but this election definitely suffered from the media's decision to fawn themselves over the Obama campaign.

Lobbyists lobbyists everywhere, not a one for hire!

I lived in the Washington D.C. area for half of my lifetime, so far. One of the things I learned while there was that almost everyone who works in Washington is a lobbyist or has close ties to a lobbyist. After all, I did some contract librarian work for a lobbying firm in D.C. for a little while and ending up making some friends there. In addition, I attended a church in Washington, ironically the same one Bill Clinton attended, and ended up making friends there as well (you make really good friends at church, fyi, contrary to what Obama would have you believe). I grew up with people who ended up becoming lobbyists. I'd say I have very close ties with lobbyists and lobbying groups while I lived in the D.C. area. This is no longer true. I have remained friends with these people, don't get me wrong, but I can't say that I have close ties to lobbyists anymore since I no longer see any of these people on a regular basis. At any rate, this is why it was so funny that Obama would point out that seven of McCain's staff in his campaign were lobbyists. Well, McCain said he didn't want lobbyists to control Washington either, but this was portrayed by Obama as a lie, when in fact it isn't considering McCain has been true to that throughout his career, limiting lobbying through legislation and even limiting earmarks (used to be called pork) to his own state to avoid unnecessary entanglements with lobbyists. Obama grew up in the Chicago political machine, so he's always been in bed with lobbyists and he consistently worked to get earmarks for his state. Hmm... who is more in bed with lobbyists. Having a few working for you on your campaign is the reality of Washington, everyone there is, has been, or knows a lobbyist. Therefore, Obama also had lobbyists on his campaign staff. The fact the McCain failed to point this out is a failure of his campaign, but it remains true nonetheless. Well, it seems that some in the media may be waking up to the reality that is Obama (one can only "hope"). Campbell Brown's "no bias, no bull" article today (which is of course funny considering she's a journalist so there is always bias, but I digress) pointed out the difficulty that Obama is having keeping his pledge from a year ago that "[lobbyists] won't work in my White House". Yeah right, what planet does he live on? Anyway, he claims they have the most stringent rules of any President ever in hiring lobbyists. Maybe this is true, but hiring anyone in Washington amounts to hiring a lobbyist or someone with close ties to lobbyists, so his pledge of a year ago was impossible at the time and simply nothing more than an empty promise. Much like virtually everything else he's said. Of course, I'm worried he will actually try to enact some of those empty promises, but that's another story.

Let's not hate!

I've always liked Glenn Beck, ever since I first saw him. He makes me laugh, he is real and he says it like it is, no apologies, no bull. You may disagree with him, but you'll always know where he stands. I like that. It is refreshing. Apparently, he was accosted in a Wendy's line trying to buy a frosty. This is just wrong. Of course, the man in the line has a right to his opinion and to even express his displeasure to Glenn, it is still a free country, isn't it? But geez, Glenn is just trying to buy a frosty for goodness sake, leave him alone. Regardless, assuming he is earnest in his description of the event, this shows some true hatred from the left toward the right. Why is that really? Okay, disagree on policies and principles, but hatred? I'm sure Glenn is right that there is enough hatred to go around on both sides, but only someone who doesn't actually listen to Glenn Beck would actually call him a racist, oh, or someone who is trying to convince us they are right by intentionally misleading us on what he actually said (Keith Olberman on Glenn Beck anyone?). At any rate, I think we can be thoughtful in dealing with people without having to compromise our beliefs. We used to pay lip service to being kind to one another, living the golden rule and trying to get along. We know longer seem to care to do this. What's changed? Caring about people requires something this country is fast forgetting. Truly caring for others, rather than doing so because it is somehow in our own best interests is not something the majority of the population is capable of. Left to our own devices, we WILL be selfish. You need God, or a least some sort of moral standard, in order to live a "good" life, because without it, how does one define good. This is what is missing in our society and this is what is changed. You'll constantly hear those of us who believe in freedom be accused of all sorts of things like racism, bigotry, intolerance, hatred. None of these things are true, at least not for me, but I've been accused of them anyway, by people who believe in equality. Having equality under the law is a great goal (we don't have it in this country, minorities have greater protections) and I'd argue in favor of it, but I do not argue in favor of equality, so I'm branded something I'm not. These accusations do show us one thing, if we are bothering to pay attention. They show that those who claim to be tolerant only practice that tolerance with people they agree with or people they perceive as having been mistreated somehow. Ask them to care about freedom though and they'll pay lip service to it because they don't even know what it means. Finally, I love to talk politics or religion, or anything that causes disagreement and controversy. Why? Because that's where the interesting stuff is. I've even been known to espouse an opposing position with someone I actually agree with just to have a more interesting conversation. I can talk about the weather all day, but nobody would be interested and I'd even bore myself. However, these two topics are now entirely off limits. Why would we, as a people, choose to make the two most important topics in our life off limits to general conversation? Surely this isn't an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, is it? I'm not sure, ask the thought police or the politically correct party in this country to answer that for you. It doesn't matter one way or the other. No topic of conversation should be off limits, because whether it is intended to stifle freedom of speech, that is exactly what you achieve. I will not stand by and say nothing while my country walks down a path that leads it to destruction. I will speak out. I will not be one of those people who quietly sat around in Germany while atrocities were being carried out. However, we can disagree with others, but we MUST always remember to show God's charity and love. They will call us names and they will hate us, but we must stay firm and we must be able to express ourselves without using the same hateful tactics of name calling since those tactics are designed to shut people up, not engage them. In addition, when confronted with unreasonableness, as Glenn was here, we can simply act as he did and say absolutely nothing. Let the person rant and rave. Maybe they'll feel better in the end. It achieves nothing to engage with a person like this because they'll probably just end up hitting you. So, again, why is all this happening? You could argue it is our insisting on political associations which Washington warned us about or that people prefer to be led around like lemmings rather than have thoughts of their own or that this is just human nature in some way. The real answer to all of this is actually very simple. We are fast leaving behind the cherished concepts of our founding fathers that established us as a free country and sliding down the hill right toward becoming a society of "equals" instead. I say, thanks but no thanks, the Soviet Union tried this approach already, did we learn nothing?

Hypocrisy

I read somewhere once, oh yeah a book, that when Republicans are hypocrites, it hurts only themselves (some sort of personal failing like cheating on their wife) hmm... anyway, but when Democrats are hyprocrites, they hurt the entire country. Sounds about right. Oh, you want evidence? Well, you could read "Liberal Hypocrisy" but then you'd have to admit there is any of that to begin with. At any rate, I won't try to prove the point here, I'm just saying that everyone is hypocritical at some point, but in my opinion, the Democrats are worse in their hypocrisy. After all, this past election was truly an historic moment, electing an African-American as President. However, everybody continues to gush over this like it is the second-coming of Christ (it isn't) and it is very annoying. In fact, we elected a man who is a product of the notorious Chicago political machine, whose new chief of staff is a Chicago machine politician, who seems to be perfectly fine with Hamas, who has close ties to all kinds of questionable people, including terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (which he lied about) and the gangster Tony Rezko, who sends his kids to elite private schools, but doesn't believe in school choice and therefore thinks poor black kids should stay in bad schools that are controlled by the public school teachers unions, who helped to prevent reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while collecting more donations from them than any other member of Congress except Chris Dodd, who became a Christian? because of, became a member of, attended for 20 years, married his wife in, and sent his children to, a church that is racist and clearly hates Americans, was very wrong about the surge in Iraq, but lied about his wrongness afterword, and who ran an thuggish campaign with attempts to intimidate critics and stifle dissent. So, great that we've elected such a great man as this to be our next President. I'm also certain that Martin Luther King Jr. would be happy that we judged him on the content of his character.

When will the media realize we have Dan Quayle 2.0 as our next Vice President?

I lived in Maryland and Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area, for nearly half of my lifetime, so being in such proximity to Delaware, I got an earful of misstatements on the part of Joe Biden, our next Vice President. Therefore, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when Obama picked him to be his running mate. Although, interestingly, my parents seemed much more forgiving of Biden's inability to speak and actually thought it was a good pick. How can this be? Is this the same man we had fun listening to for 15 years? At any rate, the media seems to love him, not as much as Obama, but I digress. Why is this? Nonetheless, I am wondering how long it is going to take for the media to wake up to the fact that they've got Dan Quayle 2.0 as the new Vice President. I already highlighted some of Joe's crazy comments in another post, so I won't cover those, but I recently read a Fox News story, dated in October, that pointed out just how much of a pass the media was giving to Joe. Why am I having to quote a Fox News story on this one? Well, the story itself points at that nobody is bothering to do the research. In fact, I watched this debate and I immediately caught the discrepancy that is so prevalent in this story, and then I looked it up to be sure. Therefore, since this news article is correct about the Constitution, I'll give this writer some leeway on his veracity. So, what did Joe say during the Vice Presidential debate that is so outlandish? Here goes:

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."

Okay, so how is it that a man who has served in the U.S. Senate as long as Joe Biden has, has absolutely no idea what the role of the Vice President is. First of all, the office of the Vice President is defined in Article 1 of the Constitution (the legislative branch), not article 2 (the executive branch). Hmm... Interesting, that he'd say it is in the executive branch and described article 1 as being the executive branch. Apparently he hasn't read the Constitutuion. (Oh wait, he probably hasn't). Second, the Constitution clearly does define the role of the Vice President (in the legislative branch portion) as: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." What does it mean to be President of the Senate. Well, I guess for Biden that'll mean that he'll only show up if there is a danger of a tie vote, but for most Vice President's throughout our history, that meant that they were President of the Senate and that they presided over it, interpreted the rules of the body and enforced them and could only be overridden by a 60 vote count of the whole. That seems like a pretty involved (legislative) activity. Of course, he'll only get to vote in the event of a tie, but I don't think Joe will have to worry about that during his 4 years with the majority the Democrats enjoy in the Senate, so I ask, what will he do as Vice President. Nothing apparently considering his understanding of the job. In fact, who was right about the office of Vice President during the debate? That's right, Mrs. Palin. She said, "Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are" which is a bit awkward, but basically says the Vice President presides over that Senate and works with its members on behalf of the President. Sounds so very constitutional, I guess maybe she's actually read it. Nonetheless, this was the most egregious, but nowhere near the only faux pas by Mr. Biden during the debate that went virtually overlooked by the media. Here's a list of a few others:
1. Will McCain's health care proposals raise taxes? Biden says that McCain’s proposal will cost people money. However, the Tax Foundation found that could easily be "roughly deficit-neutral over ten years." which is ironically exactly what Palin said during the debate.

2. Under an Obama Administration the middle class will "pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan"? However, this statement assumes you decrease taxes from their existing levels, but Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, so the tax rates will be similar to the higher rates under Clinton.

3. "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country"? Oh my gosh. This statement is so outlandish that I heard it in the debate and thought, surely not, he must be mistaken. Well, one year’s worth of spending in Iraq equaled five in Afghanistan. So, either he was mistaken or he was lying or he just doesn't know. I know which one I think it is.

3. France and the U.S. "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? Okay, well now, this is a stupid statement on its face and really doesn't deserve comment, but for someone with "foreign policy experience" you'd think he'd know Hezbollah was of Syrian, not Lebanese origin, but nonetheless, the statement still doesn't make any sense.

4. Is it really “simply not true” that Obama said that he would meet with the leader of countries such as Iran without preconditions? No, in fact Obama said he would. He has tried to pussy foot around the issue talking about "preparation", but that is a nice way of saying he would meet with them around a square table but not a circular one and has nothing to do with preconditions of giving up nuclear aspirations or whatever the great issues are and so is an empty statement.

5. Obama warned against letting Hamas participate in Palestinian legislative elections in 2005? Uh, no, he didn't. Of course, if anyone can find a 2005 quote from before the election where he actually did, let me know and I'll change my stance on this one. Good luck in your futility, however.

6. “Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus”? You keep hearing this over and over. First of all, assuming oil prices had remained high, then they'd have had, maybe, a 50 billion dollar surplus by the end of this year. I don't know why nobody is calling this one out as the complete falsehood that it is. Oh wait, yes I do, because "oil companies" bad, "Democrats" good.

7. This one is amusing and was actually covered, a little. Biden tried to make himself out to be just one of the people and invited anyone to have a beer with him at "Katie's Restaurant" in Wilmington, Del. Unfortunately for him, that's gonna be difficult considering the restaurant hasn't been called that for about 15 years.

Now, of course then you can throw in the whole FDR getting on tv and talking to the people in 1929 thing when he wasn't even President and there wasn't any tv, but apparently that was marked up as an unintentional flub. Well, based on the above and on an earlier post of mine, it is a symptom of a man claiming intelligence who obviously is lacking in ability to use it. So, when will the media realize we have Dan Quayle 2.0? They probably already do, but they can't have him making their chosen son Obama look bad, so they'll probably rarely, if ever, point it out.

No wonder the auto industry is in trouble!

This article is supposed to be critical of Republicans and supportive of Democrats, at least the way I read it. Assuming that is true, then I really pray for the next four years, because what this article succeeds at showing is just how out of touch the Democrats and the auto industry really are on this issue. How can I say this? Well, I'll quote the article. According to CNNMoney.com, the Democratic leadership responded to the bailout plan with the following: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said over the weekend the House would aid the ailing industry, though she did not put a price on her plan. "The House is ready to do it," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There's no downside to trying."" We're gonna get it done (meaning billions more dollars to irresponsible companies) and there's no downside to trying, except maybe the socialist outcome or the plethora of companies waiting to see if the government will bail out the auto industry so they can beg for their piece of the taxpayer's pie. Now, that's the Democratic Congressional leaders. Here's what our next President said in regards to this issue: ""For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said in a "60 Minutes" interview airing Sunday night on CBS. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan - what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?"" Sustainable auto industry? How about a monopoly. Merge the three, get rid of some of the waste in management, actually build cars that people want to buy (SUVs that get 50 miles per gallon) and take advantage of the skilled labor you have. In addition, find someone who knows how to run a company and knows something about business (we'll come back to this). A sustainable auto industry in the U.S. does not include a bailout or "assistance" to people who have behaved greedily (the unions) and people who can't run a business (the CEOs).

At least the Democrats have politics to justify their positions. The company and the union are even worse. The union representative is quoted like this: "United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger would not flat-out reject further concessions by members on top of the two-tiered wage system and other concessions the union gave the automakers last year, but he bristled at calls for further sacrifices by his members.
"Let's go to AIG, Bear Stearns, active and retired workers: Did anybody go in and ask them to give back wages and benefit levels?" Gettelfinger said on WDIV-TV in Detroit. "What about the bond traders? Did anybody ask them? What about the cleaners in the building? Why would the UAW be any different?"
"We made an agreement, and we made major concessions," he said. "So how can you blame the autoworkers?""
How can I blame the autoworkers? Easy, years and years of unreasonable demands that have resulted in some of the best benefits in the corporate world as well as the highest salaries. The auto workers are highly skilled laborers, so I'm told, and they deserve to be paid well, but they make more in Detroit than I do in Jacksonville, FL and that is laughable. I blame the union because they just don't get that if they don't stop being greedy, and that's all it is, then they'll drive the companies they work for out of business, period. As for the people who supposedly know something about business, here's what they had to say: But GM CEO Rick Wagoner, also appearing on Detroit's WDIV, said: ""This idea that you just go into Chapter 11 and hang around for three months ... this is a fantasy. This is not going to work. Most important to what is going to happen is most people will stop buying the cars of a bankrupt company."" So, this shows that the CEO of GM has absolutely no concept of what happens to a bankrupt company. Chrysler managed to pull out of it back in the 80s and people continued to buy Chrysler cars. Many other companies have done quite well using Chapter 11, airlines etc. This guy is clueless that people who want to "buy American" will do so regardless of whether the company is in bankruptcy. A lot of people want to buy American cars. It is just that the American car maker hasn't made anything worth buying for a long time. If Congress bails them out, then this same stupidity will continue. If we let them fail, as they should, then they can go into bankruptcy, get rid of the management waste and scale back significantly the unreasonable demands of the union and then maybe they can start building products people actually want to buy. That's how you fix the American auto industry. The bailout fixes nothing and simply puts more companies sitting under the dinner table looking for scraps.

A letter to our new President, compliments of CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/iftikhar.obama/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Go to this story and read the letter. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't. I'm going to take the guys points and weigh them for bias and for efficacy, in my opinion. Of course, bias is all about opinion and this is a letter, so it will be biased. That's just the way it is.

Here goes, I've quoted the parts from the CNN editorial, my statements aren't quoted:
"First of all, as one of more than 66 million Americans of all races, religions and ethnicities who voted for you, your electoral victory was one of the proudest moments of our collective lives."

Really? It is true that it is a great moment in America for an African-American to be elected President. The historical moment is surely one to be marked and commemorated. But one of the proudest moments in 66 million people's collective lives? Really? Okay, maybe, but surely these people have had better things to do with their time and life than mark it by their pride in a single event, no matter how great.

"As our American political history witnessed the magnitude of our nation's first African-American president, our society was also able to collectively (and finally) exhale, knowing that the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would now read "Obama" instead of "Bush.""

Okay, don't know why there'd be an exhale. You really hated Bush that much? Certainly not one of our greatest Presidents, but really? At any rate, a smooth, peaceful transition of power is one of the things our Constitution has managed to give us. Only twice has it not been smooth and peaceful, interestingly enough, both events were because Democrats were unhappy (the Civil War and election of Lincoln and the 2000 election of Bush). So, get your exhale over with and let's start picking up the pieces from Bush and see which pieces Obama can knock over.

"With hardly a moment's rest, as you transition toward Inauguration Day, our nation (and the rest of the world) will not wait for long before seeking your leadership on many pressing global issues."

Actually, I could wait quite a while since I don't particularly care for socialist ideas and values, but whatever.

"From an economic recessionary mess to a perpetually broken health care system with 46 million American neighbors as uninsured casualties, your soon-to-be administration will face some monumental domestic and foreign policy issues that will affect us for generations."

Economic recessions and even depressions are part of life and just happen sometimes. This one was going to happen regardless of the housing bubble or the credit meltdown, those things just precipitated it. A class in economics may be necessary here? Nonetheless, you spout the rhetoric of 46 million uninsured Americans, which is tragic. However, you leave out the facts that 15 million of those people are uninsured by choice. They chose not to get insurance. So, you're going to forcibly tax them and forcibly provide them with insurance? How is that just. At any rate, that takes your number from 46 to 31. A much more realistic number. In addition, you fail to point out that our health care system is perpetually broken because of the very things the government has done in attempts to "fix" it. Forcing us all onto medicare and medicaid as senior citizens because you want us to get comprehensive coverage through our employers has killed the market for health insurance and basically made it nothing more than a price setting scheme, supported indirectly by the government. Less government is needed in health care, not a nationalized system, thank you very much.

"From an ill-conceived war in Iraq to an oft-forgotten war in Afghanistan, from global flashpoints from Tel Aviv to Islamabad, your diplomatic and political interaction with the Muslim world may decide the success (or failure) of your foreign policy legacy."

Agreed, Iraq was ill-conceived, although the changes in course in the last year and a half have actually made it possible for us to consider withdrawing and turning over the country to a stable government. Hmm... Obama would have had us out with an unstable haven for terrorists if he'd had his way. Of course, never going in would have been better, I think we can agree on that. The only people who "forget" about Afghanistan seem to be politicians and the media. Everyone I talk to knows about it, wants to know what's going on and most actually support this one. So, it isn't the people who are forgetting it. It is also interesting that you describe Tel Aviv as a flashpoint. Flashpoints are definitionally places where conflict can break out at any moment. That's not Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is a place were a terrorist act could take place at any moment, but that doesn't make it a flashpoint. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, or maybe you need to get your terminology correct. Either way, you're simply wrong here.

"Your unenviable task will be to undo the catastrophic policies of George W. Bush and his fellow neoconservative ideologues, facing the specter of al Qaeda's sinister terrorism while undertaking public diplomacy efforts addressing anti-Americanism around the world."

Okay, you'll have to be more specific on catastrophic. Iraq maybe. The Patriot Act maybe although you can't really blame him for that one. It was legislation drafted by Congress and passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress (twice) with significant yes votes from both parties. Yes, he signed it, but come on. Guantanamo, sure. Although, I do believe that one was dreamed up by the military and of course he allowed it. After that, I fail to see what you are talking about. Doing nothing as a President seems to be a pretty good idea to me. Of course, all that said, I support the idea "the buck stops here" so whatever happens under a President's watch is his responsibility, which isn't the same thing as that person be responsible. As for "neoconservative idealogues"? Well, that's a clear bias on your part. Whether they are or not, you've now labeled them. How often do we hear about how people don't like it when they are labeled, whether fairly or unfairly, so go practice what you (Democrats) preach rather than using obvious name calling.

"Similarly, since the tragedy of September 11, the global Muslim community has continued its own daunting task of undoing catastrophic damage caused by Osama bin Laden and his creepy terrorist cronies."

Good! I'm all for that! Keep it up. It appears to me that you're losing this one, but I'm all for fighting the good fight.

"From global debates on religious extremism broadcast on BBC World Television to global interfaith outreach with the Vatican, we Muslims are in the midst of our own internal dialogue condemning terrorism and reclaiming the mantle of Islam from the rusted claws of dinosaur extremists."

Again, good, I'm all for this.

"Again, let it be known to the world that Barack Obama is not (and has never been) a Muslim. Sadly, your presidential position vis-à-vis the Muslim world is still unenviable because some Republican adversaries sinisterly tried to paint you as a "crypto-Muslim" during the presidential election, although Sen. John McCain did not join in these absurd accusations."

I don't know what a "crypto-Muslim" is. Perhaps someone hiding the fact that they are Muslim? At any rate, there is no evidence to ever suggest Obama was Muslim. Only evidence to say he lived in a Muslim country and went, albeit temporarily, to a Muslim school. Doesn't make him Muslim, I'll grant you. However, where you grow up, what schools you go to, all these things contribute directly to a person's beliefs and morals, or even to their rejection of those beliefs and morals. So, while I agree he isn't Muslim, perhaps he is uniquely qualified to identify with Muslims? Oh, and I didn't know that Republicans and Democrats were supposed to be adversaries. That sounds like the divisive talk Democrats are supposed to be against and which you yourself have claimed to reject. Not to mention the use of the word sinisterly which evokes only a negative image and therefore is a clear expression of bias, and maybe even dislike or worse, on your part.

"However, in one fell political swoop, former Secretary of State Colin Powell bravely challenged the xenophobic undertones of his own Republican Party on "Meet the Press" by highlighting the ultimate sacrifice of a Muslim-American soldier who died in Iraq for the United States."

I like and admire Colin Powell and he was right to point out that there are many patriotic Muslims. But again, Republicans aren't xenophobic. At least no moreso than Democrats. You think Democrats support amnesty because they like Mexicans? No, they support it because they think they can get a bunch of new democrat leaning voters out of the deal. It is all politics, not xenophobia and certainly not compassion on the part of the Democrats.

"Regarding Iraq, it is important for your administration to keep its promise of removing our troops in a "responsible and phased" manner. Furthermore, we need to press Iraq's elected leaders (Sunni, Shiite and Kurds) to take responsibility for their own democratic future by spending their $79 billion surplus of oil revenues on their own civil reconstruction."

Agreed! Interestingly enough, you'd also be in agreement with a majority of Republicans, including the President, with the concept of a responsible and phased pull out. Nobody, even John McCain, truly wanted to see U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely and to suggest they did was pure falsehood. Obama wasn't really for this, by the way. He wanted the troops out regardless of responsibility. At least until he got the nomination and realized people wouldn't support him for saying so in the general election, but take a look at his votes and at his positions during the primaries.

"Additionally, if any sort of prolonged military security presence is necessary, the League of Arab States should take an increased role and be recruited to provide some services in exchange for increased foreign aid development in education and health-care arenas for their impoverished people."

Yeah, that's wise, let's put Iran and Saudi Arabia, along with Jordan and Syria in charge of security in Iraq! That's just short sighted and naive.

"On Afghanistan/Pakistan, your administration must help re-launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to attain stability in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (more commonly referred to as "Waziristan")."

Okay, you could be right here. Things did deteriorate some in Afghanistan and we should try to refocus our efforts there.

"This is especially daunting because President Bush decided to support a tin-pot dictator named Gen. Pervez Musharraf for more than seven years. Thus, Bush's acceptance of a soft dictatorship in Pakistan has increased anti-American sentiment in the region."

As opposed to allowing someone like Bin Laden to take over? Maybe we should have faith in the Pakistani people to choose their leaders. They actually did a pretty good job, once Musharraf was ousted, but do you really think they'd have acted and voted the same way 8 years earlier? Maybe, it is one of those areas where people can agree to disagree since there is no evidence really to support either argument.

"In light of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the September 2008 bombing of the Islamabad Marriott; for anyone to expect Musharraf to deliver on his democratic promises was like waiting for a Hershey's chocolate bar to belt out a Shakespearean sonnet."

I like this statement, although, was Musharraf really ousted or did they actually have an election in Pakistan, I forget. Wait, no I didn't, they had an election after Musharraf agreed to step down. I wonder how that happened, U.S. pressure perhaps?

"On the subject of al Qaeda, according to a recent CNN report about a secret summit in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Taliban leaders met under the auspices of the Saudi king with Afghan government officials to end the bloody conflict in Afghanistan."

Yes, a secret summit between the Taliban and Saudi kings along with the Afghan government. There's an event I'd place my trust in.

"Sources close to the historic discussions said the Taliban representatives said it was no longer allied to al Qaeda. This sends a resounding message that even Taliban members in the bubbling cauldron of Osama are now rejecting his ungodly principles as being un-Islamic and beyond the pale of human civilization."

Really? You are more naive than I first thought. This was nothing more than a political leverage stunt. Do you not read political books? The Taliban clearly wants to have a place at the table in the new Afghanistan since they know they can't control it anymore, so they make wonderful claims about being against al Qaeda, etc. This is a ploy, plain and simple, and even obvious, not a "resounding message".

"On our domestic front, we must immediately close Guantanamo Bay, implement a universal health insurance system, stop racial profiling/domestic spying, improve No Child Left Behind and overturn every unconstitutional provision of the (in)famous Patriot Act."

Agreed on Guantanomo, it is a stain on the country. It would have been better to have a prison somewhere in Iraq where the people fighting U.S. troops could be placed as enemy combatants. Oh wait, that didn't work out so well with Abu Ghraib, another stain on us. Hmm... a third party country? Maybe we should have shipped them to Saudi and let them interrogate them. Hmm? At any rate, they aren't U.S. citizens and therefore aren't entitled to protection under the Constitution. They are protected by the rules of war under the Geneva Convention. As for a universal health insurance system, I think my opinion was clear above, but just in case it wasn't, NO WAY! In regards to racial profiling/domestic spying, well, the whole domestic spying thing was blown way out of proportion, and by the way, was approved by the Democratic leaders of Congress regardless of what they'd like to claim. Racial profiling should be stopped huh? So, if I'm a cop and I see a guy walking quickly down the street with a gun in his hand and another guy meandering with what looks to be a bag of groceries, who do you think I'm gonna go stop and question. Does it make it right, especially if the guy with the gun is actually doing nothing wrong? Right? Perhaps not, but logical? Yes. Racial profiling should be limited, yes, but to outlaw it would do nothing. Except perhaps put people in danger. As for No Child Left Behind, if my child is anymore "not" left behind, I think I'll be writing my Congressman to have him vote against the legislation, Geez, you must not have children. Finally, you talk about the Patriot Act, but seem to forget that many of the most egregious constitutional questions were addressed when the legislation was voted on at its previous time of expiration. Oh, by the way, you really think a Democratic President would be willing to give up the power it affords him? As you can see, I agree with you on this one, the act should not be renewed and should probably be repealed. But, yeah right, that's gonna happen.

"As proud members of Generation Obama, more than 66 million Americans (and billions more worldwide) wish you Godspeed in your administration, and we will channel our collective "audacity of hope" and pray that your presidency will be a radiant silver lining within our collectively war-ridden, globally warmed and craven dark sky."

I will also be praying for Obama, and there are 300 million Americans who I hope wish him Godspeed, not 66 (again with your anti-whoever isn't an Obama voter rhetoric). As for "hope", I don't place my hope in people and as a good Muslim, neither should you. Hope is from God and God alone. Placing hope in people or governments or the like sets you up for one thing and one thing only. Disappointment. I won't even comment on "collectively war-ridden, globally warmed and craven dark sky" except to say you obviously buy into political rhetoric with that statement rather than bothering to do any research yourself.

"P.S. Please send Bill Clinton as chief diplomatic envoy for the Israelis and Palestinians; plus, tell him not to come back until he has a signed peace accord from both begrudging sides. He is probably the best qualified individual in America to serve as an honorable Middle East peace broker who will be respected by all sides because of his legacy at the Oslo Accords."

While I agree that he would be considered an honorable Middle East peace broker by both sides, God help us if this were to happen.

Who's he kidding?

Lavar Arrington has GOT to be kidding. He called Joe Gibbs a coward? It is fine to criticize his coaching, say you disagreed with how you were used, that you felt you weren't given enough chance to contribute, all sorts of things to criticize his coaching. Even though he is a Hall of Fame coach and Arrington will be lucky to visit the Hall of Fame, one can always find something to be critical about. So, criticize his coaching, but don't question his integrity or personality by calling him a coward. Joe Gibbs is a man who has always cared about his players, cared about his family and cared about Jesus. He is a man of strong integrity who is full of joy, even in the worst circumstances. Joe Gibbs always blamed himself for the failures of his team and rarely took credit for their successes. These are not the attributes of a coward and Arrington perhaps needs to be reminded of that. Don't get me wrong, Gibbs isn't perfect and shouldn't be placed on a pedestal, but he doesn't deserve the trash Arrington is shoveling. He is however, a great coach. Complain all you like about his up and down road his second time around, but he did lead the Redskins to two playoffs out of those four years, which is more playoffs than the Redskins had seen in all the previous years combined since his departure. That's impressive. He also left the basic structure intact for the new coach to build on. Now, the Redskins seem to be enjoying a successful season yet again. I credit the new coach and the players, but I also give some of that credit to Gibbs who develops his team around character and there is plenty of character on this Redskins team, including the new coach. So, Arrington is not only wrong, but apparently nothing more than an angry ex employee. That's very unfortunate.

What would our founders think?

So, based on my understanding of the writings and saying of our founders, here's a little bit from my perspective on what our founding fathers would think of this country today:

Benjamin Franklin - You've turned us into Britain, how could you?! Even worse, you endanger your own freedoms with the path you've chosen. So be it, you don't deserve them anyway.

Alexander Hamilton - What are you thinking! A national debt and it's three times your annual income?

George Washington - I'm very disappointed in the reliance you place in your political associations and especially in the power you've given them.

Thomas Jefferson - While I'm impressed with the growth of freedom across the country, you are very much in danger of having it all topple down.

I'm sure I can come up with more, but these are just intended to get people to think. Think about what our founders said and what they meant when they said it and think about what that means for our country today, if you think it means anything. All comments welcome on this one :)

Monks fighting! What has the world come to.

I saw, in USAToday, that a bunch of monks got all upset at each other and started fighting inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is the traditional location of the tomb of Jesus Christ. In fact, when I heard what the fight was over, I was horribly offended that these monks would fight over something so petty and even worse would allow their feelings to spill over into fisticuffs thus allowing the entire world to witness their lack of grace. If this is the normal behavior for these guys, then it wouldn't be any wonder that there seems to be a lack of respect for Christians in that part of the world. With that in mind, I decided to look into it a bit further. It turns out that this dispute is nothing new. In fact, it apparently goes back to at least the 12th century when a Muslim family was given the keys to the church because none of the six sects who live in it trusted each other with them. That's right, how childish. So, who are the six sects? The six sects have been managing the church vigilantly since an agreement with the Ottoman Empire in 1757. They are: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox and Ethiopian. Apparently, these groups have fought, literally, over everything from who lives where, who controls what parts of the building and who has authority to decide things. This has gotten way out of hand. Sometime in the 19th century, someone put a ladder above the entrance to the church. A fight broke out over who put it there and why and who had the authority to remove it. Really?! Just take it down already. It is still there today, just so you know. For another story on some of the craziness that's been going on, see this story. All of this aside, the church is need of major repair. Apparently, it is in danger of actually collapsing. So, what's being done about it? As you can imagine, NOTHING! Why?! Because they can't get along long enough to decide what should be done, when it should be done, how it should be done, by whom it should be done, etc. This is an unworkable situation. I submit also, that these monks are anything but Christian. The Bible says "you will know them by their fruit". Well, these guys fruits have resulted in an inability to get along, hatred, fighting, and the severe deterioration of one of Christendom's most holy sites (whether or not it should be is a different story for a different day). I don't really know what the fights are about, but I suspect it all comes back to one of two things. The site is visited by a ton of people every year and so I'd bet there is money to be made (what happened to that vow of poverty). In addition, this is supposed to be one of the most sacred places for Christians so it seems there's some territorialism going on. Either way, the actions of the monks reveal one thing about this site. Regardless of its significance or importance, it has become nothing more to them than an idol. Their acts and attitudes prove they aren't Christian because this is nothing more than idolatry, plain and simple, whether it is over money or over its being the burial site of Jesus. Well, I have news for these guys. Jesus is risen, He is risen indeed! Who cares that it is the burial site of Jesus, it is just an empty cave. Jesus isn't there and hasn't been in 2000 years or so. In closing, the place is falling down around them, so the biblical truth that a "house divided cannot stand" is certainly true here. For no other reason than that these guys hate each other with a passion, this church may not even be standing for much longer. Then what will there be for them to fight over.

Does equality = freedom?

I've been thinking a LOT about this lately. In fact, I can't seem to get it out of my head. It seems that I can explain to myself, quite suddenly actually, all the disconnects I've noticed in U.S. politics in the last several years (my voting lifetime). In fact, by simply beginning with the thought, does equality equal freedom, I ended up at a very interesting place.

After all, does the U.S. constitution ever guarantee a right to equality or even mention the word equality? Not in the way we think about it. However, Amendment 14 guarantees equal protection under the law, so a sense that the laws of the country should not discriminate. That's great, but it isn't what we really think of when we think of equality. After all, current discussion of equality is that we should all have the same opportunities as everyone else.  Isn't it?  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". Do these two philosophies match?  We have redefined what Jefferson was saying by claiming that since, we are all created equal that we are all equal and so, we, as a nation, should strive to achieve that equality in our social structure. But, I have to ask, is that really what Thomas Jefferson meant? In addition, is it really the reality of the evidence we see around us? Then it hit me.

We, in this country, have confused equality with freedom. We act as if they are one in the same. They are not. Freedom, or liberty, is the ability to make choices. It is being "free" to choose how things happen in your life, to make the best or worst of the opportunities presented to you, if you will. Equality is ensuring that all of us have the same opportunities. Now, one can argue that we are all created equal in the sense that we are all born equal (although I believe people with congenital disabilities might disagree with portions or that argument). However, after our birth, the circumstances of our birth require immediate choices by many people and eventually choices by us that affect everything else that happens in our lives. So, I come back to my question of whether or not equality is what is observed. Of course it isn't. Liberty actually precludes equality. What do you mean you ask?

Well, assume I was born on the same day, in the same hospital to similar parents and in a similar socioeconomic level as Bill Gates. One could argue we were created equal. One could even argue we should have had similar or the same "opportunities" growing up.  We aren't equal though. He is a multi-billionaire. I am a very happy father of two currently trying to figure out how to survive in this economy. He had a superior idea that separated us at some point from any possibility of being equal. Again, suppose I was born to similar parents, in the same hospital and on the same day as olympic champion Michael Phelps. All things being equal, he simply has an athletic gift that I lack. So, in both of these cases, do I have a "right" to insist that I be given billions of dollars or even that I be allowed to compete in the olympics? No, of course not, they have something superior to me. That doesn't make them better human beings or even mean their opinion holds more weight than mine and it doesn't mean that the law should somehow treat them better, because it shouldn't, but the reality is that I am not equal to them in a way that sets us apart.

So, how does the argument work when things are not equal. Is inequality in our society about race, sex, class, money, what? Or is it simply an attempt to give people something they don't deserve, under the mistaken impression that due to some uncontrollable circumstance, they weren't given the same opportunities as someone else. If you have two poor persons experiencing similar problems and all things are equal in regards to race, sex, etc., and they both have similar choices, what happens. Well, if one makes better choices than the other, that one does better than the other. Therefore, they are no longer "equal". So, does the other one have the right to insist that they be given what the other one got? Of course not. They made bad use of their opportunities and the other one made better use of theirs. If we, as a society, chose to say that the one who is worst off in the end somehow "deserves" something because he made bad choices, then we are actually punishing the successful one who made good choices. However, when you apply this argument to someone who is poor and someone who is rich, there is no chance that the opportunities would possibly be anywhere near equal. But, the argument remains. Does a lack of opportunity somehow justify punishing the rich man and lifting up the poor man? This is actually what our tax system does, but I digress.

Forget money for a minute and come back to people who have a congenital disability of some sort. We can conclude that they have a legitimate reason to request accommodation since they are clearly not "created" equal. This is pretty much the only exception I can conceive of. However, does this mean giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have? No, I think not. What it means is that society should make every effort to allow them to maximize their opportunities. After all, someone in a wheelchair isn't going to be moving boxes around a warehouse unless they're doing so in a lift, but if that warehouse has been constructed to provide access to the disabled, then that wheelchair bound person can work there, perhaps even manage the operation. This is what the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to do. So, the law can make sure it is non discriminatory and it can make obvious accommodation in order to maximize opportunity. Don't get me wrong on this though, maximizing opportunity is not the same thing as providing opportunities a person might otherwise not have.

This is the essence of what Democrats claim to be for. They think it is wrong that someone might not have the same opportunities as someone else. Supposedly, Republicans generally think that people should be responsible for themselves and do the best they can with whatever hand they're dealt. Therefore, Democrats can accuse Republicans of being racist, even though the vast majority of them aren't while all the while many of them are racist themselves. This is the dirty little secret that gave me an aha moment. By saying you want to improve someones lot in life by giving them opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have, you get them to vote for you. If you say that you think that same person should do the best they can with the opportunities they were given, you are racist or sexist or whatever term is most appropriate. This means you can be accused of something you probably aren't while your opponent goes unchecked and perhaps is even, in reality, what they are accusing you of being. This has become a very common political tactic. After all, it works. Whatever party is in power during a crisis gets all the blame and whoever is in power during a great time gets all the credit, whether they deserve blame or credit or not. Again I digress. The fact is that equality of individuals is a myth. It simply isn't attainable.

Don't believe me? Ask your favorite sports star or your favorite actor/actress if you could be them. The answer is no, you can't. You can aspire to be whatever you want to be, but the choices you make plus your own physical and mental gifts dictate who you actually are. I wanted to be a baseball player when I was a kid and I did whatever I could to learn the game. I'm not a baseball player however. That's not because I don't love the game, I do. It is simply because I can't play it very well. Therefore, I can aspire to be the best baseball player I can be, but I'll never be a professional ball player. My point is that we have somehow decided that "equality" is so important that we are willing to give up our liberties to achieve it when in fact, we should rely on our liberties to ensure that we can achieve at our best, whatever that may be. Because, if you allow the government to create opportunities for you that you wouldn't have otherwise, then they had to take that opportunity away from someone else. That's how it works. You can't really get around it.

So, ask yourself this question. Are you confusing equality with liberty? They aren't the same thing at all as I hope I've demonstrated above. In fact, liberty actually tends to support an unequal society based on the individuals ability to achieve whereas equality supports an equal society based on ensuring equal opportunity for all, but results in government tyranny. After all, the Soviets didn't call each other comrade for the fun of it. It was an intentionally designed method of creating "equality" of the people. Think about it.

The new majority!

So, as of this morning, the Democrats have won the Presidency. They have 251 seats in the House with 11 undecided. That means that even if the Democrats were to lose all 11 undecided seats (which seems unlikely) they'd be only 36 seats away from a 2/3 majority in the House. That, of course, gives them the veto override power, which I suppose is irrelevant since they'll be unlikely to use it against their own President. Oh wait, not so irrelevant since a 2/3 majority in the House could pass a constitutional amendment. In addition, they'll have 56 seats, with 4 undecided in the Senate. While those 4 undecided seats seem to be leaning towards the Republicans, 56 seats, plus Lieberman who usually caucuses with the Democrats plus the one other independent (a socialist, how ironic) in the Senate who also caucuses with the Democrats means they'll be only 2 seats away from a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. That means they are only 8 seats away from a 2/3 majority which could also pass constitutional amendments. This means what? It means that the "work of the people" will get done in Washington for a "change". At least that is what is assumed by "the people". I submit it will get done. It also means that if "we the people" continue down the path we've chosen, the constitution could be irrevocably damaged. So, I submit that by the time the next election comes around, people in this country will no longer be so gung ho on their new President. Of course, if I'm wrong and we give him an even bigger majority in 2010, then with that kind of majority in Congress, it may be too late to "change" come 2012. So, Hail to the Chief and all that and welcome one and all to the Europeanization of America.

Liberty?

As I expected, things definitely appear to be going Obama's way as of 9:00 Eastern Standard Time. Therefore, it seems increasingly likely that there will be a Democratic President with a strong majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate. They'll have the Executive and the Legislative branches, while "conservatives" have a very tenuous hold on the Supreme Court. So, it is the job of Republicans, politically speaking, to point out every single thing that goes wrong in the next 2 years and further because they can't be blamed for any of it. After all, with such control over the government, the Democrats will have to accept all of the credit as well as all of the blame. They'll have nobody else to blame. So, again, I'll say be careful what you wish for because you just might get it and it seems that the Democrats have gotten everything they could have hoped for. That's bad for the country in my opinion, but it is also bad for the Democratic party. After all, this election was not about change for either candidate and it wasn't about hope. It was about one thing and one thing only. CONTROL! That's it. The Democrats were hoping to get the control they desperately wanted in order to "fix" things and the Republicans were hoping to keep control of at least a portion of the government in order to prevent one party rule. Well, the Democrats got control and while I think they'll do exactly what they say they will and lead us all down the primrose path of socialism all the while telling us it is "for the best", I'm sure they think they'll "fix" things. Here me now. The government is incapable of "fixing" anything. They will either make it worse, make you dependent on it or completely mess up something that was actually working before. There are no other options. So, while I firmly believe the Democrats have become increasingly socialist and are no longer worthy of the title democrat, after all they are increasingly against liberty and rights like freedom of speech (political correctness anyone), freedom of association (against exclusive memberships in clubs and fraternal organizations), right to bear arms (obvious), property rights (for "eminent domain" laws and homeowner's associations and regulations that take away your rights to decide what to do with property you own and placing those decisions into the hands of the government), etc. instead favoring supposed, but not constitutionally established rights such as "right to universal health care", "right to unlimited abortions", "right to be obscene on public airwaves (there is a difference between a freedom of speech right and obscenity in the public square since one's rights only extend to where they interfere with another's and my right to not have my children exposed to profanity and other obscenities on the "public" airwaves is violated by someone's "right" to air it)", etc. So, Democrats all the while claim to be for "equality". This would be admirable assuming equality were the highest moral value in politics. Some may believe it is, but which provides more equality then? Allowing someone to make the best of their choices and doing the best they can or taking from one person and giving to another in order to "establish" equality? As I see it, today's Democrats have betrayed Martin Luther King Jr. because equality to them has left behind liberty. What do I mean? Well, equality seems to mean to Democrats that "we must take away from one to give to another" whether it be money, property, standard of living, quotas, etc. Through this conceptualization, they have in fact eliminated freedom. The kind of equality they are for means there is no liberty because "equality" as they see it can only be enforced by government control. Real freedom of speech requires me to allow someone to stand up and shout an opinion at the top of their lungs and with all their might that I would adamantly disagree with while at the same time, that person, allowing me to do the same. Political correctness doesn't do this. In fact, it has begun to run rampant and does actually the opposite because, God forbid, we say certain things where anyone could actually hear us! Liberty is the primary moral value in politics because it is only through liberty that equality can truly exist. Everyone is born equal and has the chance to make the best of whatever opportunities are provided them and it is that which makes someone equal, not the government saying a person is equal regardless of their own effort. That is in fact tyranny (as evidence by political correctness, but I will come up with more examples if someone comments and insists). Nonetheless, I digress, because now the Democrats will have control of the government. The government isn't meant to have this much power and control and our founding fathers, who both political parties like to quote so much, would be appalled at our direction in this country. After all, they wanted to throw off the shackles of an oppressive and overly bloated government and bureaucracy in order to control their own destiny. While I understand the appeal Obama has had for many, I'll withhold judgment, but I would like to ask you four years from now if you think you have any control over your own destiny or if the government now controls it for you. I suspect I know what the answer will be. We are now electing someone who has promised to expand government, expand government control, expand government power. All of this means only one thing to you, the average citizen. Less control of your own life. Period. End of discussion.

It's election day!

Well, today is the day. Finally... after 2 long, overly pompous years of political wrangling, we are at the day of decision. It is obvious history is going to be made. Either a black man will become President or a woman will become Vice President. The polls seem to support the Democratic candidate over the Republican one. Assuming that bears out to be correct, that is probably more a reflection of anger and disdain for Bush than it is for Republicans in general, so I suggest the Democrats not sit on their laurels. In addition, I assume that a Democratic President who is ultra left in the ideas who also has a Democratic Senate and House will not govern from the middle (as so many seem to think he will) but will instead govern from the left. This of course is what I've been saying all along, but I've been largely ignored, so don't be surprised by my next statement. A leftist President with no check from the Congress will do exactly what they want regardless of the Supreme Court. Which means, we will kill private investment due to tax increases, kill small business due to tax increases, hamper big businesses ability to recover from this bad economy due to tax increases, all in the name of giving money back to the middle class and the poor. Oh, by the way, the left wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which means nothing less than a tax increase for the middle class (and a significant one). So, maybe the poor will get a tax reduction, but it seems to me that disenfranchisement with a person (Bush) has led us to the brink of the end in regards to personal freedom because governing from the left will serve only to enhance government control of our lives rather than enhance our own control of our lives, which by definition means less freedom and more tyranny. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.