Black Liberation: Final Thoughts

I read most of James Cohn's book A Black Theology of Liberation. I say most of his book because the chapter headings changed, but the content started to repeat, so I didn't finish it. After reading about two-thirds, it became clear that the basic tenets of thought had been expressed. It has provided insight into why some in this community feel the way they do.

With out editorial of any kind, here are some of the basic principles:

• Liberation of blacks is God's work. It's not that His work is harmonious with, or consistent with black liberation--it is black liberation.
• God is black. (see above...)
• Overcoming oppression is justified by any means as it is God's work.
• Sin has not led to oppression; however, not doing your part to abolish oppression is sin.
• God is not the God of all--He is the God of the oppressed (blacks). If He is the God of all, He is a God of racism. Black liberationists cannot accept a God who allows the oppression of blacks, therefore He is not the God of all.
• America is a racist country. Its very foundation is racist. The founding fathers were racists--they are not revered or held in high regard. They are viewed as oppressors who founded an oppressive country. As such, the national structure should be challenged and changed.
• Liberation is the essence of divine activity. God's liberating of the oppressed is viewed as revelation. In other words, He makes himself known through his activities--liberating blacks.
• Blacks should never be told to accept their circumstances. They should never feel they should bear their afflictions with patience and long suffering. To the black liberationist, this breeds complacency. The docile black person is not doing his part to liberate the oppressed. There is no thought that challenges and trials are for our growth and perfection. They should be met with vigorous resistance, even violence if need be.

So, what do you think? Any thoughts on recent comments heard during the election in light of this theology? After all, it was preached to the Obamas by Rev. Wright for 20 yrs. What about Obama's comments about the restrictions of the constitution? What about Michelle Obama's comment that she'd never been proud of her country? It's no wonder change was the word of the year. I'm beginning to wonder what kind of change is really on the horizon...

*By the way, the picture is of Charles Barkley. It was taken for a Sports Illustrated cover years ago. Barkley discusses his feelings on race and breaking free from convention. He's a very candid, interesting, and conservative guy. Believe it or not.

Prop 8

Proposition 8 has not captured my attention. I was quite pleased to see that it passed and very grateful for all those who sacrificed their time and resources, but that was pretty much the extent of it.

Fighting against gay marriage is starting to feel like the war on drugs. Most of the people I know and associate with feel they are both wrong (drugs and gay marriage, that is...), but the energy to "fight the good fight" seems to be waning. How many states have confronted the issue now? How many more are on the horizon? How long will it be before the courts find a way to overturn what voters have already decided?

Frankly, those who lose interest in the church because of our position on gay marriage make me wonder how interested they really were anyway. There will always be something.

I read this article written by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review Online. He comments on the lack of outrage in the face of quite conspicuous attacks on the church due to their support of Prop 8. He makes this very insightful comment: "...it’s just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience." What a thought--we're the most vulnerable of the conservative churches. Does anyone think this isn't true? Aside from the really out-there, wacky churches, what other organization would this apply to? It does seem that all other conservative denominations are quite happy to put aside their differences in order to bash the Mormon Church, does it not? Are we not, therefore, culturally vulnerable? It's an interesting commentary. The article is worth the read.

I have a coworker in another office who is gay. He's a totally nice, entertaining, and down-to-earth guy. He tells me that he doesn't care about gay marriage; all he wants is to be able to get information from the hospital when he's informed his partner had a heart attack and has been admitted to the emergency room. He's not family so he isn't privy to his partner's condition--he doesn't even know if he's dead or alive. How much sense does that make? Not much, in my opinion.

I support the sanctity of marriage one hundred percent. When the day comes that my state faces this issue, I will do my part in lifting the banner in support of marriage between a man and a woman. Realistically though, it's beginning to feel like it's all part of the decline of our country and the world in general and that it's bound to happen. It's a good thing there is always the vigor and zeal of the next generation because I'm feeling ambivalent towards many issues lately. We just have to raise our children to carry the right banner, I suppose.

This whole issue just seems like such a trendy boondoggle to me. What a waste of time. Aren't there still starving people in the world? Oppressed and enslaved nations? What about temperatures on the rise? OK, maybe another boondoggle there. The things people obsess over...

Love Note

I have long wanted to post about judgmental, closed minded folks--especially those found on the extreme right of the conservative party... Yes, I'm talking about evangelicals. I realize that I risk being accused of generalizing and stereotyping and am willing to accept that criticism in advance.

This should be a highly forgiving and accepting people. A group willing to accept all for who they are, in spite of what they do wrong (in the opinion of those doing the judging). A group willing and anxious to restrain themselves from judging those who choose to sin differently than do they. Unfortunately, all too often this is not the case. This gives people of faith consistent with conservative values a bad name.

My case in point:

Without going into much detail, I received this personal note in the mail today along with official work correspondence. It relates to an individual I recently spoke with regarding an incident occurring two years ago. This person's mini-van was rear ended at a very low speed. The damage to the rear plastic bumper cover is so minor that you can't see it in the photos. Let me repeat--you can't see the damage in the photos. And yes, it was inspected, and no, there was not hidden damage. The driver claimed a cracked tooth (no other injuries) requiring a cap--8 months after the accident. My job is to ask for help understanding how such an unexpected thing resulted from this impact. I was given no explanation. I then found myself on the receiving end of the most ridiculous, irrational, incomprehensive, illogical, emotional chastisement/rant I've heard in years. Considering this type of thing happens on a fairly regular basis (to varying degrees) I didn't think much of it. A couple of mutual laughs among friends, and moving on to the next one. Then I get this in the mail (redacted for privacy):

It speaks to the presumptuous nature of the folks I'm discussing. Not only is it completely unfounded, it's also highly judgmental and presumptuous. While I feel the values shared by many conservatives are beneficial to our society, the implementation on a personal level leaves much to be desired in many instances.

I know, it's a judgmental thing to say.

P.S. Don't you just love the hearts? What a nice touch!

P.S.S. The same closed-minded, judgmental types are also found on the far left as well--they wear open-toed sandals all year, don't cut their hair or use deodorant, and talk about stuff like global warming all the time. How's that for judgmental?

LET THE SEASON BEGIN!!!

'Tis the Season!

Found at mdewtree.com

Sunday Morning

"Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America".

Much has been said of Obama and Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. He was a member of this church for 20 years--its pastor married him, baptized his children, and played a key role in his conversion to Christianity. This is a significant accomplishment considering that he was raised at least in part by a mother who was skeptical of organized religion and imparted no particular religious belief to her son. The church obviously played a large part in helping Obama come to terms with himself, his beliefs, and his ideals. This being the case, the teachings of the church are worth checking out.

The church advertises a 10 point vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

The focus of today is liberation--specifically Black Liberation Theology as taught by James H. Cone.

This theology asserts that Christian theology is a theology of liberation. It frames God's actions in the context of the oppressed--specifically their plight for liberation and claims that liberation is not just consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. It expounds upon the peoples of the Old and New Testaments and revises the telling of their histories with an understanding of this liberation. It glorifies the oppressed. It asserts that God's work is to liberate the oppressed--blacks in this case, but it could be American Indians, Jews, the poor, etc. It does not acknowledge the belief that God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. It blames whites for the modern day oppression of blacks. It vilifies whites for all that is wrong in the world.

Black liberation theology is not so much a religion unto itself as much as it is an understanding of, or reading of Christianity. (This doesn't quite capture the essence, but go with me for a moment...) Like one might perform a deconstructionist reading of the Constitution, a Christian might understand Christianity in the context of liberation, or black liberation. Theology has been described as a reasoned discourse on religion or spirituality. Theologians might use various forms of analysis and argument to help understand, explain, or defend any religious topic. In this case, Christianity is understood or explained from a black liberation point of view. It reminds the student of "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture". Granting the benefit of doubt, it must be assumed that the theologian truly believes that which is defended or asserted. Likely, this comes from a deep and earnest desire to juxtapose that which is personally unacceptable, with that which is known or feared to be true. In the end, a kind and loving God is sought for. It is unfathomable that a caring, loving God would allow the suffering of such a group, therefore, a God who seeks for their liberation is philosophically created in order to put an end to the mental turmoil the alternative presents. In so doing, a God who favors one group over another is created, thus presenting the same void of love and concern for the formerly favored majority. Some how, a God who loves all equally cannot be accepted as this would require the acceptance of suffering and oppression.

This philosophy is rooted in James Cohn's book, so its examination is seemingly in order. Here are some direct quotes:

"We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity, or life with humiliation, we choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us." (pg 42)

"Black theology rejects the tendency of classical Christianity to appeal to divine providence. To suggest that black suffering is consistent with the knowledge and will of God and that in the end everything will happen for the good of those who love God is unacceptable to black people. The eschatological promise of heaven is insufficient to account for the earthly pain of black suffering. We cannot accept a God who inflicts or tolerates black suffering for some inscrutable purpose." (pg 44)

"White theologians, not having felt the sting of oppression will find it most difficult to criticize this nation for the condemnation of America means the condemnation of self. The true black thinker is in a different position. He cannot be black and be identified with the powers that be. To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores." (pg 49)

"The black experience is the feeling one has when he strikes against the enemy of black humanity by throwing a live molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that there is more to getting rid of evil than burning buildings, but one must start somewhere." (pg 56)

to be continued...

Politics and Crowds

Crowds don't impress me. In fact, I'll leave a good sporting event early just to avoid the aftermath in the parking lot. I also have a great respect for personal space, so the thought of rubbing up against a bunch of smelly strangers as a sacrifice for just about anything--no matter how desirable--isn't worth it. As such, the media reports of Obama's huge crowds weren't particularly interesting or impressive to me. That is until I read this article: Obama and the Politics of Crowds by Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins*. It is fascinating--maybe even more so now that the election is over. The author draws a comparison between the huge crowds of "worshippers" drawn to see and hear politicians/leaders in third world countries, especially in the middle east, whom they view as their saviors--men who they believe will set the world right. It's all based on emotion. They think this charismatic, strong leader will deliver them from whatever injustice or malady with which they are burdened at the moment.

This isn't a common thing in American politics, according to Ajami. It is, however, very common elsewhere in the world and there are lessons to be learned which he very clearly explains.

I won't summarize the whole article since it's short and clearly done to begin with, but one thing in particular strikes me which I will comment on. This is the notion that Obama is a blank slate, upon which people of all different walks of life can project their own beliefs, desires, and hopes. Obama himself discussed this in his own memoirs and Ajami again makes this reference here. The fact that Obama admitted he is bound to disappoint is also pointed out in this article. It seems even more relevant now that he has won and seems to want to move to the "center" on certain issues. The other issue really interesting to me is what Rahm Emanuel wrote about strategies for running as a democrat--focus on emotion, and charisma, not intellect and fact. It seems these crowds are all based on emotion. I've heard so many people say their own friends and relatives voted for Obama even though they don't agree with him on policy. Again, all emotion.

Ajami says "...a leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination." Obama seems to have mastered this notion.

Fascinating, creepy, and slightly disappointing as an American.

*Credit to Emily for referring me to this article:)

How Obama got elected.

I've been trying to come terms with the election results by employing several coping mechanisms--positive self talk, withdrawal, denial, hoping for the best, ignoring reality, etc. OK, those probably aren't all coping mechanisms, but you can only care so much right? I don't know how Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Al Franken, Bill Mahr and the like do it to tell you the truth. They seem to have an insatiable drive. Maybe they're all on speed or something, who knows.

Anyway, I'm hoping for the best, but not really expecting much to change, honestly. I guess that's why I've decided not to worry much about the country. One day I was really fired up about some non-sense Obama was proposing when Emily astutely pointed out that no one ever actually does what they say they're going to do, so why even worry about it (except for Mitch Daniels--our IN governor (R)--if he says it, you can take it to the bank. He just won by a landslide in a state where Obama won--that tells you how many voters from both sides he attracted.) That's good ying for my yang, I suppose. She's got a lot of good ying for my yang for that matter. But anyway, back to the post... I find it interesting that Obama's leadership positions are being filled at a percentage of like three-quarters former Clinton staffers. There's no change there; just more of the same. Somehow it seems to go unnoticed though. I mentioned this to some friends (D's) in a casual setting the other day and was was met with mostly blank stares--as if to say with their eyes "I don't get it"... I wanted to say "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"--you know the theme we've been hearing about for so long? Maybe they are all just mindless buffoons with messenger bags (That's still the funniest video I've seen in ages). I also can't believe how many people seem to have forgotten about Iraq. Ya, ya, I know the economy has taken center stage and for good reason. But my goodness, not long ago this country was screaming for complete and total withdrawal. Now-a-days no one seems to care. It's like their guy is in now and there's something else to talk about so it's not an issue any longer. This nation's on too much Ritalin. That's a post for another day.

Anyway, I came across this article about how Obama got elected and found it very interesting. They're in the process of doing a documentary on the subject so they interviewed a bunch of Obama voters to see what they knew about current events, prominent leaders, etc. Did they know much about the candidates, what did they remember from the news, etc. The video they made is really, really telling. It's long--almost 10 minutes, but worth watching.

Here it is:



It's pretty obvious what the media spent all its time talking about the last few months and what people actually know and remember. What a stupid, uninformed--or maybe better put--misinformed electorate we are part of. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote. He probably could have said he was going to make New Orleans the capital of the country with Ray Nagin as his vice-president and he still would have won.

Anyway, I have another confession to make. In a previous post, I didn't want to sound like a total Obama hater so I said I wasn't sure if the media was trying to protect him or not. Part of me wanted to feel like I was keeping an open mind and not rushing to judgment. The truth is the media is a joke. They have failed to report on relevant issues--ones that are truly interesting no less. There is actually a lot of stuff in Obama's history that is controversial, interesting, and very, very relevant, but not reported on. It also paints him in a very, very negative light--a machine politician, member of a racist church, and a friend to one crook after another, just to name a few. Any wonder Sarah Palin's wardrobe was so heavily discussed when issues like those mentioned in "The Case Against Obama" were pushed under the table? By the way, "The Case Against Obama" is an excellent book--easy and quick read, outlines many of the issues which the media either under reported or didn't report at all and does so with out making him out to be the devil, which he clearly is not. The point is just that there's much more to his history and person than we hear about.

Finally, I'm not worried much any more. The fact he has chosen so many Clinton-ites for his administration is actually somewhat of a relief. They aren't radicals with weird-o agendas; they're just typical career politicians like everyone else in Washington. While I don't agree with them economically, politically, or otherwise, I don't think they'll do much more damage than was done under Clinton. I could be wrong, but I hope not. At some point conservatives have to get their act together and make real change, but for now, the prospect of mitigating our damages is somewhat comforting.

Smart? Says who?

I've seen several of these around town lately:

Cute, right?

Because of my job, I also happen to see lots of pictures like these:

Cute, right?

I've heard the media reports--they're very safe, airbags all over the place, good gas mileage, etc.

Crash test videos are always fun, so here's the Smart Car in action:

Notice how they bounce "violently" after impact? While it's good that the passenger compartment wasn't compromised, that violent jolt spells major soft tissue injuries. The less of the impact the car absorbs (crumpling, etc.), the more it transfers to its passengers. Of course, I'm not too keen on sitting in the back seat of that PT Cruiser either...

So, is the cuteness and high gas mileage worth it?

The Golden Goose

The average wage at Ford Motor Company for permanent hourly employees is $31.64/hour according to one source. That equals nearly $66,000 per year. The median household income in the US is approximately $48,000. Interestingly, the average salary for a college graduate is $46,000. While I completely respect skilled blue collar labor, I don't see car factory workers as "skilled". Maybe I should--who knows. I once heard an employer say that he wanted employees with blue collar hands and white collar minds. That would make for a pretty good employee if you ask me. Truly skilled employees deserve all the income they make regardless of their education levels. The problem with factories--especially auto manufacturers--is that their employees possess no special skills as far as I can tell, and yet they make far more than the average employee. Most blame unions for this. While unions had their place decades ago, they are mostly part of the problem in this day and age.

Steve Forbes recently said Ford would be highly profitable if it operated in another country. We have a country rich in automobile tradition and yet none of our major car makers can survive here. Other manufacturers, namely those from other countries which have non-union workforces, are quite profitable.

Earlier this year, the big three offered buyouts to their employees in an effort to reduce their workforce. The offers were staggering--many over six figures.

Lately oversight and regulation are two of the most common buzz words around. There's no shortage of either in this industry--think of all the safety regulations, mileage requirements, and emissions standards. Couple this over-regulation with higher wages than all their competitors and it's no wonder they aren't profitable.

More recently, $25 billion was given to the auto industry in an attempt to keep them afloat. Now they're asking for another $25 billion. We can only wonder what they'll say they need next... My thought is that we should let them fail. I know, there would be unintended consequences that wouldn't be pretty--10% of all jobs are associated with the auto industry according to the media. I still say let them fail. The system is too broken to be fixed. The unions have killed the golden goose. It's time to revamp the whole system, start paying people appropriate salaries for the work they do, and tell the government to get out of the way.

Unfortunately, the UAW bought at least four more years of beating the goose when they donated over $3 million to the Obama campaign. No change in store here, I'm afraid.

What do you think--bail them out again, or let them fail and start over?

The morning after...

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The IRS Knows All Our Names...

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!
And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Incite Not To Rioting

I'd never heard of a community organizer. Apparently Obama didn't know much about it when he decided on it either. Here's what he wrote: "There wasn't much to the idea...When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly. Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House...Change in the Congress...Change in the mood of the country." (Dreams of my Father, 133) Interesting.

When I read up on the subject, I didn't anticipate what I'd find. Saul Alinsky is a famous community organizer who wrote on the subject, trained community organizers in his methods, and created a foundation for the training of young radicals. Obama is recognized as a master of his tactics. Mike Kruglik, a one-time fellow organizer said that Obama was "the undisputed master of agitation...With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better." (Link)

Here's how Alinsky described the organizer's role: "He begins his 'trouble making' by stirring up these angers, frustrations, and resentments, and highlighting specific items or grievances that heighten controversy...He has taken a group of apathetic workers; he has fanned their resentments and hostilities by a number of means...He dramatizes the injustices..."(Link) He essentially stirs the folks up, gets them feeling abused and taken advantage of, tells them things can be better--and points to examples where things have changed the way he describes, and then uses them as pawns to achieve his objectives. It's really a con all along. The organizer has some objective, gets the people mad enough to get engaged in the cause, and uses them to his advantage.

So, who pays the salaries of community organizers? In the case of Obama, it was the Woods Fund of Chicago where years later he served on the board with Bill Ayres. I also discovered the Woods Fund is a major contributor to the all too famous ACORN. (Link)

Of ACORN, here's how one report described their business model: "ACORN's business model involves choosing a corporate target, attacking it, reaching a financial settlement, and then beginning the cycle again with a different target". Their own manifesto says their "lifeblood is conflict with targets outside the organization". (Link) Obama was also a lawyer for ACORN for a short time, in case you hadn't heard...

All of this immediately brought to mind something else I'd read. Here it is: "Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them..." (Link) How could that be a better description of ACORN's business model?

Agitation, stirring up to anger and resentment, dramatizing injustices, conflict as a lifeblood? Not what I expected. Call me naive I suppose...

Peacemaker? Post-partisan? Uniter?

So Mr. Obama has made his first big decision of his presidency: choosing his chief of staff. When I first heard of his pick I was mildly disappointed that he didn't branch out of his Chicago political ties. But, there has been so much talk about him governing from the middle and uniting America in his post-partisan politics so I thought I'd give this pick a chance.

So, here's the scoop on Rahm Emanuel... He's a major player in the Democratic party--chairman of the Dem. campaign committee--he's a huge money raiser. He's the son of an Israeli born pediatrician, has some accomplished brothers, grew up in Chicago, etc. We also know that he is as fiery as Obama is calm. The F-word is his favorite word--he uses it as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, etc. James Carville said about him "everyone is an F-ing idiot to Rahm". When asked what was the most blunt thing Emanuel had said to former Pres. Clinton, he said "it's unprintable". It's also universally known that he's a yeller and a screamer. As for partisanship, he wrote a piece entitled "How to Defeat a Republican". In it he states "once you have succinctly spelled out your own program, you can start dredging up dirt on your opponent...the untainted Republican has not yet been invented." That sounds real "post-partisan" and really encouraging concerning the position Mr. O will be taking concerning crossing the aisle. In addition, he too was on the board of Freddie Mac--just what Washington needed--another one of these. He's also on the top 25 in donations from Freddie Mac--that's great.

It's really the same old stuff: another controversial associate (now chief of staff), another horrible, machine-politician at his side, another person to do his dirty work so he can remain "the blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." (Audacity of Hope, 11). Another indication that he needs brash, pushy, opinionated types at his side to tell him what to do....

So much for setting the tone early on of bi-partisanship, unity, and peacemaking. Obama's no reformer--he's just another politician--probably the best politician we've seen in years.

BTW, this info is all over the web so I'm not quoting sources--they're everywhere.

FOCA follow up

Here's Obama's actual speech to planned parenthood July 17, 2007.

The first is a shortened version with relevant clips, the second is the entire speech lasting 24 minutes.





Here's the link to the bill itself.

Legalized Plunder

It's looking like spreading the wealth has become the topic of our time. Here's Rep. Jim Moran (D) of Virginia:



It appears our nation is at a crossroads on this subject. "The simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."?

I don't even know what to say.

Here's what Pres. Ezra Taft Benson, former Sec. of Agriculture under President Eisenhower has to say on the subject:

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities - all with the other fellow's money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)

Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder." "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!

"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)
As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)(Source: The Proper Role of Government)

There is a fundamental difference of opinion as to the role of government. On the one hand, there is the view that government should ensure that all their citizens should be provided the basic necessities of life--shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. On the other hand is the notion that government exists because the people in that government created it to protect basic liberties, freedoms and properties. We appear to be moving closer and closer to a common view that government should provide all with the basic necessities of life. This was not the intention of our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson said the following in his first inaugural speech: "With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

This topic isn't going away. And man is it frustrating. I think it is our duty to know the subject and be able to intelligently discuss it so as to have a positive influence on our society. Ugh...

(Thanks to Jennifer for recommending Pres. Benson's speech.)

FOCA: It's what's first up.

Here's info on what Obama has promised to sign into law as the first thing he will do as president.

FOCA: Freedom Of Choice Act

• Unlimited abortions would become the law of the land


• Restrictions such as parental notification and consent, spousal notification, waiting periods, etc. would all be prohibited nationwide. Such safeguards have been allowed to the states since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992. FOCA sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer, along with planned parenthood and others agree FOCA will strike down all state pro-life laws.


• It would guarantee more tax payer dollars pay for abortions. At this time, the Supreme Court has prevented government funding of most abortions.


• Partial birth abortions, banned by the Supreme Court, would become legal.


• Abortions will increase by 125,000 each year.

The law prevents our minor daughters from buying cigarettes and alcohol. It prevents them from driving until age 16. It says they can't enter into contracts of most types. The law in my state says they have to sit in a booster seat while riding in cars until age 8. And yet, Obama wants to make it legal for our 13, 14, 15+ year old daughters to get abortions, with out parental knowledge of any kind.

Obama said "it's not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that's filled with hope and possibility for all Americans". Apparently he doesn't include babies in that hope and possibility. This is the problem with us as Americans idly watching the deterioration of our society's moral code. We turn a blind eye to things that are inherently wrong because it's always been that way, or we don't know what to do to stop them, or we think "a little wrong" won't really do that much damage. It's so much harder to take back a wrong than it is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Once the door opens and the foot of evil firmly plants itself in the threshold, it's nearly impossible to get that foot back out and close the door again. And so it is with Roe V. Wade and Obama. It's not enough for them to leave bad enough alone, they want to eliminate all safeguards and restrictions. This is why we must stand up and fight. We cannot allow liberty and justice to be strangled in increments because of our laziness, fear and apathy. As a wise man said "sometimes it's not about calculating the best outcome, it's about right and wrong." (link)

Last night our 6 y/o daughter came home from school. She said she didn't like Obama because one of her friends told her that he wants to kill babies. She said we shouldn't have any more children because they wouldn't be safe. Yes, we explained how her friend was wrong, but how wrong was she, really?

Obama said passing FOCA will be the first thing he does after becoming president. I hope his memory is as bad as his judgment in friends.

Reality Check

I read this article earlier today and it really made me feel better. For some reason, knowing that the turn the country is making isn't new and has survived before, left me feeling comforted. Old ideas in a new package. It's worth the read.

God Bless America.

McCain--how he made me a liar.

I have bemoaned McCain's winning the primaries for weeks. Months ago I arrogantly went around commenting that he might as well quit, he was so far behind. When his campaign staff all jumped ship and went elsewhere, I figured the writing was on the wall. I couldn't stand him. I felt about him the way one TV commentator summarized: he's like the smart a-- kid on the back of the bus ripping on everyone else, all the while looking around to see who's laughing with him. I completely respect his service and sacrifice and agree that he is an American hero; I just don't think that qualifies him to be president of the country. Any ordinary joe can get shot out of an airplane and become a prisoner of war and I don't think that makes him qualified to be the president. I know it's taboo to say and it makes even me feel slightly uncomfortable to write, but I do believe it's true. I will add that he is one tough dude for surviving five years of POW treatment and deserves our honor and respect. Just like Obama's being black (sort of) doesn't leave me afraid to speak my mind about him for fear of being called a racist, I also don't feel McCain's service and sacrifice to his country immunize him from political criticism.

So here are my final pre-election thoughts on McCain's campaign and bid for election:

Cons:

• He is a poor orator. Why is it that conservatives in this country can't elect a man capable of speaking well? Not only is his delivery bad, it's also uninspiring. He's boring. That's all it amounts to. His opponents will "tee" him up, but he won't hit it out of the park. I don't understand it.
• My friends, he is out of touch. The man doesn't "do email". He doesn't have a computer. He is perceived as a worse candidate than he really is simply because he's so out of touch. Young people can't relate to him. How many twenty somethings know what "pork barrel spending" is? If every American had a nickle for every time he's used "pork" or "my friends" in a sentence, we'd all be able to buy at least the cheapest thing from Starbucks and that's saying something. What a waste of money... Anyway, I cringe every time I hear him talking about "pork" 'cause I know how many people have to think what a loony old geezer he is. It's true though: he's old. And seems really out of touch. He can be funny and engaging, but for some reason, he chooses not to be 90% of the time...
• He values bipartisanship more than he should. I've never heard someone talk about "crossing the aisle" as much as him. Again, what twenty-something even knows what he's talking about? OK, maybe more than I realize, but seriously who cares one bit about his working with both sides. What we care about is doing what's RIGHT. Who cares what side you're on, if it's the right side, that's all that matters. I think he turns off his base when he talks like this and I don't think he is convincing any democrats to vote for him because he "crosses the aisle" all the time. Nobody cares. Again, he's out of touch. Just do what's RIGHT.
• He cares about the media too much. For crying out loud, stop trying to placate the media. They hate you. You don't have to try to be their friend. They aren't doing you any favors. Why don't you realize this? Speak the truth and the American people will support you. Stop thinking you're special because they hate you less than the likes of Ron Paul and others they're afraid of. The plaintiff attorneys I work with all the time that try to befriend me generally garner less respect than the ones that are all business and focus on their strengths. Do I enjoy talking to them more? Probably. Do they benefit their clients more by taking this approach? Not at all. The American people aren't benefiting here either.
• He's generally not charismatic or likeable. I heard a Fox News report on him a few weeks ago. They interviewed several colleagues and co-workers of his from throughout the years. The consensus was sobering: he's generally thought of as a jerk. It wasn't a pretty picture they were painting, and it wasn't pMSNBC or CNN doing the reporting... I think we've all this side of him--especially during the debates.

And now, the pros:

• Iraq. He won't quit until the job is done, period. As discussed yesterday, we can't leave that wasteland vulnerable to wicked, America-haters who would seek to destroy us. We're winning now and will continue to do so if allowed. We cannot allow Iraq to become another Vietnam. McCain understands this. I trust him on foreign affairs. He's not going to bomb one of our allies. How have we glossed over this? When Muammar Gaddafi was linked to terrorist activity in the 80's, Reagan bombed his backyard and he didn't let the grass grow under his feet before doing it. Compare his terrorist activities now to that of Bin Laden who Clinton had the chance of killing but declined, or Hussein who scoffed at one UN resolution after another, all the while killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. Gaddafi's practically a model citizen at this point. What would he be if we'd decided to "talk with out preconditions"? My guess is he'd be reloading behind our backs while we tried to smell the daisies with him. McCain will keep us safe.
• He is pro-life. Not much else to say here in my opinion. I think too many Americans have grown numb to so many wrong things that are generally accepted. Sometimes it's about what's right and wrong, not the path of least resistance.
• Immigration. I do not fall in line with most conservatives when it comes to the border and immigration. I do agree that we should close the border for good. I feel this way for security reasons, not because of illegal immigration. I understand I'm in the minority in this regard. I do not believe that Mexicans take American jobs. I don't think many Americans want to work for low wages picking fruit or processing meat. If they want to come here to work, I say let them come. I also think amnesty is the only way to go. How in the world are we going to round up and deport millions of illegals? There is no way in the world this is going to happen. We need to admit we've created the problem by not enforcing our borders and move on. Give them amnesty, get them registered and identified, and make them start paying taxes for heaven sake. If there's anyone who should be paying taxes, it's guest workers. McCain most closely mirrors my feelings on immigration of the remaining candidates.
• Ok, I know I shouldn't say it since it makes no difference, but I like his wife. She seems likeable and worthy of running the White House. Whatever.
• Judges--he'll appoint pro-life, pro-defense, pro-religion judges. Period.
• He's pro second amendment. Although I'm not a big gun owner myself, I believe in the Constitution and I fear for the nation that can't defend itself--sometimes from its own government. Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". We should always be allowed to defend ourselves.
• Small government. He believes in cutting spending and lowering taxes. I don't believe in taxing the people in order to provide larger government programs. There are kind hearted people out there who are bamboozled by liberals who deceive the public into thinking they're for helpful social programs. The problem with liberals is that they say they want the government to solve everyone's problems, but they themselves are unwilling to part with their own money for charitable endeavors. Joe Biden gave .31% of his income to charity last year and that was TRIPLE what he had given in each of the three previous years. Obama is only slightly better. He gave 5.8% and 6.1% in 2006 and 2007. What did McCain give in those years? Answer: 27.3% and 28.6%. (read here) Biden's .31% equals less than $1,000. It appears as though these two believe in charity, as long as someone else is paying for it. The government is the least equipped to do any good with our money. We'd be better off giving it to our churches and reputable non-profit organizations. The folks running these organizations are passionate about their work and will make the money last. They won't spend $8 on a tube of chapstick. They can actually do real good in the world. Big government just isn't the answer.
• Capitalism. This market will right itself if allowed. It always does. If one business fails, another will take it's place in a better, more efficient way. That's the way the world works. If we step in and prevent failure, we're like bad parents enabling our children's bad behavior to continue. We have to let them suffer the consequences in order for them to truly grow. The government needs to take some parenting classes rather than throwing money at their problems. That just makes for spoiled, failed kids... I don't believe in taking Halloween candy from an ambitious kid and giving it to one too lazy to pound the streets and get it for himself. It's that simple to me.

I'm not in love with McCain and I'd really prefer that we had another candidate to choose from but in light of the choice, I'll have to eat my own words and push the button in his favor. I vowed I wouldn't do that earlier this year... Politicians--we have something in common.

NObama

My final pre-election thoughts on why to vote for or against Obama:



For:

• He seems to have a nice demeanor. He is very calm, not easily ruffled, etc.


• He's a smooth talker. Although, his voice inflections started bugging me very soon after he came on the national scene and now I can hardly stand to hear him speak. I guess he's smooth though.


• He supports alternative energy.

Against:

• He is a socialist. There is no denying it at this point. Biden can apologize for him and try to explain things away all he wants but there is no escaping the truth. Obama will redistribute money. He admits it. He also admits to purposely surrounding himself with Marxists in college--that we know from his memoirs. I've had enough of everything being explained away on his behalf--"oh, well, he was in college--everyone experiments with things to 'find yourself' during those days". That is the biggest bunch of garbage being sold by Obama apologists I've ever heard. It's utter non-sense. It didn't stop with college either--Bill Ayres is a self described Marxist as well as others he chose for friends and colleagues. Thomas Jefferson said "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Obama's tax plan is to take from those who are willing to work and GIVE, not TAX LESS, but GIVE to those who pay no taxes at all. This goes against everything our country stands for. We can and must cut spending, not tax more.


• Free health care/insurance is not a right. While I agree in providing health care for those who truly cannot do so for themselves, I do not believe it should be free. AND, I believe those who truly cannot provide for themselves are far fewer than Obama would have us think. I know several people who don't have health insurance. Almost all don't have it because of their choice--not because they can't afford, but because they CHOOSE NOT TO. They go to redimed when needed, they pay cash and get the discount for doing so, and when big problems come up, they sell things to pay the bills, get charitable donations, or convince the providers to write off the difference. They do fine. These stories of people dying for lack of health insurance are completely exaggerated by the media. What about all the people that rack up the cost of health care because they can't stop themselves from eating McDonald's 7 times a day, or the people who smoke until their lungs are black? These are all choices and I don't believe the general public should pay for irresponsible choices of people who know better. The innocent and unaccountable are another story, obviously. Health insurance is no more a right than is car insurance, life insurance, or any other insurance. It's a choice people make to transfer risk to someone else in exchange for a regular monthly payment that may or may not ever be used by the person making the payment. They are willing, not obligated, but willing to pay a small amount in return for the peace of mind that if something happens, they will be taken care of. Life isn't fair. Some can't afford insurance. I understand this. I can't afford a brand new family vehicle either. That would give me much greater peace of mind if we had one. The fact is, I probably could afford it if I was willing to work harder, get an advanced degree, or whatever, but as it turns out, I am not. I've decided to trade this afore mentioned peace of mind for time spent doing other things.


• Obama does not believe in the sanctity of life. How any Christian, God fearing person can vote for him I truly and sincerely do not understand. Yes, many churches do support abortions in the most horrific of circumstances such as rape, incest and when the mother's life is truly in danger. However, these circumstances constitute less than 1% of all abortions performed in this country. Let's not be naive. This isn't about rape and incest. This is about lust and selfishness. Having children is a sacred and wonderful thing. Abortion is not excusable. There are thousands upon thousands of people waiting to adopt--everyone of you knows someone who wants to adopt and would make a great parent. You give up the right to chose when you chose to be selfish and lustful. This man supports partial birth abortions for crying out loud. Guys, this is where the baby is delivered feet first, until all but the baby's head is out. The abortionist then inserts a sharp object into the back of the head, removes it, inserts a vacuum and sucks the brains out. The baby obviously dies and falls out lifelessly. How is this not murder? There is no discussion of viability here. We're not talking about something that is smaller than a walnut ceasing to exist. This is murder. I can't vote for a person who supports this horror.
• Obama has no executive experience. He's never been a governor or a mayor or even run a small business. Have you all heard Michelle Obama? He doesn't even have executive experience at home for heaven sake. All senators do is make laws (sometimes)--they don't run anything. He may be a good leader, but try something like mayor or governor first and show us that you're a good leader. The president? I don't know about that.
• He is against drilling for domestic oil. I do agree that we should pursue all avenues of energy, including wind and solar, but we should also drill for the oil we do have nearby. Even Paris Hilton gets this. Why can't he? Should we develop alternative energy? Of course. Does that mean we can't drill for more oil in the mean time? OF COURSE NOT!!! We're not talking about strip mines which leave the land barren and void of life (but man is the fishing good after they fill up with water!). We're talking about drilling for oil so far off the shore that you can't see it. My goodness, China, Norway, and several others are drilling for oil off our own shores, why aren't we? This is absurd!
• Obama will not admit the surge is working and he will leave Iraq in such a vulnerable state that we will be in more danger than ever before. I know no one wants to talk about Iraq anymore. It's a tired and worn-out subject. I agree. The fact is that this is still very, very important. Whether you think the war was good or bad is irrelevant at this point. We cannot abandon the country, creating a power void only to be filled with terrorists the likes of the Taliban. Maybe we should not have gotten involved in Iraq. I know, the whole hind sight thing... But I can't say what I would have done with the intelligence we supposedly had at the time and I don't if Bush tells the truth in that regard or not. I suspect we don't get the whole truth. That being the case, we just can't walk away now. We are winning. Why can't he admit that? For the sake of international peace we must stay until the job is done.
• OK, this one is pretty subjective on my part and probably not totally fair. That's why I'm sticking it in the middle so it may not get noticed at all... I don't like his wife. I don't think she likes her country. I know she doesn't love her country. She's never been proud of her country before? She doesn't know what you could do with a $600 rebate check except maybe buy a pair of ear rings? What world is this woman living in? She shouldn't be allowed to live in and run the White House. I feel better about having Hillary in the White House than her, and that was bad enough. I have to admit though, Hillary has really grown on me in the last year. I wouldn't be writing this blog if she was the democratic candidate. That woman can handle herself and I know she would protect the constitution. Michelle Obama has no business being the first lady.
• All the experts indicate the next president will appoint two supreme court justices. This is quite possibly one of the scariest cons of all for Obama. If you listened to his 2001 Chicago radio interview, you know that he feels the constitution places too many constraints on the country and would like it changed. I can't even imagine how the country would change for the worse if he installed two judges who would vote for issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and against issues such as self defense and religious rights. The Constitution would struggle to remain as the holy document that it is.
• He has terrible judgment in choosing friends and mentors. Why does everyone gloss over the fact that he listened to the sermons of a RACIST preacher for 20 years? Jeremiah Wright married him, "baptized" his children and served as a mentor for 20 years! Why does everyone believe him when he says "he's not the man I thought he was?" How is that possible? He spewed anti-white racist venom from the pulpit for 20 years! "NO, NO, NO, NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA, G--DAMN AMERICA". Who would preach such a sermon? Better yet, who would listen to such a sermon? I understand that I have no idea what it's like to walk in the shoes of a black man. But, how can this be the right approach? How can this be part of the solution? Obama sat in these sermons for years; he knew full well what kind of preacher/friend/mentor this guy was. For crying out loud, even Oprah couldn't continue to attend the man's church. This is one person you say? What about Bill Ayres--he bombed his OWN COUNTRY and is a self proclaimed Marxist. Jeremiah Wright. Tony Rezko (read about him here). Rashid Khalidi (PLO terrorist). The list goes on and on. Why would you choose to associate with such people unless you felt some kinship to them or anticipated some political gain? Neither is good in this case. This is frightening to me.
• Big government. Thomas Jefferson said "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." My freedom to do as I please (so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others) is top ten, maybe even top five importance to me. The idea of big government, tax and spend is not in line with my ideals. I believe in self reliance. I believe I can and should work for what I attain. The government can protect the innocent in some cases and provide some services which others cannot. I understand this. But, I don't believe they do it well, nor do I think government is the answer. A government big enough to take away my rights, under a bastardized constitution, should scare us all near to death. What ever happened to "It's not what the country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country"?

This only scratches the surface. I know I hardly understand the full implications of an Obama presidency. Several weeks ago I was sort of ambivalent to the whole deal, since I don't really care for McCain either, so I decided to start doing some research about Obama. I figured I owe it to myself to find out what he believes and stands for rather than listening to cable or radio hosts tell me what I should think. I now wish I had never done that. I wish I had stayed ignorant and ambivalent. Ignorance is bliss.

Wipe that smirk off your face McCain, you're next...

Fish and Family

We have a goldfish/koi pond in our backyard. It used to look like this:

Last weekend I came home from church and my 3-4 lb Koi was lying on it's side in just a few inches of water. My worst pond nightmare had come true: the liner was leaking and I had no idea where... This week I discovered a rock had fallen in right by the water fall and punctured the liner. It left a hole about the size of a quarter. As soon as I tried to clean and patch it, it became the size of a soft ball... Not good. It had become old and brittle and repair wasn't an option. Even worse... So I've spent the last two days destroying the old pond and building a new one with a high quality rubber liner. I'll post pics of the new one some day. I may have taken this opportunity to make it bigger and deeper too:)

My folks are also in town today also. I've got lots of ranting to get off my chest though and I have to post my closing arguments for both sides before Tuesday... That should be thrilling. Ha ha.

Obamacare

Here are some details of Obama's proposed healthcare plan which I've summarized from an article written by Scott Gottlieb, MD of AEI:

1. Expand Medicare & enlarge State Children’s Health Ins. Program.
2. National exchange. This means offering a selection of insurance options that meet new federal standards. A “Medicare-like” public program will be one of the national options.
a. Ten year cost estimated conservatively at 1.17 Trillion.
3. “Pay or Play” tax on employers. Employers who don’t offer health insurance will be taxed. Their employees will be able to choose from a menu of closely regulated private insurance plans. Taxes on employers to assist in paying these premiums. Employers will pass this on their employees through lower wages, etc. The employers will “get theirs”. These new insurance options will be available to everyone. Employers (especially larger ones and new ones) will weigh the costs of providing insurance options or funneling employees to the “exchange” (new gov’t approved insurance) and simply pay the new tax. He hasn’t said what the new tax rate will be.
4. What are the implications for patients, providers and medical product developers? If you’re healthy and don’t qualify for Obama’s subsidies, you could face higher premiums once insurers are req’d to sell policies to everyone. Wider access to gov’t sponsored health insurance is likely to come at the price of more federal restrictions on medical treatment and access to new products. (This will be done in the name of fiscal austerity)
5. He says his plan will save families up to $2,500 on premiums due to a series of measures he says will cut health care costs. The only real example he’s given is the adoption of electronic medical records. He also references greater “efficiency” but nothing more specific.
6. He’ll try to incorporate more medicare pricing schedules into the private market. (Some doctors already won’t see medicare patients because they lose money on them)
7. ”Ample research shows the effect of price controls, and central management of services, on access and innovation: It puts a damper on both. But a growing political majority sees these kinds of centrally-planned controls as the most efficient way to extend federal health benefits to more Americans--especially the uninsured--and see the trade-off as one worth making. This trade-off rests on the false assumption that technology drives increased health care spending, when in fact it lowers long-term morbidity and costs. But Obamacare is a triumph of egalitarian piety over innovation and medical progress. Those most affected won't be Mr. Obama's "rich" Americans who can opt out of the system and its controls, but those stuck inside of it.”

My thoughts: 1. Higher taxes on employers equals lower wages to their employees. One way or another, the cost will be passed on, it's just what happens. 2. I don't like the idea so many large gov't programs. There's no convincing me we won't be paying $8.00 per tube of chapstick if the gov't is involved... They can't get anything right. 3. Customer service will suffer--it always does when competition is removed and guaranteed customers line up in the lobby. 4. Care will suffer. Doctors won't want to spend any time with their patients because they're being so poorly compensated pursuant to the terms of the medicare-type pricing. They'll need higher volume in order to stay in business since they're being paid so little per person. 5. Too much regulation equals a poorer product all the way around.

Stay tuned for my book report on McCain's healthcare plan.

Time For Some Laughter

I usually hate forwarded emails. I rarely read them and when I do, I rarely find them them worth the energy I spend clicking on my mouse to read/view them. My friend Joe forwarded this one to me and I thought it was pretty funny. That means others might laugh out loud (I did chuckle a time or two).

Click here.

It's probably old, who knows since I never click on this stuff...

We the people...

I've always thought of our Constitution as a quasi holy document--inspired by God and revered by most Americans. The words of the preamble have a very unique effect on most of us. Who doesn't feel proud and slightly emotional upon hearing "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."? While I understand our founding fathers were imperfect men, I maintain that this document--our Constitution--was inspired by God and worthy of our continued study and sustaining efforts.

There have always been fringe groups who disagree with this assertion. Most would agree that these groups never made it into the mainstream of America. A closer analysis would indicate that they didn't want to make it into the mainstream; they want to bring the mainstream to them. Radicals on either side of the fence are probably good for us as they force us to consider our thoughts, learn what we believe, and become more educated in so doing.

I never thought we'd elect a president who didn't share my feelings about The Constitution. Don't get me wrong--I don't hate Barack Obama. In fact, I think he's a lot more likeable than John McCain. He's a nice guy and probably a good husband and father. But, it has become apparent in recent days how he feels about the Constitution.

In a radio interview in 2001 he made some revealing comments. He referred to the Constitution as being "constraining" and made reference to wanting to change it--either through the courts or the legislature. He made comments that the supreme court has never addressed "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice". He talked about the constitution "constraining" the federal government and restricting what it can do for us. He discussed his hope for change of the constitution in these regards. Here is the interview:



I feel it is clear now. The right-wing radio hosts and talking heads have been saying it for several months, but being the stubborn guy that I am, I haven't completely made up my mind until now. Barack Obama doesn't like America the way it is. He doesn't love the Constitution. I believe him when he says he's grateful for the opportunities this country has given him, but I don't believe he will defend the constitution as that very document indicates he must. How can he take the oath of office and swear to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he doesn't believe in it in the first place? As Americans, we cannot overlook this divine document. It was given to us by God. It formed the basis of the most important, most powerful, and most prosperous country in the world. When the day comes that the Constitution hangs by a thread, we will look back at this election with sadness and regret.

Why so upset?

I don't know if I think Obama is being protected by the media or not. I do find it interesting that his campaign got so upset over this interview and advised the TV station they are banned from future interviews:


Seriously, is the media not allowed to ask Obama/Biden tough questions?

Does anyone else thing this is so bad that they should be banned from further interviews with the Obama compaign? Is it just me?

Update Oct. 27: Apparently the video I copied is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WFTV Channel 9. It has raised quite a stink since I first heard the clip. Barbara Brown is scheduled to be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. I'm sure that will polarize the issue even more. I attached another link. Who knows how long this one will stay up.

Could the US go bankrupt?

I heard recently that Iceland went bankrupt. Frankly, I didn’t think much about it. I don’t know of anything good or bad that comes from Iceland so I didn’t have much reason to care, I guess. I can never remember if Iceland is really the green one or if that’s really Greenland. So confusing. Anyway, I also saw an article on google news (that’s the newspaper of my generation—who needs newspapers anymore?) describing how the national debt clock near Times Square had to come down to add more digits. We’re over ten trillion now in case you hadn’t heard. That got me thinking.

I’ve heard comments about the national debt on the evening news since I was a little kid. Just like I remember the news showing crazy nut-jobs with full beards riding around in Toyota pickup trucks waiving AK 47’s all over Afghanistan during the 80’s. Does anyone else remember stuff like that? Anyway, back to the post…

So the national debt is different from the budget deficit. I guess you can have a balanced budget or a budget deficit for a particular period of time. But, the national debt continues to accumulate. Here’s an informative graph:



So what’s the big deal? We’ve had national debt as long as anyone reading this has been alive. Apparently it hasn’t been a “good time to pay for stuff now” (Lincoln H.) in quite some time.

Here’s how it would work if our household was the government. Emily and I decide we want to buy a gold plated toilet for our house. We kinda-sorta review our budget, but clearly we can’t afford it. Rather than choosing a nice “toilet-to-go” from Lowes, we decide to take out a loan for the shiny gold throne. We find a friendly person with lots of money to loan us the dough we need, and we get the new one delivered. We’re happy but we’re paying interest on the loan (debt held by the public.). It’s ok with our friend though, because he knows we have a steady income and we’ll make the payments. After a while, I decide I just can’t live without the aquarium wall I’ve always wanted. You know—those aquariums built into the wall of your house—man those are cool. It just doesn’t seem right that I shouldn’t get it—after all, I’ve always wanted one and that should be enough. We look at the budget again to see if there’s anything we could do to make it happen. I think about borrowing from Emily’s slush fund (intragovernmental debt, like taking from social security, etc) but there isn’t enough there to make it happen. We’ll use that on other stuff we shouldn’t. So, we throw an ad up on the web saying we need some money and we’re willing to pay 8% interest on it. We find a taker (probably from Japan or China—those are the two biggest lenders to the US) and make it happen.

After a while, we realize we should probably stop borrowing money since we’re in so much debt. We have a family council (session of congress) and we set a limit (law) on how high we’ll let the family debt continue to rise. We don’t do anything about the reckless spending though and it just continues. Rather than cutting spending or getting a higher paying job (raising taxes, kind of) we just borrow more money. We hold more family councils and decide the family debt needs to be addressed so we set a new limit on how high we’ll let it get. That pretty much means nothing by now, but we continue to do it. I do get some raises (higher GDP, higher taxes, etc.) in the mean time, but we all know no matter how much we make, we never have enough. The spending continues and pretty soon, we’re paying more on interest than anything else. Emily thinks we should stop spending so much and start paying the debt down, but I figure I’ll just get a better job (raise taxes) and continue borrowing. After all, there are so many things that have to be paid (mandatory expenses like Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc.) and so many others that I want to buy (like social programs, funding for neat bridges, etc.). Before long, we’re just used to it and we only talk about it when we’re deciding who’s going to run the family councils or when we hit a neat bench mark like $10,000,000,000,000,00.

Ok, so that’s overly simplistic, but how far off the mark is it when we get right down to the bottom line? The only way to stop the nonsense is to curb the spending. The government borrows from its own citizens, internationals, other governments, etc. It even borrows from itself which we know destroys programs like social security. BTW, social security is not a tax. So many people think it's just another tax and don't understand why income over $112k(or whatever) isn't "taxed".

The spending has to stop. Eventually, we’ll be paying nothing but the interest and the lending will dry up. I don’t want to get “all conspiracy theorist” and all, but I could see this leading to trouble with certain other countries… My conclusion is this is a big problem and it’s not getting enough attention. President Bush royally failed us on this one. The gold toilet he’s sitting on sure chaps my hide. Hopefully he likes it.

(Note: this is a typical blog—probably full of errors and not very well researched)