Unions going to Pot?

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a Union member.

During my career, I have, in turns, been invited, encouraged, cajoled and somewhat intimidated into joining a Union.  I have always declined.  It has always been my belief that unionization “levels” the playing field to such an extent that the “hard chargers” and “go getters” are penalized by having to share pay and benefit increases with those who are less so.

Even so, even here in Texas, some “union” priorities have been incorporated into State benefits.  Several years ago, the State created a “Sick Leave Pool” to which employees could “contribute” a small amount of their sick time.  Ideally, if one were faced with a catastrophic illness where they exhaust their own sick leave, they could draw from the pool in order to maintain their paycheck for a period of time, hopefully long enough for them to return to work.

Many of my co-workers flocked to the idea, contributing small amounts of their time to the pool, generally the minimal time required to participate.  It didn’t take me long to realize that these were the people who never seemed to be able to accrue more than a couple of days of sick leave because they were taking it almost as soon as they got it.

I felt that, were I to contribute my time to the pool, chances were that it would be distributed to persons who, through their own mismanagement, had squandered their own time, thereby providing them with a benefit that they neither earned nor deserved.

When I left state employment after almost 10 years, I had over 240 hours of sick time on the books.  That is AFTER I took 120 hours off for “Paternity Leave” after my daughter was born.

To say the least, the lure of unionization has never held any kind of interest for me.

Now there is the great news on the Union front from California, where workers in the “Medical Marijuana” industry are flocking to the Unions in order to gain collective bargaining powers.

The New York Times reported in May, that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5 in Oakland had enrolled about 100 employees in the “Medical Marijuana” industry into their Union.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/29pot.html?_r=1

“This is a natural for us,” said Ron Lind, the president of Local 5, who’s 26,000 other members work primarily in groceries and the meat industry. “Our union’s primary jurisdiction is retail.”

As reported this week by Fox News, about 40 workers in the marijuana cultivation industry have joined the Teamsters Union, Local 70.  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/11/in-california-unions-go-to-pot/

Now remember, I am not a Union man, but these recent acquisitions of these particular workers beg answers to a few questions.

1. Since marijuana cultivation and distribution remains a Federal Felony (despite the lack of enforcement), couldn’t the Unions be seen as entering into a criminal conspiracy to violate Federal Law by encouraging and facilitating the cultivation and distribution of an illegal product?

2. If California passes Proposition 19 in November, will the Union provide legal representation to the marijuana growers and distributors in the lawsuits that are guaranteed to come?

Some of you are old enough to remember during the Vietnam War when the Union leadership came totally under the influence of the Democrat Anti-war Leftists.  Thousands of union workers LEFT their unions because they could not support what their supposed leaders were doing.

There was film on the television and photographs in the newspapers and magazines of the “hard hats” counter-protesting at anti-war rallies.  “America, Love it or Leave it” was their common slogan and there were documented incidents of these people assaulting the “hippies” who sat in doorways smoking marijuana.

Do you think that the Middle America union member who is just trying to keep his job at a decent wage is going to embrace these people who make their living in an illegal trade?

I wonder…

The New Poor?

I was reading an article from the Associated Press today that states that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.  Specifically, that the top 20 percent of Americans (those making more than $100,000 per year) received 49.4 percent of all income while those living below the government established “Poverty Line” made only 3.4 percent of all income. “That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was… nearly double a low of 7.69-to-1 in 1968.

I wonder how many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the “Poor” in anti-poverty programs since 1968 in order to make the problem WORSE than it was?

I think that our problem in the United States now is not that we have an increase in the number of “Poor” people, or that they are making less of the national income than others, but that our DEFINITION of “Poor” has changed so much as to be unrecognizable.

I know that anecdotal evidence is never the best basis for an argument, but how many times have you experienced being behind a person at the grocery store who, after using their “food stamp” card to pay for the milk, bread, cereal, cheese, etc., then reaches into their wallet to produce cash to pay for their beer, cigarettes, steaks, etc?  Then the bag boy/girl takes their purchases out to their less than three year old vehicle?

So, I am going to disregard what you and I see with our own eyes, and look at the statistics provided by our own government.

The government set the 2009 “Poverty Line” at $21,954.00 for a family of four or $1,829.50 per month.  This is just about $11 per hour for a standard 168 hour work month.  But wait, this is ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.  So, this family of four actually makes about $12,000.00 more just based on what standard exemption/standard deduction removes from their taxable income.  So we are looking at a salary of about $34,000.00.  That brings us up to $2,841.67 per month or almost $17 per hour.

According to the 2009 IRS Tax Tables, this family of four should owe $2,454.00 in income taxes.  But wait, we forget about the Child Tax Credit of $1,000.00 per child, thereby reducing their tax burden to $454.00.  That sounds reasonable.  But WAIT!  We forget about the Earned Income Tax Credit!

Again, according to the 2009 Earned Income Tax Credit Tables, this family of four is eligible for $3,648.00 in Earned Income Tax Credit.

That means, this family of four would pay NO INCOME TAX and would RECEIVE a check from the government of $3,194.00.  This would make their ACTUAL ANNUAL INCOME to $37,194.00.  Are these people POOR?

Remember, that this is BEFORE we consider eligibility for the “anti-poverty” programs of SCHIP, AFDC, Section 8 Housing assistance, Free and Reduced School Lunch Program, etc., the value of which could exceed $20,000 per year.

When my Father was a child in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, living with his Parents and 12 brothers and sisters on a hardscrabble farm south of Grapevine, Texas talks about being Poor, he knows what he is talking about:  No running water in the house,  an outhouse in the back yard,  one new pair of shoes every year.  Most of our Parents can tell similar stories.

What is poor today?  I don’t really think anyone knows, particularly not the government.

Should a “poor” person receiving federal assistance have: a new car, an HD TV, a Cell Phone, a $200 pair of sneakers, gold and diamond jewelry?

Is the American taxpayer, through the provision of monetary and non-monetary assistance, taking away the incentive of people to work hard and improve their lot in life?

Are we providing a level of support that is allowing people to spend their income on luxuries because they know that the government will provide for their basic needs?

I think that we, as a country, need to reevaluate what we consider to be poor and better target the benefits to those who actually have needs that cannot otherwise be fulfilled.

I also think that everyone who has ANY income, no matter how little, has an obligation to pay SOMETHING in income taxes to help defray their costs to the rest of society.

Nearly HALF of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax.

My friends, something is very wrong with that.

Happy Constitution Day!

Two hundred and twenty three years ago today on September 17,1787 thirty-nine representatives of the various States assembled in Philadelphia signed the Constitution of the United States of America.

"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."

This document in seven simple articles, set forth the framework of the new government.  From the powers allotted to the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary,  to the obligations of the States to the whole, to the methods for ratifying and amending the document.  In 4,543 words, these men charted the path that our nation would take.

Unfortunately, their work was incomplete.  George Mason of Virginia protested that there was no "declaration of rights" in the new Constitution and that it opened the door to tyranny by the central government.

Although most of the formal arguments for and against the Constitution, particularly as contained the the Federalist Papers, dealt with the power of the central government versus the various States, the undercurrent of Individual Rights was always present.

While some States had already had statements of rights passed by their legislatures such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights passed in 1776, most did not.

Even Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist #84 was forced to address these concerns claiming that the Constitution contained "the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured."

Additionally, he stated that "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous."

Because of, or possibly in spite of, Messieurs Hamilton, Jay and Madison's efforts, on June 21, 1788 with New Hampshire ratifying, the Constitution of the United States of America came into effect.  Elections were set for the first Tuesday in November 1788.  On March 4, 1789 the first United States Congress took their seats and the government began operations.

Fortunately, the argument for a Bill of Rights had not died with the ratification of the Constitution.  On September 25, 1789 the first amendments to the Constitution, later to become known as the "Bill of Rights" was passed by the Congress and submitted to the several states for ratification.  In December of 1791, with ratification by the Virginia House of Delegates, the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution of the United States.

To remind you all, these amendments are as follows:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For the last two hundred and twenty three years, these simple words have held this country together and made her strong.

It is only when we have strayed from this enumeration of the rights of the individual that our country has gone astray.

Today I would say to you that our country is in just such peril.

We must return to our roots, to the Constitution, to it's actual words and original meanings, not what we want them to say, but what they truly say.  We must reign in a bloated, over reaching central government and return the power to the States and the People.

We must, we can, and we will.

An Open Letter to the Republican Party

To the Republican Party, Republican Political Pundits and especially my Senator, the Honorable John Cornyn.  You need to read this carefully, because it is important.

We Conservatives, we followers of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan have for many years been bound to your party of milquetoast "moderates" and the other mushy northeast "Country Club" Republicans who think us rubes.  These people don't see any problems with growing the size of government so long as the "old money" interests are protected.  They detest the nouveau riche of people who actually EARNED their money instead of inherited it.

Only three times in the last 50 years have we Conservatives gained full control of our party.

The first, in 1964, we put Barry Goldwater on top of the ticket.  Typically, you picked a "moderate" Republican from New York to "balance" the ticket and then ran for cover and voted for Johnson.  We Conservatives were betrayed by our own party.  When the smoke cleared, you claimed you "knew" that Goldwater was too radical and used that to bash us as "out of the mainstream.  You gave us Richard Nixon in 1968.

In 1980, we rose again and unfurled the banner of Conservatism behind Ronald Reagan.  Again, you paraded out the old saw about him being "too conservative", but Americans saw through you and the Democrats.  They heard the message of freedom from government control, the free market and the promise of a return to prosperity for our battered economy.  This resulted in the largest electoral landslide in American History.  After enacting the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, began the longest economic expansion this country has ever known.

In 1988, even though we were not sure of his Conservative bona fides, we accepted George H.W. Bush as the party nominee.  We read his lips: "No new taxes".  We worked hard and helped to elect him.  We were rewarded in 1990 when, unwilling to man-up and actually force the Democrats to cut spending, he was rolled by them and taxes were increased.  Once again we were betrayed.

In 1994, led by Newt Gingrich we rose again.  We forced the weak kneed moderates to stand up and be counted.  We led our party into dominance over the Democrats and their President.  We set this country on the road to fiscal responsibility and in 2001, for the first time in over 40 years, produced a budget surplus.  Unfortunately, that surplus was short lived as the War on Terror, in Iraq and Afghanistan gave cover for increases in spending across the board.  Again, Conservative principles were sacrificed for political expediency and the Republican Party jumped on the spending gravy train once again.

Now it is 2010.  Since the election of Barack Obama, the piglets sucking at the Federal Teats have increased and the budget deficit, already unacceptable under the Bush administration has swelled to over 1.3 Trillion dollars.

Let's put that into context: $1,300,000,000,000.00 equals $422,077.92 of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States.  That was just for the fiscal year ending this month.

The current federal debt has exploded from $9,985,800,000,000.00 to $13,442,100,000,000.00.  In just two years we have added almost 3 Trillion dollars to our national debt.

Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.  In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2009, an act that contained over 8,500 "earmarks" in the amount of $7.7 billion dollars.  Only 39 of the 178 Republican House members refused to ask for "earmarks".  The other 139 had their hands out, in line with Democrats, to get their "fair share".

Now, we Conservatives are speaking out again.  We organized the TEA Parties to let our representatives know that we have been Taxed Enough Already.

We spoke out against more spending and more debt.

We put candidates in the Republican Primaries who carried our message.

We ELECTED them, defeating the choices of your party.

You need to understand that we, who have supported you for decades, even after being repeatedly betrayed and ridiculed by you; we are once again taking power.

If you fail to support us; if you abandon us again; if you fail to work for our candidates as we have always worked for yours; if you fail to follow through on your promises to roll back the liberal wave of over regulation and overtaxing; we will remember.  Rest assured we will remember.

To paraphrase one of your candidates, you won't have Conservatives to "kick around" anymore come 2012.

You know, that Jefferson guy was pretty smart!

As most of you know, I am a student of Politics and a lover of History.  When you combine the two, I can reach stages of joy only known by the truly devout of any known religion.

Today, a friend of mine sent me a forward (you know, the ones you usually delete) entitled "How did Jefferson Know?"  Although it sounded a little too much like the whole "What would Jesus Do?" bit, I dutifully scrolled down the page to find quotations from our third President, Thomas Jefferson.  As I read through them, I was astonished at how much prescience he had of what we are facing in our country today.

I will admit that I have always considered Jefferson a bit too much of a "small D" democrat for my tastes.  His support for the excesses of the French Revolution and his call for the spilling of the "blood of patriots and tyrants" from time to time to refresh "the tree of Liberty" was a bit too much for me to really admire him like some other Presidents.  Of course, some of his personal peccadilloes were over the top.  Some were said to have even made Franklin blush.  That must have taken a lot!

I do give him credit for the Louisiana Purchase where he went way beyond the powers of the President but in turn set our country on the path of greatness, and as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and a major contributor to the Constitution, he deserves the adulation as one of America's greatest presidents.

So, that being said, let us look at some of these Nostradamus like quotes:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

How many generations of people have we empowered, through government largesse to collect their various welfare payments instead of seeking employment.

Just recently, our Congress extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, just 5 weeks short of TWO YEARS, thereby removing the necessity to take a job of "lesser" pay or importance from the one they were released from.  Part of the reason that we have to import labor for the more menial jobs in this country is because even the meanest and poorest of our citizens will do better collecting welfare than actually working for a days pay.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."


Just in the last two years, not including so called "stimulus" packages and "bail outs" of various industries, unions and states, the base federal budget has INCREASED by nearly 38 percent.  Thousands of new pages of regulations are being written every day to cover everything from egg research to what kind of light bulb you can use.

According to www.regulations.gov, in the first 14 days of this month, 198 new rules have been submitted.  Since January 1st of this year, that number is 4,118.  That my friends is an average of 16 new rules EVERY DAY.  A government that makes that many rules has grown way beyond what our founding fathers envisioned.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."


The nanny government that is trying to take care of us looks at us as children who don't know any better.  We were told that the more we got to know about the Health Care Reform Act of 2009, the more we would like it.  We were told that we didn't understand properly that borrowing a trillion dollars to spend on make work programs and political and union payoffs would stimulate our economy and create millions of jobs.  Just trust us they said, we'll take care of everything.

You know what?  I was born at night, but not LAST night.

I DON'T trust the government to take care of me, and anyone who does is a fool.

You want to find out who the really smart Presidents are?  Then I encourage you to READ (yes read) Washington, Jefferson, Adams and most of all Reagan.

Inform yourself.  Put on the "whole armor" of truth, knowledge and understanding.  No one can stand against you.

The Rules

In the beginning there were the rules, and the rules were good.

WE learned the rules.

WE were taught to respect our elders.  WE were taught to respect authority.  WE said "Yes Sir" and "No Ma'am".  WE called our friends parents "Mr. Jones" and "Mrs. Smith".  WE said "Please" and "Thank You".  The Policeman was our friend and WE loved and respected our Teachers.

WE played sports and learned that even games had rules.  WE were coached by the parents of our friends and WE were taught about teamwork and sportsmanship.  WE learned that sometimes WE had to "take one for the team" and put our personal achievements behind that of the team.  WE learned that when WE lost, WE should be gracious and congratulate the winners and even when WE won WE should be humble and thank the losers for playing a good game.

WE learned rules from Scouting to "Do your best" and "Be Prepared".  WE were taught to be honest and loyal amongst other things, but always to do the right thing and be honorable and live up to what WE said WE would do.

WE learned rules from Church to "Do unto others" as WE wanted done to us.  WE learned to respect that there was a power greater than ourselves.

Even when WE played with other kids, WE set our rules before WE began.  WE made it clear where "home base" was and what was "out of bounds".  WE knew the difference between playing "two below" and tackle.  WE enforced the rules and followed them.

When WE got to be teens, WE tested the rules.  WE stretched them as far as WE could and yes, even broke a few.  WE got a little wild, but WE always knew the rules were there, and if necessary, WE paid the price for breaking them.

One thing that WE were taught, that WE always believed, even if sometimes WE said WE didn't:

If WE played by the rules and worked hard, WE would succeed.

So eventually WE settled down and played by the rules of the adult.  WE worked hard.  WE minded our own business.  WE took care of our families and expected others to do the same.  WE thought that everything was fine with the world.

But then, small groups of people began to challenge the rules.  They said that this rule wasn't "fair" because everyone couldn't play the game as well as others.  They said that this other rule was "discriminatory" because it kept less able people from playing the game.  They said that some other rule was "racist" because it kept a certain minority from succeeding in the game.  Others said that some rule was "hateful" because failure was cruel and indiscriminate.

WE didn't want to be unfair or bigots or racists or hateful, so WE allowed the people to be exempted from the rules that WE had played by all of our lives.

One morning, WE woke up and realized that WE were the only people playing by the rules anymore.  WE were working hard and contributing our taxes to a government that not only allowed people to avoid the rules, but actually encouraged them to do so.  WE found ourselves being responsible for other peoples mistakes.

WE began to wonder why.

The final straw came, after years of making exceptions for all of the people who for one reason or another, couldn't or wouldn't pay by the rules, WE began to question whether WE could continue to pay more and more of the money that WE earned to take care of a larger and larger class of dependent people.  WE expressed concern that, as a nation, WE could no long continue to borrow money to pay for all of the things that those people wanted

WE were called ignorant, stupid, close-minded, backward. provincial, uninformed, hateful, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, and worst of all: racist.  Not just by the people who WE had been so understanding and tolerant with over the years, but by the political leaders that WE elected to office.

Now, WE have finally had enough.

In November, WE THE PEOPLE will have our say, and WE will begin the process of putting the rules back in place.

More about Out-liars

A little extra information regarding my post yesterday about the "weighting" of poll results by major media outlets.  The Newsweek Magazine poll released last week showing President Obama's approval rating to be 47 percent with 45 percent disapproving had some interesting "weighting" used.

Even more extreme than the CBS poll I discussed yesterday, Newsweek weighted the Democrat sample by 4 points while reducing the Republican sample by 3 points creating a false dichotomy of a 7 point spread between self-identified Republicans and Democrats.  As with the CBS News poll from yesterday, this is the exact spread from the 2008 election.  Is is really realistic to use those numbers now?

I suppose the unanswered question is WHY they would use obviously incorrect weighting to produce a poll that cannot help but be dismissed as an outlier?

Are they cheer leading, hoping to arouse the Democrat base?

Outliers or Out-and-out liars?

Many years ago at the University of Texas at Arlington, I took a senior level course in Public Opinion research.  It was one of the most fascinating classes that I took while in college, because I learned that public opinion research is subject to many unintended errors that can produce a result that falls outside of expectations or is not in line with other similar polls.  In the trade, these are called outliers.

I also learned that the opinion data may be "weighted" so as better to reflect the population as a whole.  For example, if we are trying to survey a group of people about their opinions on colored contact lenses, and we want to sample an equitable distribution of different eye colors, we would first have to determine what the percentages of each common eye color is in the population.  For the sake of argument, let us say that 15 percent of the population has blue eyes, 15 percent green and 60 percent brown.  Unfortunately, when you finished your survey, you found that you had more than 15 percent of your respondents with blue eyes and fewer than 60 percent with brown eyes.  You then apply a process called "weighting" in which the opinions of the people with brown eyes are given more value or importance than those of the blue eyed people in order to conform with the statistical distribution.  Unfortunately, if your assumptions or facts about the actual population distribution of the various eye colors is wrong, then your weighting is wrong, and your final analysis is likely to produce an outlier.

On July 21st of this year, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, President Obama's job approval numbers went "underwater".  That is to say that those who disapprove of his job performance outnumber those who approve of it. This has held steady to today, some days reaching as much as a five to six point spread.  Repeated polls from Fox News, the AP, Reuters, CNN and USA Today have indicated that the job disapproval has surpassed the job approval ratings, at least to some extent.

Then, in the last two weeks have come three separate polls from Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and CBS Television that suddenly show President Obama's job approval rating to be back "above water" as much as four percentage points.  I found this particularly interesting since the daily polls run by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports still show the president to be "underwater" by as much as six percentage points.

So, I decided to look into what we poll wonks call "the internals".  Those things like the breakdown of the sample including assumptions made about the distribution of the population between Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  It was interesting what I found.

The CBS poll in particular "weighted" the results to over sample persons self identified as Democrats by 1.1 percent and Independents by two percentage points and under sampling self identified Republicans by 2.7 percent.  This assumes that the political landscape of the United States has not changed since the Presidential Election in 2008.

This totally flies in the face of current polling that shows the political divide less than 3 percent.

Although I have been unable to access the "internals" of the Time or Newsweek polls, I have no doubt that their results were "weighted" in the same manner.

Did they make an honest mistake in "weighting" the numbers with outdated population distributions?

Did they deliberately "weight" the numbers to get the result they wanted?

Neither Time Magazine and Newsweek Magazine are know to be friends to Republicans any more than CBS Television.  In fact, quite the opposite.

I can't believe that these are the same people who moan and groan about how Americans don't trust the mainstream media any more.  Do we need a better reason why?

Blago-a-go-go

Honestly, I haven't really been following the Rod Blagojevich corruption trial, but my attention was caught yesterday by the non-verdict.  Now color me skeptical, but doesn't anyone other than me think that ONE person holding out against a guilty verdict is a bit fishy?  I mean, this is Chicago, it's not like jurors haven't been gotten to before.  Don't you think that the Federal District Attorney maybe should be checking into this person to see if there have been some unusual large deposits in his bank account?  After all, isn't that part of the Chicago Way?

Delusional Democrats

Sorry for the gap in postings, but summer is always busy for me and between trips to Utah and Arizona and the mountains of New Mexico for a week at a time, work has been rather trying.  So apologies out of the way, let's dive into the amazing Fantasyland of Democrat politics.

To begin with, let me just say that I read a lot of political commentary.  I begin my day each morning with a virtual trip to the newsstand by visiting Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com).  I heartily recommend it because it at least TRIES to be fair and balanced by including articles from all sides of the political spectrum.  Although I am a conservative, I force myself to read at least two articles each day from the OTHER side.  Generally from the leading liberal luminaries (I love alliteration) the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and when I am feeling really adventurous, even the Huffington Post (e.g. Nattering Nabobs of Negativism).  I do my best to keep my mind open to ANY reasonable arguments made by their opinions and arguments, though I don't often find many.

Recently, my readings have amazed me, particularly those from the left.  I cannot remember in my lifetime when a political party or movement has been so removed from reality, as if they existed in an entirely different country than I do.

The continual blather about the "hateful" and "racist" Tea Partiers, combined with the tired old saw about Republicans being out to steal grannies Social Security or take food out of the mouths of children has gone past the point of just political mudslinging, that is expected during an election year, to the point where I am beginning to wonder if they really believe it.

Having observed politics for many years, from a distance thankfully, I have accepted that there is a certain level of spurious accusations that just get attributed to members of certain parties.  Republicans are the party of big business.  Democrats are weak on defense issues.  Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights.  Democrats are all about killing babies.  These things are expected.  But since 2000 when President Bush was elected with some controversy (stolen the Democrats would say) the level of HATRED and VENOM from the left has reached a fever pitch.

You would think that after regaining control of the Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, they would be happy.  Not so!  They continue to pour out the hateful bile that says ANYONE who does not agree completely with them is a narrow-minded, hateful, racist, bigot, homophobe, etc., etc., etc.

If you are concerned about illegal immigration, you at best a xenophobe or at worst a racist.

If you are worried about the deficit and the national debt, at best you are selfish and cold-hearted, at worst you are going to destroy Medicare and kill thousands of people.

Representatives Weiner and King, both from New York got into a screaming argument on the floor of the House of Representatives last week.  King was, I think, trying to make a valid point on how the legislation that they were considering about a benefit for 9/11 first responders has been given a "poison pill" that required a two-thirds vote of the house to pass the bill instead of the normal simple majority.  This was done to specifically embarrass the Republican members of the House who wanted off-sets to pay for the bill.

Representative Weiner effectively accused Representative King of working from only the darkest of motives to deny medical care for the brave first responders of 9/11.  The invective he used was appalling.

I suppose what I am really wondering is why there is so much hatred on the Left?  We on the Right are always being accused of hatred, but wasn't it Union Obama supporters that assaulted a Tea Party activist last summer?  Wasn't it Obama supporting New Black Panther party members who threatened and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling station?

The best that the Left to accuse the Right of this kind of hatred is the incident where members of the Congressional Black Caucus, led by Nancy Pelosi marched provocatively through a Tea Party protest and claimed to have been spit upon and had racial epithets cast at them.  Unfortunately for them, no video taken at the time indicates that this happened.

In November, the People of this country are going to rise up and take control of this country once again.  They will reassert their control of the political system and the supposed servants of the people they elect.  They will seize the tiller of the ship of state and turn it sharply to the starboard.

How will the Left react?

More of the same?

If so, I think they doom their party and their movement to the fringes for the foreseeable future!

Minority Majority?

According to the Wall Street Journal report of a US Census release, the current racial make up of children born in the United States is 51.4 percent White and 48.6 percent non-white.  If the trend continues, by the middle of next year, that percentage will be reversed and more non-white children will be born in the United States than white children.

Minorities of all ethnic types currently make up 35 percent of the United States population.  Eventually, given the increasing birth rate of non-whites, the "minority" population will become the "majority" of people in the United States.

I wonder what the US will look like then?

Do you think that the newly minted "minority" of whites will be able to receive the privileges that other minorities in the past have enjoyed?

Hmmm...  Think about it...

The United White Person's College Fund

The Congressional White Caucus

The National Association for the Advancement of White People

Certainly those groups would be labeled RACIST!  I mean promoting one race over another with "special" groups that only the people of that race can join is exclusionary, bigoted, discriminatory and racist aren't they?

Maybe you should ask the Black or Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, or the Congressional Black Caucus, or the National Council of La Raza, or the League of United Latin American Citizens!

An Open Letter to His Excellency, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico

Your Excellency,

Yesterday you came to our country to meet with our President.  At the end of your meeting, you deliberately involved yourself in the politics of our county without invitation, and discussed some things of which you were obviously not informed.  I do not blame you for this, for unfortunately neither our President, his Attorney General, nor his Director of Homeland Security have bothered to read the Arizona law, so why should I expect you to have done so.

Let me try to generally inform you of some basics of the law of which you are obviously ignorant:

1.  No one can be stopped and asked for identification based solely on their appearance.  The law mandates that Law Enforcement Personnel must have prior "legal contact" with persons before requesting that they prove citizenship.  Unlike the laws in Mexico, that means the Police Officer must have probable cause to stop and detain the person before he can ask for any type of verification of citizenship.

2.  The United States Immigration laws mandate that resident aliens carry their federal identification cards "green cards" with them at all times and present them upon request by any law enforcement agency.  It is a federal misdemeanor to fail to have or produce a "green card" upon request.  The Arizona law is supportive of the federal law in that it also makes it a misdemeanor in Arizona to be without a valid residence card.

3.  If the person detained provides a valid state or federally issued identification, they will not be further asked to provide verification or detained.  Only if the person cannot provide valid identification will they be further detained and their legal status checked with Immigration.

Basically sir, no one in the United States legally has anything to fear from Arizona's new law, as they have nothing to fear from the current law of the United States.  It is only those who break the law by being in the United States illegally who have anything to fear.

In your remarks yesterday after meeting with the President, you stated that you wanted to create a "safer border, a border that will unite us instead of dividing us."

Although horribly oxymoronic, it appeared to be a valid sentiment on your part.  So, let us discuss then our common border.

For almost a thousand years, there has been a proverb that is repeated in many languages in many lands.  It says simply that "Good fences make good neighbors".

From the Mexican border every year, comes tons of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs into the United States.  Drug Cartels operating on both sides of the border are kidnapping and murdering innocent people in order to maintain the fear that they use to control their "trade routes".   Inter-cartel murders are uncountable.  This violence is spilling across the border.

As a Texan, I always enjoyed "crossing the border" on day trips into Juarez, Acuna, Nuevo Laredo and Matamoras.  While I was in San Diego, California it was always fun to travel into Tijuana for the bull fights, dog races and good food.

Today, I would not cross the border for fear of the corrupt police and drug gangs.

I can drive along the road that follows the Rio Grande and see United States Border Patrol and Immigration Agents every few miles.  I look across the river and see nothing, except perhaps the occasional person waiting to wade across the river.

Excellency, you say you want a safer border.  You say you want a border that unites us.  The solution lies with you.

You must create a society where people don't have to leave in order to escape grinding poverty.  You must protect your own people by putting troops on the border to stop the drug violence and chase out the drug gangs from your cities.  You must work with the United States in stopping illegal immigrants from crossing the border into the United States.

If you want Mexico to be a good neighbor of the United States, you must maintain your side of the fence.  Condemning us for the mote in our eye while ignoring the plank sticking out of yours accomplishes nothing.

Happy Constitution of 1824 Day!

Now, if you want a holiday that is appropriate for both Mexicans and Texans to celebrate, here it is!  In 1824, for the first time in Mexican history, there was a Constitution produced that guaranteed some of the same basic rights as the United States Constitution.  The Constitution of 1824 proclaimed the creation of the United Federal States of Mexico and in particular interest, the creation of the state of Coahuila y Tejas.  Some of the basic articles of the Constitution included:

1. The Mexican nation is sovereign and free from the Spanish government and any other nation.

2. The religion of the nation is Roman Catholic Church and is protected by law and prohibits any other.

4. The Mexican nation adopts as form of government a popular federal representative republic.

6. The supreme power of the federation is divided into Legislative power, Executive power and Judiciary power.

7. Legislative power is deposited in a Congress of two chambers, a Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Senators.

50. Political freedom of press in the federation and the states (paragraph 1).

74. Executive power is vested in a person named President of the United Mexican States.

75. It provides the figure of vice president, who in case of physical or moral impossibility of the president, exercise the powers and prerogatives of the latter.

95. The term of the president and vice president shall be four years.

123. Judiciary power lies in a Supreme Court, in the Circuit Courts and District Courts.

124. The Supreme Court consists of eleven members divided into three rooms and a prosecutor.

157. The individual state governments will be formed by the same three powers.

It was under this Constitution that Anglos coming to Tejas agreed to abide, and it was the abrogation of this Constitution by the Mexican Government of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna that led directly to the Texas Revolution.  

It is no surprise that the flag that flew over the Alamo was NOT the lone star, but the Mexican "1824" flag.

So, celebrate a day that has true MEANING to both Mexicans and Americans!

Happy Cinco de..... What? Part 2

Don't know if you have heard about this yet, but several students at a California High School yesterday were instructed to remove patriotic articles of clothing and turn their United States flag t-shirts inside out.  The Vice Principal called the articles "incendiary" and other students called them "disrespectful".

Hello?!  What country do we live in?  Not only are we being forced to recognize another country's holiday, but our children are being punished for wearing the flag of THIS country?  All because somebody might be offended on the "official" MEXICAN holiday.

How can the flag of MY country be considered incendiary?  In MY country?  Did they take the flag down off the flag pole at Live Oak High School for the day?  Did they remove the United States flag from all the classrooms.  I don't ask about the Pledge of Allegiance because I KNOW that the Pledge has long been banned from California classrooms.

Where does it end?  Do we sacrifice our national identity, WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY, to make sure that don't offend people who are still more tied to their country of ancestry than they are to their country of residence?

When I was growing up, I was taught that the United States was a melting pot into which each culture was amalgamated into the whole, creating a richer AMERICAN culture.  Like adding carbon to iron, the incoming cultures made the AMERICAN culture stronger.

Today we are told that we are a stew, each culture maintaining it's own distinct "flavor" while adding to the richness to the stew.  Unfortunately, a culture that refuses to "cook down" into the stew is like a turd in a punch bowl.  No matter how much "flavor" it brings, it's still a turd.

If immigration patterns continue as they have our country will soon be "Balkanized" or "Quebec'd":  A Hispanic, mostly Mexican, southwest; an Asian Pacific Northwest, a Cuban/Caribbean Florida, and so on.

Where will we be as a nation when that happens?

One of our nation's mottos is "E Pluribus, Unum" meaning "Out of many, One."  How long before we will say "E Pluribus, Nullos".  "Out of many, NONE"

If you are as outraged about this as I am, please feel free to contact the Principal, Mr. Nick Boden at Nick.Boden@mhu.k12.ca.us

Happy Cinco de..... What?

I am a Texan.  I wanted to get that out of the way before I started just in case someone had any questions.  There is no argument that we Texans are a breed of our own, and do things pretty much the way we want to, no matter what anybody else thinks.

Which leads me to wonder... Why do we celebrate a MEXICAN holiday in Texas?

Commonly known as "Cinco de Mayo", it is a celebration of the Battle of Puebla, fought in 1861, in which Mexican forces under the command of Ignacio Zaragoza defeated French forces under Charles de Lorencez.

It should be noted that the French initially landed with an international force that included British and Spanish troops.  The force was sent because the Mexican government, being in one of it's perpetual fiscal crises, and having had ANOTHER change in government, had defaulted on loans made by the major European powers.  After cutting a deal, the British and Spanish withdrew, but negotiations with the French dragged on.

On May 5th, the French foolishly tried to attack the city of Puebla.  The French were defeated and eventually had to leave Mexico blah, blah, blah.

It is a day that Mexicans can be proud of.

But it still begs my question.  Why do we celebrate a MEXICAN holiday in Texas?

My more "urbane" friends and family would tell me, I'm sure, that Mexican heritage is an integral part of Texas heritage and culture.  That accepting and respecting the culture of Mexican descended Texans is vital to a healthy modern Texas.  To those well meaning folks I say: Steer Manure!

I come from a mixed heritage.  Though mostly English and Scottish stock, I am a fine example of what used to be known as the American "melting pot".  I do not celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, Trafalgar  Day, Empire Day or commemorate the execution of William Wallace and the restoration of the Scottish throne with Robert the Bruce.  Neither do I demand or promote their celebration in Texas, though English and Scottish descended persons played major roles in the development of Texas.  Names like Austin, Burnet, Cameron, Milam and McMullen come to mind.

One should remember that the province of Coahuila y Tejas was an undeveloped backwater of Commanche and Kiowa nomads under less than effective control of the government in Mexico City.  It was not until the Empresarios began to bring settlers to Tejas, that the wilderness began to succomb to "civilization".

Further, Texas won it's independence from Mexico in 1836, 25 years BEFORE the Battle of Puebla.  Texas had no ties to Mexico at the time.  In fact, even the dullest of student would know that by May 1861, Texas had seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States of America, not rejoined Mexico.

So,. to the Mexican citizens, at home and abroad, I wish a happy commemoration of the Battle of Puebla.  As I said, it is a point of national pride.

To the citizens of Texas I say, if you want to celebrate something, celebrate March 2nd or April 21st.  These dates have more relevance to Texas than May 5th.  If you claim to be a Texan and don't know what those dates are, pick an Interstate highway.  I'll show you the way out.

Twenty-two Percent

I was reading the news online yesterday and I saw the following headline:

Poll: Majority lacks trust in government

In reading the article, I discovered that only 22 percent of Americans surveyed say that they can trust the Federal Government some or most of the time.

Twenty-one percent say that they are angry at the Federal Government and thirty percent feel that the Federal Government is a major threat to them.

It is amazing to me that the Government of the United States has alienated 78 PERCENT of the American People!  That means 8 people out of 10 agree that the government cannot be trusted.  

You can't get 8 people out of 10 to agree on where to eat, let alone agree that the government is screwed up.

How on earth did this happen?

Naturally, I have a theory.

From 2002 until 2008, the Democrat party along with it's fellow travelers in the mainstream media has kept up a steady stream of trash directed towards President Bush and, until 2006, the Republican controlled Congress.  Their daily blather of calling the President a liar, and Congress inept and corrupt.  They called Bush Hitler.  They claimed that Republicans in Congress had a "Culture of Corruption".  On and on it went for six long years.  The Politics of trash talking. 

Starting in 2006 they leveraged all of the trash talking and media cooperation into political gains, claiming that THEY would change Washington.  Throw the bums out, and we will change things! 

Nancy Pelosi, Representative from the Peoples Republic of San Francisco, later to become Speaker of the House, said the she "intended to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical" Congress in history.

In 2008, Barack Obama ran on a platform that could be most easily described as "Trust Me!  I'm not Bush.  I will bring change to Washington.  Embrace Hope!"

A majority of Americans swallowed the Kool-Ade hoping that this person, whom they knew virtually NOTHING about, could indeed bring needed change to Washington.

Here we are, a little more than a year since Mr. Obama was inaugurated into office and what do the American people see?

Do they see the change that they had hoped for?

Not a chance.

The change that most Americans see is not just more of the same, but worse.  Back room deals made in the middle of the night.  Laws passed without being read or understood by the Congress.  Scandal, obstruction of justice, cover ups.

Worst of all, when the American people began to say "Slow Down", to question the direction that the Obama administration was taking the country, they were told to 'Sit Down and Shut Up".

The condescension, arrogance and disdain that the elected leaders of this country, both from the White House and the Capitol, was poured forth on the people.

They have been called stupid, racist, ignorant and worst of all, dangerous.  They have been compared to terrorists, lynch mobs and revolutionaries.  

Where the people cannot be ignored, they are ridiculed.

What kind of nation have we become where our elected leaders, people that WE THE PEOPLE put in office can look down their noses at as if we no longer matter.  THEY KNOW BETTER.  We are not capable of knowing what the right thing to do is, let alone take care of ourselves.  THEY will tell us what to think, how to behave, how to live.

I don't know about you, but when people start saying things like that to me, I stop trusting them and stop listening to them.  After a while, it really begins to make me mad.

If you're like that don't worry.  You're in good company with EIGHTY percent of the rest of the country!

Rainy Day Ramblings

It’s raining in West Texas today.  Not one of those big, booming thunderstorms that we get in springtime, but a nice steady rain that has the potential to last all day.

On days like this, things seem to slow down a bit out here.  Farmers spend a little more time in the coffee shop; traffic slows down to avoid the big puddles, and even average folks spend a little bit more time just 

looking out the window.

People in West Texas are more introspective on a day like this.

Today is also Tax Day.  While most Americans have already filed, received and spent their income tax returns, there are still a few who are rushing to beat the deadline of midnight to get something filed.  Having Tax Day fall on a lazy, rainy day like today must be a real challenge to those people.

Anyway, I was reading today that the New York Times conducted a survey of TEA Party participants and low and behold, those people are better educated and wealthier than the “average” American.

All I can say to the New York Times is:  DUH!

Now remember, my thinking is moving a little slow today, so try to follow me on this.

People who are struggling to get by have to WORK.  Unless subsidized by some group, like their Union or Political Party or “Community Action” group like ACORN, they cannot afford to take off of work without pay to attend a rally.  Even if they could, they probably wouldn’t agree with the message of the TEA Party.

Logically, only people who can AFFORD to take the day off, those who are retired, or those who do not HAVE to work would show up at one of these TEA Parties.

It follows that a person, who CAN afford to take the day off, without outside subsidy, must have better than average financial means, right?

It also follows that people who are the most successful financially tend to be better educated than those who aren’t, right?

According to the article, TEA Party participants tend to be “Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.”

Hmmm…   Statistically, aren’t these the people who are in the prime earning period of their lives?  Aren’t these the people who are the drivers of the economy? Aren’t these the people who have a large tax bill?

Imagine that THEY would be concerned that the federal government is slowly strangling them to financial death with higher taxes.  Imagine THEY would be concerned that the massive federal DEFICIT and DEBT is slowly bleeding our country to death.  Imagine that THEY would actually turn out to PROTEST this!

Apparently to the New York Times, this is news.

Out here on the plains, it seems pretty obvious to me.

Remembering the Civil War

Today marks the 149^th anniversary of the fall of Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.  April 12th of next year begins the four year Sesquicentennial of the Civil War.  I wonder, how we will remember the war that for four years tore our country apart.

In the last week Virginia Governor Bob McDonald has been criticized for statements made in regards to his proclamation of April as Confederate History Month.  He was chastised by none other than our own President for not mentioning the role that slavery played in causing the war.  The President said “I don’t think you can understand the Confederacy and the Civil War unless you understand slavery.”

As a historian and Civil War buff, I both agree and disagree with the President.  I think that the problem here is not an appreciation of slavery’s role in the South and its contribution to the origins of the war, but that it has been given preeminence as THE cause for the war.  There the President and I part ways.

There were approximately 5.3 million “free” residents of the south in 1860. Less than 20 percent or 1.06 million owned slaves.  50 percent of those owned fewer than five slaves. That is a statistical fact.  Only 1 in 5 southerners owned slaves.

Most southerners in 1860 were poor, subsistence farmers.  They lived in small hamlets, far from the cities of Richmond, Charleston, Montgomery or New Orleans.  While most had seen slaves, they could not afford the $500-$1500 it took to purchase one.  These people lived day to day on what they grew and harvested with their own two hands.

Whether or not the “rich” Doctor, Lawyer, Plantation Owner or Merchant had slaves was of little or no concern to the average southern white, and they damn sure wouldn’t risk their own death to protect other’s right to own slaves.

So what would make 750,000 southern men, most of which never owned a slave, fight in a horrible war?  How could the small percentage of slave owners convince the majority of the population to fight for slavery?

This is where the teaching of history fails us.  This is where the understanding of the role of slavery fails to provide answers.  This is what the President doesn’t understand and can’t explain.  But, history provides us with the answer if only we will listen.

The majority of Southerners did not fight for slavery.  When captured at Gettysburg they had an answer.  When asked why they were fighting for slavery, they said that they weren’t “fightin’ for no darkies.  We is fightin’ for our rights!” 

At Vicksburg another, perhaps more insightful prisoner, said he was fighting because “you’re down here”.

To put it simply, the average southern soldier was fighting for his home, his state that he often referred to as his ‘country’. 

The greatest example of this was the greatest leader of the South.  Robert E. Lee owned NO SLAVES.  As early as 1856 Lee said “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

The average southerner merely wanted to be LEFT ALONE by his government.  He was fighting for his RIGHT to live where he wanted, how he wanted.  This was not an argument about Slavery or States Rights; this was an argument about INDIVIDUAL rights.  The rights that southerners saw as enshrined in the Constitution.  Right for which many of their ancestors had fought the British for:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Abraham Lincoln himself, for the first two years of the war, proclaimed that the war was not about slavery, but about the restoration of the Union.  ONLY when it became POLITICALLY necessary for his administration, did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

I am proud to say that I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War.  They road with JEB Stuart in the Peninsula Campaign, fought at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and even participated in Sherman's drive to Atlanta.

I am also the descendant of slave owners, something of which I am not proud.

The question is how shall we remember the Civil War?  Was it ONLY as the war to end slavery?  Are we who believe otherwise to be condemned for thinking so?

We have ONE YEAR to make up our minds.  Do we honor those who fought and died for what they believed to be right, or do we paint one side as “righteous” and the other as “evil” based ONLY on the side for which they fought?

As a UNION, we had better figure this out!

Preachin' to the Choir

While I know that my readers are exceptionally intelligent individuals for whom the next few lines will be somewhat redundant because I know you already understand and agree with what I'm going to say, what we in West Texas call "preachin' to the choir", I feel the need to talk about some basic economic principles that neither the government or most people seem to understand these days.  So friends, bear with me for a bit while I get this out of my system.

Basic concepts of economics:

1.  People create businesses to make money.  Profit is the driving force for all businesses.

2.  Profit drives incentive.  When a business makes money, it is driven to provide it's good or service in a better manner.  Having profit to invest in the business allows for innovation in product design that create a better version of the product and innovation in production methods that can reduce the consumer cost of a product.  It also allows the business  to grow to produce more of the good or service provided.

3.  When businesses grow because of profit, they hire employees to assist them in continuing the cycle of investment, production, sale and profit.  If conditions require, businesses contract reducing employees as a variable cost to be controlled.

4.  As businesses grow, they need more and more highly skilled employees to produce and market a better product.  In order to attract the best talent, businesses offer "benefits".

Given these economic truths, other truths become apparent:

1.  Profit is good.  Without profit businesses don't stay in business.  No business, no employees,
2.  The largest cost to any business is payroll.  Simply put, people cost money.
2.  No one has a "right" to a job.  Businesses hire employees as they need them.  When the need no long exists, the employee is released.
3.  Employer provided benefits are just that BENEFITS.  The employee does not have any "right" to them.  Should the employer choose to withdraw any or all benefits from the workplace due to profit loss they may do so.


Government intervention in business ALWAYS hurts the EMPLOYEE more than the business.

1.  Taxes reduce profit.  Without profit, businesses do not hire or provide benefits to those employees that they retain, or they lay off employees.
2.  Excessive regulations on workplace "safety" stifle innovation and cost the business profit resuling in fewer employees.
3.  Government mandates for the amount and quality of any 'benefit" results in higher costs and lower profits for the company.  Lower profits result in fewer employees.

Simply to recap, businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY, not to provide jobs or benefits.

To anyone who understand these basic concepts of economics and business, it is not surprising that some of America's largest corporations are reporting how much it is going to cost to implement the new mandates included in the health care reform law.

It should come as no surprise when these companies drop the health care and prescription drug benefit that they have provided their employees.

It should also come as no surprise if they cut their existing employees to make up for the cost if they decide to continue to provide benefits.

Don't even get me started on Unions!

OK, I'm finished preaching now.  I do hope that the members of my choir will carry the good news to those still suffering in darkness, and maybe someday the rest of the congregation will understand that every time the government HELPS us, WE are the ones who PAY for it, one way or another.

Credit where credit is due...

In order to be fair with our President, I feel it is important to give him credit when he does something worthy of it. So, today I want to thank him for dealing with the most important issue... of the 1980's.

The White House announced last week that it had negotiated a new nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia that would reduce each countries nuclear stockpile to no more than 1,550 warheads. This is a significant step towards the President's goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the world.

In the 1980's with the specter of "Mutually Assured Destruction" hanging over the head of every world citizen and with the irresponsible cowboy Ronald Reagan holding the reins of power in the United States, a group of concerned activists got together to stop the world from exploding.

The movement eventually held massive rallies in Washington, the United Nations and around the world demanding action. In 1982 they petitioned the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union to "adopt a mutual freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons and of missiles, and new aircraft designed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons".

Popular musicians of the time waxed poetic. Sting hoped that the "Russians love their children too." The punk group Violent Femmes talked of "Hallowed Ground": "Everyone's trying to decide, where to go when there's no place to hide. I follow the bombs as they're coming down.  This must have been hallowed ground."  The pop group INXS chanted  "Annhilate, Atomic fate, Mediate, Clear the State, Activate, now Radiate, a Perfect State, Food on Plate, at 98, We All Rotate, Gravitate, the Earth's Own Weight, Don't Suffocate, on Your Own Hate. . ." It went on and on.

Amidst all of this, I can almost visualize a young, idealistic Barry Obama in his second year at Columbia University, swept up in the message, the music and the madness, wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms", cursing Ronald Reagen and dreaming someday that it would all just go away, if only the right person were elected President.

Well today, he takes the first step to fulfill his dream.

Of course, someone should tell him a couple of inconvenient facts:

1. It is estimated that of the 2,200 nuclear weapons the Russians are currently allowed by the START II agreement, LESS THAN HALF (1,100) are actually operational. So effectively, the Russians give up NOTHING while we give up 700 perfectly usable weapons.

2. Do I actually have to mention that the North Koreans and the Iranians are hyperventilating at the opportunity to strike a blow at the United States using nuclear or at least atomic weapons.

So here's to you Mr. President. You have set us on the path of being a paper tiger. A toothless power, unable to respond to provocations and attacks from people bent on our destruction. Congratulations!

Honestly, is my sarcasm a bit thick?

Hate Inspired

People have been asking me when I plan to write something about the "Obamacare" bill that passed on Sunday. Let me be short and sweet: As an American I am disgusted by it! I unfortunately am not the most informed or clear on what all the new laws are so I won't try to discuss it in depth. For a short summary from the Heritage Foundation, please read http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/what-america-will-look-like-if-the-white-house-gets-its-way/.

Today I think it is more important to discuss today's news conference held by Speaker Pelosi in which she attempts to blame the Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives for inciting people to threats and violence through their "heated rhetoric". They state that this has caused "incitement to people whose judgement is not peaceful... and who either verbally or physically threaten people with whom they disagree."

I think that Pelosi etal are obviously trying to make political points against people THEY don't agree with by painting them with this brush of violence and threats as though any reasonable person would do such a thing. Their message in a nutshell: These Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives are DANGEROUS RADICALS bent on VIOLENCE and INTIMIDATION."

I am hopeful that the American People will see through the obvious slander and take it for what it is worth: kitty litter.

For a moment, I want to step back and look at what has happened in the last 14 months. Average Americans who oppose the supposed health care "reform" have been branded as racists who hate "having a black man in the White House." It has been inferred that they are closet homosexuals (google the term 'teabagging' if you don't believe me). They have been called ignorant, uninformed, reactionary, inbred and stupid.

In spite of an overwhelming outcry from the people against the legislation, Congress has voted repeatedly for it. The people made their voices heard at town meetings, small gatherings and large protests held across the country. Still Congress refused to hear them. The people turned out one Democrat Governor, elected a Republican Governor in a state that had been Democrat for 8 years, and voted a Republican into a Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for the last 47 years, each time repudiating the direction that Democrats were trying to take the country. Still they refused to alter for their decided course.

They bribed, threatened and cajoled their fellow members in order to bring them online, culminating in a vote held late on a Sunday night when most Americans were not watching, in which they passed a law that most of them have not read.

In short, CONGRESS ITSELF is responsible for what is happening.

When a government OF THE PEOPLE deliberately thwarts the will OF THE PEOPLE, they should not be surprised when they arouse the anger OF THE PEOPLE!

The Abyss

It looks more and more likely that the Democrats in Congress are going to pass the monstrosity of the so-called "Health Care" bill today.

In doing so, they are condemning our nation to bankruptcy and ruin.

As a country, we are jumping into the abyss that has swallowed great nations in the past.

Our government has ceased to be responsive to the will of the people. Our government no longer commands the consent of the governed. Only a decline into anarchy and chaos or authoritarianism can follow, unless the people regain control of the government.

We have but ONE CHANCE. Vote against any politician who voted FOR Obamacare and AGAINST the will of the citizens of the United States!

To consider the Democrats and Republicans equally responsible for the mess in Washington is no longer a valid argument. Democrats control ALL branches of government now and they will act on what THEY think is right for all of the rest of us! VOTE THEM OUT!

A Pretty Quiet Week

Well, it's been a pretty quiet week out here on the prairie. It's almost as if everything and everybody is pausing to take a deep breath before Spring really kicks in with abandon. Either that or everyone is so tense with anticipation of Spring Break next week that they're just staying quiet.

The daffodils have burst into life this week and that is a sure sign that warmer weather is on it's way.  I'm hopeful that we will see some bluebonnets on the way down to Corpus Christi this weekend.

I'm taking a week off from the grind of work and the madness of politics, though I will continue to consume my daily requirement of opinions, blogs and news, so don't be surprised if I belch forth something from the smartphone this week if I am truly incensed.

I intend to find myself a salty piece of land and dip my toes in the muddy waters of the Texas Gulf Coast.

So, adieu for now, and I'll see you on the other side!

What's My Race?

The Census is coming up soon, and there is a bit of controversy arising from the right about the questions regarding Race. The argument goes like this: The United States Constitution requires that an "enumeration" be made every ten years. To enumerate means to "determine the number of" or to "count". The Constitution gives no other requirements for the Census other than that the "enumeration shall be made... within every subsequent Term of ten years". Therefore, some are saying that all questions on the Census that are not part of an actual "enumeration" or count are Unconstitutional and that citizens are not bound to answer them.

I think I have to differ with my friends on the right for just a couple of things I feel need to be pointed out.

1. The US Census has asked about race since the first Census in 1790. At the time, it was necessary to determine how many "three fifths" "other persons" (slaves for anyone who isn't getting my drift) were to be counted and credited as population to the several states for the purpose of determining Congressional representation. EVERY CENSUS since 1790 has asked the same question about race.

2. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution has another little dependent clause that my friends on the right fail to include in their argument: "in such Manner as they (Congress) shall by law direct." Seems to pretty much put a hole in the argument to me. Congress can collect any information they want, so long as there is a current law that allows it. Only Supreme Court action to further define what this means would change that.

So friends, if you are dead set on changing the way the Census is done, refuse to fill in the information, get fined, and sue the United States over the Constitutionality of the Census Law of 2010.

What makes it odd these days is the variety of different races you can be. There are 15 specified "races" on this year's census form. There are three different types of "Hispanic" an there is also sections for "Other Hispanic", "Other Asian", and "Other Pacific Islander". So 18 total choices. But, if none of those fit, there is always the catch all "some other race". I guess that for all the Vampires, Werewolves, Halflings, Elves, Dwarves and Trolls out there.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, amongst it's multitude of wonderful definitions, defines race as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits". I wonder if that's what they mean when they say that all white people look alike!?

OK, so by this definition you have "White" which is a generic way to say "of European lineage. Then you have "Black" which is equally saying "of African lineage". Then there is "Hispanic": "of Spanish heritage". Native American, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, East Asian and West Asian. But wait, what about Arabs, Jews, Slavs, and Persians? The people of Romania claim that they were descended from the original Latins! Where will this all end?

In Eastern Europe before the first World War and after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a nasty little problem called "Balkanization". This is defined again by our friends at Merriam-Webster as "to break up into smaller and often hostile units".

I am concerned that the Federal Government's preoccupation with race, is an effort to do just this: To divide the American people into smaller and smaller "ethnic" groups and then set up a process by which these groups will compete with one another for the spoils of Government. We see this already with the Rich/Poor, Black/White, White/Hispanic arguments that are happening today. With a "balkanized" American people, they will be so busy fighting each other that there will be no one able to stand up to our enemies, Foreign and Domestic!

Teddy Roosevelt once said:

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic… There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

Today those hyphenations are different, African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, etc.

Benjamin Franklin, in his wit, on July 4, 1776 waiting his turn to sign the Declaration of Independence that brought our country into life said "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately".

On June 16, 1858 three years before the United States was split asunder in the great Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Matthew Chapter 12, Verse 25: "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

If we cannot all unite as AMERICANS, then the days of greatness of the United States of America are indeed past.

I'm NOT Angry!

Just wanted to get that out there before some jackboots start kicking in my door. I realize that two crazies recently killed people after writing anti-government rants on the internet. I would just like to point out a couple of things:

1. The first guy attacked the IRS. Now while I don't condone killing the poor day-to-day employees at the IRS, I certainly can understand the frustration with an organization whose job is to take your money and property. Call him a reactionary right wing nutcase.

2. The Pentagon shooter was a "truther" who thought the Bush Administration was to blame for 9-11. He was so far off out in the weeds that even his liberal friends thought him somewhat bizarre. Call him a revolutionary left wing nutcase!

The rest of the sane world falls reasonably between these two extremes, me included.

What I am is disappointed that the American People could be so easily hoodwinked by an obvious charlatan peddling the snake oil of "Hope and Change".

I am embarrassed for those few honest conservatives who continue to call themselves "Democrats" for no reason that I can see, who swallowed the kool-aid of "Obamamania" and have now come to the realization that they are in deep trouble.

I'm sad that our country has had to come to this point of near bankruptcy to finally see that we can't go on and on spending like there is no tomorrow.

So before any of you who might be anonymously reading this blog drops a dime on me to the feds, lighten up. I'm harmless.