News Review By David

Orrin Hatch - Follow The Money

2012-01-24T16:24:00.011-07:00

"Follow the money, always follow the money," was the best kept secret in Washington until "Deep Throat," the inside informant for what ultimately became known as Watergate, told Woodward and Bernstein in the movie, "All The Presidents Men." Following this advise, they eventually exposed illegal campaign activities and motivated the resignation of President Nixon.

On another note, I learned from a friend years ago, that the State Department has a policy that US dipolmats can only live in the country they are working for 3 years. At that time, the only options are re-assignment or retirement. It seems that after this time, their loyalties become clouded because of the depth of immersion they have experienced as part of their employment.

How do those 2 pieces of information correlate?

Point #1

Those who know me realize that I have felt Orrin Hatch, (R-UT) has been in Washington too long and needs to retire. He appears to have lost touch with the attitudes of his constituents here in Utah. He has also become so immersed in the culture of the Capital City, that all his closest friends seem to be Democrats, rather than Republicans. He claims this is so he can better influence the Senate and be more effective in working for us. I am afraid that he has scratched too many backs and owes too many favors, that it influences his choices more than him influencing the other members of the Upper House.

Point #2

After a little research, my son, Aaron, sent me a couple of interesting articles regarding Orrin Hatch and his money trail. This is an excerpt from his email.

Just browsing around today and came across this. It is pretty telling, 78% of Orrin Hatch’s campaign contributions are from out of state.

http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/orrin-g-hatch/e5aa63ec4a0746fbb9961b325ddb3627

He also is the only republican in the top 10 recipients from MPAA.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/motion-picture-assn-of-america/90b570b10c2b4483a1af69149521324a

So, Orrin Hatch receives 78% of his political contributions from people and companies that are outside the State of Utah. That leaves only 22% of his funding coming from his constituents. This begs 2 questions.

1. If he is that much more popular outside Utah than in, maybe he should leave Utah and represent them?

2. If he is receiving over 3/4 of his salary from people and companies outside Utah, where does his loyalties and allegiance lie, that is if he wants to keep his job? At least he says he wants to keep his job.

Regarding the MPAA or Motion Picture Association of America, these statistics are very interesting. Here is the list of the top 10 Congress people who have received contributions over the time the records were kept.

1. Max Baucus (D-NT) - $27,151
2. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - $25,466
3. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - $23,800
4. Howard Berman (D-CA) - $22,300
5. Harry Reid (D-NV) - $22,300
6. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -$22,140
7. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - $21,900
8. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - 20,900
9. Jane Harman (D-CA) - $20,788
10. Gray Davis (D-CA) - $20,500

Now, if your remove those from California, which the MPAA should be giving money to, and consider those outside of California, Orrin is the 4th largest recipient of MPAA funds, ever. That is 4th place out of 485 Representatives and Senators in the entire Congress.

Normally I would consider 4th out of nearly 500 to be a commendable showing, but when it is being influenced to sponsor and support such bills as SOPA and PIPA, this puts Orrin Hatch on my naughty list. I already expounded my apprehension, no, it's not apprehension, it is simply fear of this legislation.

I have called his office and voiced my opinion about him as well as these bills. I was assured by a kind staffer, that he is not supporting PIPA in its present form and asked that it not be debated or voted on yet. Unfortunately, he was one of the original sponsors and didn't change his position until popular opinion overwhelmed his switchboard.

Too bad he didn't think to stop it before it was written, I might have supported him then.

Photo courtesy of Reddogreport.com

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But a Fabrication

2011-12-12T11:03:00.013-07:00

First we had a President who didn't know the definition of "is" or the implications of a double negative. Followed by CEO's that run multi-billion dollar companies whose accounting skills don't go beyond calculating their stock bonuses, (General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.).

Then we had members of Congress who can't do their own taxes, (Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, etc., and obviously are too poor to hire someone to do it for them.) We even have the Secretary of the Treasury, (Timothy Geithner,) the head tax collector, who didn't learn how to do his own taxes until he was nominated to the post.

Now we are plagued with the Attorney General of the United States of America, (Eric Holder,) the man who makes everyone stand up and swear they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth, unable to separate truth from fantasy.

(I could say it is coincidental that they are all Democrats, but then I might be guilty of profiling.)

In regards to his testimony before Congress acknowledging when he first knew about Operation Fast and Furious, his recollection process reminds me of progressive Alzheimer's Disease. Every week, Mr. Holder is able to remember further back in time.

In May 2011, relating to the Operation which started in 2009, before Congress he said, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." But, a memo addressed to the Attorney General, July 5, 2010, explains Mr Holder was briefed on the program 10 months earlier. Oh, now he remembers.

In a speech Eric Holder gave to Mexican Authorities, April 2, 2009, he said. "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail." Oh, that's right, he did say that.

We now know that in 2009, the White House gave stimulus money to the Department of Justice to the tune of $10,000,000 to implement Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious. The exact wording is "10,000,000 shall be transferred to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner."

But his aids say that Mr. Holder didn't know the details of the project at that time, so he really didn't know what was happening. Let's see, the last time I asked for $10,000,000 for a project, I really didn't want to know any of the details, just in case I had to deny culpability later, right?

Well, now that his memory has been restored and the facts are on the table, Mr. Holder was asked a very pointed question by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), in another Congressional Hearing last week. The question was,"Tell me, what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"

“Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said.

In other words, if you intended to lie, it is a lie; if you didn't have that intent, then it isn't a lie. Or, if you made a statement you thought was the truth, which later was proven to be based on a false premise, you didn't lie; you too, were deceived. I can agree entirely with Mr. Holder on his textbook answer.

His problem is, he knew about the program in April, 2009 and was briefed in written memos on it almost weekly, for 2 years. He even pontificated in public discourses his support for the program. For him to sit before Congress or the people of the United States in May, 2011, and say that he only knew of the program a few weeks before, is by definition, a lie. He knew the truth and chose not to say it.

For Mr. Eric Holder to retain his job after supporting this controversial program that killed 2 American Agents and hundreds of Mexican Nationals is hard to imagine. But for him to commit perjury, under oath, on multiple occasions, regarding his involvement in the program, and remain employed, is unfathomable. He should be fired or impeached immediately.

*Image courtesy of - http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/sarah-palin-calls-for-the-firing-of-the-employee-who-shouldve-never-been-hired/ This is also a great article on the history of Eric Holder and the pile of asinine judicial orders and bungles he has implemented.

All That Is Necessary For The Triumph of Evil, Is For Enough Good Men To Do Nothing

2011-12-06T14:20:00.008-07:00

I was devastated to see the destruction that fell upon Penn State from the actions of one. Joe Paterno had sing-handedly taken a small college football team from oblivion to the National Championships and became the winningest college football coach in history. In contrast, Jerry Sandusky, formerly the assistant football coach at Penn State, by his persistence in perverted extra-curricular activities with young boys, destroyed that golden image and broke everyone around him.

Not only was the image of the Penn State tarnished, but several good men, including Paterno, have lost their jobs and probably their careers.

But as sad as this all is, the greater sorrow is that it all could have been averted. There was no need for this scenario to have spun out of control.

It is not enough to just be a good person; to be an example of honesty, decency and morality. Joe Paterno was all of these. He inspired tens of thousands of students to never settle for anything less than their best, to live the principles that would bring them happiness and joy throughout their lives.

We must also stand up against that which is wrong. The more evil it is, the faster and firmer our actions need to be.

According to reports surfacing from the investigation, there were many, many times over the past 15 years, school officials could and should have stepped forward. Each of those times, rather than confronting the problem, these good men chose to remain quiet, not rock the boat. A large splash in the pond 15 years ago would have been so much easier to deal with than the tsunami engulfing Penn State today.

One lie, always requires another. Inaction on any issue, invites more inaction. Turning a blind eye to evil results in tolerance of deviancy; whether we proclaim it publicly or not.

From government war rooms, to board rooms, to our bedrooms, we must expect moral behavior and stand for what is right.

Because, if we don't stand for the right, we'll find that we will fall for anything.

Post Script, January 24, 2012
Joe Paterno died this past weekend. It was a sad day for all of us. It is tragic that his departure was likely hastened by the unfortunate events of the past few months.
Good-bye, Joe. We will miss your fine example.

Photos Courtesy of

http://www.section247sportsblog.com/page/2/

A Link to - The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

2011-12-02T12:19:00.017-07:00

In the not too distant future.

The U. S. Attorney General, back-lit in a dim room, shrouded with an Inquisition style hooded robe, solemnly declares, "You have been accused to be in suspected violation of vaguely stated copyright laws, wherein you presumably allowed to be uploaded, 1 copyrighted file to the 327,246,135,753 existing files on one of your servers, without making herculean efforts and/or spending tens of thousands of dollars, (USD) to ferret out such malicious activity; thereby providing the possibility that one or more rogue internet user(s) might download said file, bypassing the obligation of paying just and due compensation to the legal and legitimate copyright holders, namely; unnamed recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives; consequently, stealing, defrauding or interfering with the due process of collection of revenue for copyrighted materials, as outlined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively.

As a result of this flagrant violation of the sovereign right of compensation as out-lined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively, for recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives, this Internet Service Provider, Your Name Here , (ISP) is hereby and un-equivocally ordered to cease and desist operations, services and compensation to all clients, customers, and/or consumers, until a complete review of the above named site and files, as well as all SOPA and PIPA compliant protocols to prevent such actions, are completed by a Senate sub-committee under the direction and over-sight of a combined Senate and House committee on the Implementation and Voluntary Compliance of Protocols to Prevent the Mis-Appropriation of Funds Legally and Lawfully Awarded to Unnamed Recording, and/or Motion Picture, and/or Digital Archives, For Works They Own, But Didn't Produce.

He stops and surveys the crowd, as 666 security guards, surround him and escort him from the room. . .

_______________________

The United States Congress is considering legislation that will give control of Internet Service Providers (ISP) sites to the Attorney General in an effort to control internet piracy of copyrighted material. With this authority, the Attorney General could legally, upon "suspicion" of piracy, shut down suspected offending sites and then begin an investigation. This could happen regardless of whether the ISP had any knowledge of the alleged infraction.

While I don't know all the ins and outs of the proposed laws, the page, The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas, does. In this article, Mike Masnick elequantly describes what is in the laws, why they won't achieve the desired result and why the recording industry needs to embrace new technology for greater profits rather than spending millions of dollars fighting the advancements.

The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
By Mike Masnick

There's been plenty of talk (and a ton of posts here on Techdirt) discussing both SOPA (originally E-PARASITE) and PROTECT IP (aka PIPA), but it seemed like it would be useful to create a single, "definitive" post to highlight why both of these bills are extremely problematic and won't do much (if anything) to deal with the issues they're supposed to deal with, but will have massive unintended consequences. I also think it's important to highlight how PIPA is almost as bad as SOPA. Tragically, because SOPA was so bad, some in the entertainment industry have seen it as an opportunity to present PIPA as a "compromise." It is not. Both bills have tremendous problems, and they start with the fact that neither bill will help deal with the actual issues being raised. . . . (read the rest of the article)

You can also read the text of the bill here.

I urge you to contact your elected representatives and the bill's sponsors to express your feelings regarding this. Remember, Senator Hatch, (R-Utah), proposed in 2003, that all computers that had pirated software be remotely destroyed, until it was discovered that his own web-site was running an unlicensed application. I voted against him in 2006 and will again in 2012.

*The image above is from: http://act2.freepress.net/call/pipa_call/?akid=3086.9828048.Ssc8mA&rd=1&t=1

A Primer of Progressive Economics Policies

2011-11-29T21:27:00.019-07:00

Recent articles have described the efforts world-wide to prevent the collapse of Greece and other EU member countries whose economies are sitting in the toilet. These are countries that have over spent their incomes, borrowed billions, are so far in debt that they can never repay, but, the only solutions seriously being considered are to give them more money. The only hurdle is,"Who is stupid enough to lend them more?"

It is interesting to look back a couple of years to the problems of the big 3 auto makers as the melt-down of the financial markets in the US occurred.

All 3 companies found themselves over-extended, under-productive and about to sink into the quagmire of insolvency. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, in prophetic ignorance declared that the auto industry was to big and important to be allowed to fail. (The real reason was that she owned too much stock in them.)

When the magical bailout buoy was offered by the White House, General Motors and Chrysler were the only ones who latched on. Ford said they could fix their problems by themselves.

I was very critical at that time of all 3 companies in an article entitled "Five Foxes in the Hen House", but especially at Ford for the outrageous compensation packages of their chief execs while their company tanked.

Now, 3 years later, Ford is reporting sales are up and they are operating back in the black. While GM and Chrysler are admitting that they will be lucky if they cam pay back the American people 30 cents on the dollar.

Back in the1960's, while Pres Lyndon Johnson was fighting his war on poverty by throwing more and more money at the problem, creating Medicaid, food stamps and inter-city projects, I would listen to my dad expound how it was not possible to spend yourself rich. The only bumper sticker he ever placed on his car said, "I fight poverty, I work!"rd is reporting sales are up and they are operating in the black, while GM and Chrysler are admitting that they will be lucky if they can pay back the American people 30 cents on the dollar for their TARP funds.

Back to today, the question still looms, do we throw more money at Greece or let then Pay the Piper? If we loan more money to Greece, where does it stop? With Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England? The list goes on and on.

I ran across this poem that personifies the deluded interpretation of economics by Progressive Governments.

SMART

By Shel Silverstein from his book, “Where the Sidewalks Ends”

My dad gave me one dollar bill
'Cause I’m his smartest son,
And I swapped it for two shiny quarters
‘Cause two is more than one!

And then I took the quarters
And traded them to Lou
For tree dimes – I guess he don’t know
That three is more than two!

Just then, along came old blind Bates
And just ‘cause he can’t see
He gave me four nickels for my three dimes,
And four is more than three!

And I took the nickels to Hiram Coombs
Down at the seed-feed store,
And the fool gave me five pennies for them,
And five is more than four!

And then I went and showed my dad,
And he got red in the cheeks
And closed his eyes and shook his head –
Too proud of me to speak!

Mad, Bad, Michelle Obama

2011-11-01T18:41:00.005-06:00

The first lady appears to be losing her cool. Her temperature is rising and the rhetoric she is spewing out is heating up. There is an article entitled:

The Very Angry First Lady Michelle Obama

By Joseph Curl in the Washington times last Sunday.

Mr. Curl chronicles the rise of the wrath of the First Lady since the Democratic Convention in 2008 when she declared her real feelings.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

Now she is taking on the Republican Party with an oath to explain to this Country the dark and grisly future that will occur if the GOP is allowed to nurture their nefarious schemes.

For myself, I am turned off by those who only spout the negative. It is important to identify what is not working, but chastising the problem without proposing a solution, brands you as part of the problem. My good friend, Jeff Sermons, said, "I am always more willing to follow someone who is for something than someone who is against everything."

That said, what we need in this country are the following:

An acknowledgement of man's limited power and an acceptance of the healing, cleansing power of the Divine.
A re-establishment of work as a noble endeavor and a character building pursuit.
Implementation of the natural consequence of the law of the harvest, doing your best should supply your needs.
Debunk the theory of entitlements and replace it with individual responsibility for our personal situations.
Gratitude for who we are, what we have, and the compassion to share with those in need.
The enactment of laws favoring and encouraging the creation and perpetuation of small businesses.
Honesty and integrity as paramount in our business and personal relationships.

As we implement these principles from the top to the bottom of our Nation, we will find a resurgence of hope, productivity and success.

Occupy Wall Street = Acorn and Other Disgusting Stuff

2011-10-27T14:19:00.010-06:00

Occupy Wall Street, the movement hailed by the White House as the voice of the people rising up in rebellion, now has some serious questions to answer.

A news article by Jana Winter of Fox News entitled:

EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

details how the Occupy movement has been organized and funded by Acorn.

Well, let's back up, since Acorn was officially disbanded in 2009, it is not really Acorn, but the New York Communities for Change, (NYCC) that is running Occupy Wall Street. It seems that this community activist group was started in 2009, as Acorn died, by the same people who ran Acorn.

Jana Winters article states:

"NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour. . . "

Additional comments in the article from workers inside NYCC:

"Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures.

“I went to the protests every day for two weeks and made $10 an hour. They made me carry NYCC signs and big orange banners that say NYCC in white letters. About 50 others were hired around my time to go to the protests. We went to protests in and around Zuccotti Park, then to the big Times Square protest,” she said.

“But now they have me canvassing on Long Island for money, so I get the money and then the money is being used for Occupy Wall Street—to pay for all of it, for supplies, food, transportation, salaries, for everything ... all that money is going to pay for the protests downtown and that’s just messed up. It’s just wrong.”

Additionally:

Sources said staff members also collected door-to-door for NYCC’s PCB campaign — which aims to test schools for deadly toxins —but then pooled that money together with cash raised for the teachers union and other campaigns to fund Occupy Wall Street.

So, NYCC has been supporting Occupy Wall Street by not only:

Hiring protesters
Hiring fundraisers and canvassers

But also illegally collecting money for:

United Federation of Teachers
PCB Testing in Schools
Reducing home foreclosures
And diverting the money to Occupy Wall Street.

Incidentally, the UFT has said, "The UFT is not involved in any NYCC fundraising on the PCB issue.”

Little wonder that the rag-tag occupiers in 2011 are reminiscent of the sit-in hippies of the 1960's and not the Tea Party demonstrations. While the hippies scavenged off the urban landscape for subsistence, the occupiers fraudulently collect funds to pay, feed and house their members. The Tea Party activists rallied, demonstrated, clean-up their messes and then went back to work.

The same community organizers (Acorn) that have been secretly sucking funds from the government to promote and maintain poverty and urban unrest for the past decade, are continuing their efforts under a different name, (NYCC), but with the same agenda.

It is no wonder that President Obama has given his backing to this movement. His only real job listing on his resume is that of a community organizer.

Warren Buffet, If You Want To Pay More Taxes, What's Stopping You?

2011-10-12T11:27:00.009-06:00

I just found John Hayward's article in Human Events published 08-31-2011 entitled:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes.

In the article he quotes Warren Buffett in a New York Times op-ed piece.

"OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."

Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government also has an article today entitled:

Buffett’s Billion-Dollar Tax Hypocrisy

Here Mr. Wilson outlines the more than $1,005,000,000.00 ($1.005 Billion) Warren Buffett's companies owe the federal government in back taxes. Mind you, these figures come from Berkshire Hathaway's own accounts, not from the IRS or another sleuth tank. So while Warren Buffett pleads for the President to tax him more, he employees hundreds of accounts and lawyers and millions of dollars to keep him from doing so.

My advise to Mr. Buffett and other rich liberal leaning Hollywood types that have asked for a greater share of the tax burden, "Put your money where your mouth is."

If Warren Buffett wrote a check for $1,005,000,000.00, and add an additional $10,000,000.00, the IRS would not even bat an eye. They would accept it graciously. There is no law that says you can't pay more than you owe.

If they didn't feel the Federal Government knew the best way to use these additional funds, they always have the option to donate to worthwhile charities and foundations that will help the poor and destitute. Rather than being listed with the rest of the liberal bunch and known as the stingiest contributers to charities, they could go down as super philanthropists and be revered for centuries.

Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?

2011-10-12T09:48:00.015-06:00

Charles Hurt wrote an interesting article in the Washington Times entitled,

"Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?"

In posing the question, Mr. Hurt reminded us how the Democratic Party and Liberal idealists have blatantly attacked both blacks and whites, labeling them racists merely because they disagreed with their own personal philosophies. From Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain, "pulling the race card" has been an acceptable method of operation to divert attention from their failed ideals.

While there are far too many ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded sociopaths in this country that judge people by their appearance or the color of their skin, I have found that most of the population of the United States accepts people for what they do and who they are. We all have apprehension when we are introduced into a new environment such as moving to communities where the dominate religion is not our own or the majority of the people are a different color. This concern doesn't mean that we are racists. It is just the process of being stretched out of our comfort zone. After we have time to acclimatize, we learn to love and appreciate our new home and associations as much as the last place we lived.

In a recent article I wrote, Americans Are Not Racial Cowards, as a rebuttal to the comment by Attorney General Eric Holder where he said that,

. . . in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

I identified who a racist is:

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries.

In an effort to teach the truth of this concept I ended the article with the following analogy.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air or vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all. Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

I supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court because he believed in the principles I uphold in our Constitution. It had nothing to do with him being black and I was not disappointed.

I didn't support Barack Obama as President of the United States because I do not agree with his idea of changing our country into a Socialistic State, an idea that has never succeed in any country in the world, ever. It had nothing to do with him being black and I have been thoroughly embarrassed by him.

I would support Herman Cain if his ideals for this country center around hard work, sound fiscal practices and ethical political leadership whether he was black, white or green. I don't care if our President is White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Male or Female. As long as they are born and raised in this country, have a love of the constitution and the tenacity to defend it, I will throw my support and vote behind them.

If not, I will look for another candidate.

Also of interest, "Wanted, Real Leaders"

Putting Homosexuality into Perspective

2011-10-06T12:46:00.007-06:00

There has been so much talk, so many accusations regarding homosexuality, that the basic principles and premises have be lost in the cloud of rhetoric.

On one hand, there are the religious fundamentalists, who, citing God as their resource, condemn not only the action, but all of the participants as well. This non-Christian attitude gives rise to bigotry, gay-bashing, acts of hate and violence and ultimately deprives the promoter of compassion, tolerance and charity, that pure love of Christ.

On the other hand, with the homosexual adherents, there flourishes whining cries of persecution, accusations of homophobia and the irrelevant shouts of the depravation of civil rights. More damaging than these is the promotion of sexual promiscuity and the de-valuation of the family.

Putting aside all the charges and counter-charges, there are a few simple principles that should put the issue into perspective.

1. There is, has been and always will be a difference between the act and the perpetrator. We can and should abhor actions that are wrong, destructive and damaging to mankind, but we always need to separate the revulsion for the act from the participant. When we become disgusted with the person, we alienate and ostracize them from society. Without a tie to society, there is seldom enough motivation for a constructive change to take place. In other words, condemning the person is a death sentence for reformation.

2. There is no such thing as a "hate crime." A crime is a crime, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal. What the two men beating Matthew Shepherd were thinking or what motivated them to act did not lessen or increase his pain, trauma and ultimate death. When a "God fearing Christian" makes derogatory remarks, spits or hits a gay person, it is no different than if they did the same thing to a white, Black, Asian or Jewish person. There is no justification or excuse for such behavior.

3. Relationships between people of the same sex are not only easier, but they are good. They provide common elements, attitudes and understandings that can help each of us to better cope and enjoy life. The problem arises in the misconception that sexual activity is a basic human need that can be satisfied with anyone or anything, in virtually any setting.

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage, never brings the happiness and enduring satisfaction the participants are seeking. Sexual activity stimulates a hormonal change in us that bonds a man and woman together and facilitates a lifelong partnership in addition to perpetuating our species. It is an important element in making a heterosexual relationship endure. In any other setting, sex is destructive and dangerous.

4. Homosexuality is a choice, not chance. As discussed in #3, we by nature develop friendships and relationships with those of our own sex, but having a sexual relationship with them is a choice that is made, not a fate that is executed. There are those who have a predisposition or tendency to a same sex relationship, just as there are those who are predisposed to become adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters or any other negative behavior.

This in no way excuses one from submitting to attitudes and actions that will eventually bring pain, humiliation or death to you or others.

5. Too many times, those who do transgress the social mores, complain that they are not welcome in the company of those they offend. Of course we are not welcome if we promote concepts or attitudes that are contrary to a group. I raise the question, "Why do you care if the ‘opposition’ doesn’t accept you and why would you want to be accepted by those who oppose you?"

If an organization does not believe the same as you, how can you be offended by not being invited to attend? How many Jews have complained that they are excluded from Neo-Nazi groups or how many Blacks have sued the Klu Klux Klan for admission? The only justification for such action is seeking acknowledgement for a behavior they know is wrong, but want to continue.

For that, there is no protection under the law.

Protecting Cross Burning as an American Tradition

2011-10-06T12:19:00.009-06:00

Several years ago, the Virginia State Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting cross-burning. As much as I personally feel that cross-burning is divisive, non-productive and a feeble way at best to express ones self, I have to agree with the Court. The right to free speech must always be protected in this country, “no matter how repugnant that speech might be.”

The Court stated, "While reasonable prohibitions upon time, place and manner of speech, and statutes of neutral application, may be enforced, government may not regulate speech based on hostility -- or favoritism -- towards the underlying message expressed."

To abide by the spirit of the Court’s decision, we must evaluate the real issue here, public safety. The reason that people in this country are opposed to cross-burning is that, all too often, someone or something gets hurt. Someone is burned, beaten or a home ends up being torched. So rather than trampling on the civil liberties of American Citizens, here is a very sensible, practical step that municipalities can enact for the public good and safety.

Require cross-burning permits, similar to those presently required by cities and counties across the country for open burning of weeds or trash. These permits would have be purchased 5 days prior to the event and provide the following information:

Name of the sponsoring organization, including principle officer's addresses and phone numbers
List the names and ages of all participants
Location, time and length of the activity
Provide a signed contractual agreement with the property owner(s) where the event will take place, agreeing to provide the venue, and guaranteeing that the following items are adhered to:
If the cross exceeds 4 feet in height or the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor or the property owner would have to provide a bond to cover any losses or damages incurred.
Sponsors must provide a signed permit from the local Fire Chief, citing proof that adequate fire safety measures will be enacted, and detailing such measures, to protect property and participants.
If the anticipated crowd could exceed 10, the sponsors would have to provide toilet facilities for the participants.
If the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor would have to provide proof that adequate security will be provided or the local police will provide security and bill the sponsor for any expenses incurred.
Fire Chief must also inspect the venue 30 minute prior to the starting of the event to ensure that all the above measures were fulfilled. Violations that are not immediately corrected will require the cancellation of the event.
If alcohol is served, the sponsor or vendors must provide the appropriate licenses and/or permits for the sale and/or distribution of alcoholic beverages as mandated by the current State and County laws.

The violation of any part of the cross-burning ordinance carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail, payment of any damages and a fine of up to, but not to exceed the amount of damages, assessed to the sponsoring organization and any or all participants.

Americans Are Not Racial Cowards

2009-02-19T20:46:00.008-07:00

In a speech to the Justice Department employees on February 18, 2009, as part of Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

I am afraid to say it, but Mr Holder is wrong. The issue is not that whites don't want to talk about race, it's that blacks won't stop talking about it. If you always look at the world as black or white, you never look at people as people.

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries. We will never had any form of equality until we look past our differences and embrace our similarities.

Anyone who continues to classify people by race is racist. This would not only include Mr. Holder, but Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and a host of other white supremacists. The same yardstick should be used for any other divisive issues we face in our nation. Gay rights, religions persecutions, economic disparity all fit the mold. Those who continue to complain that they are part of a unique, oppressed group, are perpetuating their problem rather than solving it.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air and vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all.

Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

Taxes and Integrity

2009-01-31T22:34:00.005-07:00

After Tom Daschle was thoroughly trounced in the 2004 Senatorial election in South Dakota, he has now been invited back to Washington by Obama to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The people of his state were fed up and through with him, but the President thinks that he still has some value.

Now the corker . . . Mister Former Senate Majority Leader has problems doing his taxes. He used a dontated car and driver for 2 years without reporting the "income" to Uncle George, a . . I mean Uncle Sam. So, another of Obama's choices to lead our country has an integrity problem, or a math problem or something.

But the most disturbing problem is the reoccurring theme of members of the Democratic Party. Gary Hart, from the 1970's, appears to be the last Democrat with integrity. Everyone since then, when caught doing something wrong, did one of two things.

Told the country to shove it, i.e.; Barney Frank who took a male Congressional page to Europe for several weeks or Bill Clinton who had sex with Monica Lewinsky and then lied to a Grand Jury.
Immediately righted the wrong and went on as though nothing had happened, i.e.; the DNC returning campaign contributions from China or Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser, returning the top secret papers he stole from the National Archives, well most of them.

The list of candidates using either remedy goes on and on.

Now Congress feels that because Geithner and Daschle have both received solid support from President Obama, they should be confirmed, because these are troubled times. President Bush strongly supported all his nominees as well. But what would have happened if Clarence Thomas, John Roberts or any of either of the Bush's nominees had a real tax infraction, or a real traffic ticket?

The reason we have troubled times is because of Tom Daschle, who as Senate Majority Leader in 1992, mandated the sub-prime lending practices that caused the world wide econimic turmoil we face today.

It is usually proper to expect someone to clean up the mess they made. The problem with this siutation is since they won't acknowledge that they really caused the mess, how will they ever figure out how to correct it?

Are You Who You Hang Out With?

2009-01-18T15:02:00.006-07:00

Watching the movie "Oliver" with my grandchildren the other night, I was intrigued by Ron Moody's performance of Fagin as he sang "I'm Reviewing the Situation." When he uttered the words: "All my dearest companions Have always been villains and thieves . . . ", I was reminded of Obama and his friends that are nothing but sleaze.

I spent my parenting years telling my children the friends they chose would influence who they became. In my occupation, I tried to only work with people who had similar values and standards. Now I see that Barak Obama, soon to be the most powerful and potentially influential person in the world, has been surrounded by "villains and thieves."

Here is the list that I am aware of:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for over 20 years, says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Governor Blagojevich of Illinois is indicted on charges of bribery and fraud trying to sell the Senate seat.
Three other ex-Illinois Governors have been convicted of felonies during Obama's life. The last one, George Ryan, was Governor while Obama was an Illionis lawmaker.
Gov. Bill Richardson from New Mexico, a nominee for Commerce Secretary, withdrew because of an investigation of corruption. It is interesting to note, David Rubin, the suspect in this bribery probe, also donated $2,300 to Mr. Obama's campaign and $26,200 to the Democratic Party
Timothy Geithner, nominated for Secretary of the Treasury failed to properly pay his taxes from 2001-2004. A 2006 audit by the IRS revealed the error, but Geithner didn't pay the back taxes until he was nominated for the Cabinet position???
Hillary Clinton, nominee for Secretary of State, has always been at the center of corruption from Whitewatergate, to Travelgate to the impeachment of her husband Bill.
Seven of the Top Ten Political Scandals of 2008 were from the Democratic Party. If you remove David Kernell, who was the son of Tennessee Democrat Mike Kernall and Sarah Palin who was exonerated after the investigation, that leaves six out of eight were Democrats.

If an eagle hangs out with the chickens, it won't change his genetic code, but it might influence the important decisions he makes in life. I'm just worried.

Can Obama Fix The Economy?

2009-01-11T08:26:00.004-07:00

President Elect Obama has released his latest economic recovery plan, his attempt to fix the economy. On the campaign trail, he promised 1 million new jobs. A few weeks ago he promised 3 million new jobs. This week, his plan would create 4.1 million new jobs. When you make promises, the sky's the limit.

Funny thing about promises, the very same announcement that promised 4.1 million jobs, also promised that he would have to renege on many of his other campaign promises. Where did "pinky promise" or "cross my heart and hope to die" disappear?

The truth is, the new administration doesn't understand or acknowledge how we arrived on our current catastrophic course. Since they don't know how this happened, they have no clue how to fix the economy.

We should expect a continued flurry of pie in the sky promises that change with every economic report.

Five Foxes in the Hen House

2008-11-24T12:28:00.008-07:00

We have all heard the phrase about the fox in the hen house. It now appears the not only does Ford Motor Company have five foxes in the hen house, but they had the audacity to fly to Washington DC and stand with their had in their hands asking for a hand-out, I mean bail-out.

CEO, Alan Mulally, when asked if he would drop to one million dollars a year in salary to help the situation, replied that "I understand the point of the symbol, I think I am okay where I am." He may understand the point of the symbol, but what he doesn't understand is how his remarks smack of the selfish, narcissistic attitude that had contributed to the economic chaos we now enjoy.

If he was humble enough to receive only a million dollars a year in salary, Ford would be able to keep over 400 employees. If you look at the other four top executives at Ford, the facts become overwhelming.

Top executive salaries of Ford Motor Company:
Alan Mulally, Ford President and CEO - Salary$21,670,674
Don Leclair, Ford Executive Vice President - $11,703,127
Mark Fields, Ford Executive Vice President, The Americas - $8,389,898
Lewis Booth, Executive Vice President, Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group - $10,264,463
Mike Bannister, Ford Executive Vice President and CEO, Ford Motor Credit Company- $8,677,747
Total Salaries of top Five Executives - $60,705,909

If the top Five Executives each took only $1,000,000/yr, it would free up $55,705,909 each year! This would keep 700 employees at $80,000 fully employed.

The other US auto makers are in the same boat.
General Motors, top five executives - $38,954,972
Chrysler's executive salaries could not be found but the CEO did receive a $210 million golden boot from Home Depot in 2000.

The auto industry doesn't need a bail-out, it needs a reallocation of funds, (as well as a lesson from Toyota on how to build a reliable car). It is time for the top executives to "spread the wealth around". As a matter of fact, it wouldn't hurt it if that attitude spread throughout the NEC, (Narcissistic Executive Club).

Not With My Paycheck You Don't

2008-10-23T08:04:00.008-06:00

"We want to spread around the wealth." - Barrack Obama, the Socialist

$700 million or even $700 billion will not fix the financial crisis if we don't understand what caused it. The meltdown of our economy was not a natural result of the failure of Capitalism. It did not happen because greed came home to roost. It occurred because the first law of Capitalism was broken and then ignored while the greedy cashed in.

The basic rule of Capitalism, never loan money to someone who can't pay it back.

The Democratically controlled Congress of 1992, forced into law the Socialistic concept that every person, regardless of income, had the right to own a home. Ann Coulter, in her column on September 24, 2008, reported the following:

Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

She goes on to state:

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

These loans were known as "sub-prime mortgages" because the standards for qualification were below the prime or normal requirements. Adjustable rates, interest only and other anomaly instruments of lending were invented to satisfy the need. The rational used was that because of inflating prices in the housing market, an owner could hold on to the house at the reduced payment rate, sell it before the terms changed and cash in on the appreciation. It was nothing more than a government sponsored pyramid scheme.

What was the basic rule? Never loan money to someone who can't pay it back. If you do, you are just giving the money away. Reality is coming back to bite us in the behind. Over the past 16 years we have given away millions of houses, now they are giving them back.

The Democratic (Socialist) Party created this mess by tinkering with the universal laws of economics. Now Obama is suggesting that he wants to take my paycheck, spread it around and fix the problem. Has he talked with Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks about spreading their money around? I'm sure he would leave them with about $50,000 each, like the rest of middle America.

I think not.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and I must be a Democrat.

Rev. Wright, Say What. . .?

2008-05-04T11:33:00.007-06:00

The controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his inflammatory statements about the United States, Jews and AIDS have subsided to the point that they may no longer cripple Barak Obama in his bid for the Democratic Party Nomination for President. That said, there is still a bad taste left from his remarks in trying to make amends.

In defense of his position and statements, Rev. Wright said that the attacks on him were an attack on the Black Church.

Wright said the black church tradition is not bombastic or controversial. It is simply different — and misunderstood by the dominant culture in the United States

Was he actually saying that members of black churches can make blasphemous, inflammatory statements and they are not bombastic or controversial? They can implore damnation on America, claim that the CIA developed the AIDS virus to destroy the black race and state that the U.S. Government supports the genocide of Palestinians and black South Africans; and we should just chuckle?

What would happen if Billy Graham said that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were divisive elements that prolonged the self-imposed oppression of black people and prevented them from achieving and realizing their full potential and status as citizens of the United States of America? I'm not sure, but maybe Don Immus' time in the penalty box is a foreshadowing.

I guess that his logic goes something like this: it is okay for a black person to call a distasteful black person a nigger or a white person a honky, cracker or bigot, but it is not okay for a white person to think or say nigger, let alone apply it as a moniker to a black person because . . . sorry, that doesn't work. Let's try it again.

It is okay for a member of the Black Churches to damn America but a white person can not publicly say that they wish for President Bush or Vice-President Cheney to be shot, . . . no, wait a minute, Rosey O'Donnell can say that.

This is all so confusing. How's a middle-class, middle-aged white boy in the dominate culture going to deal with the complicated social interactions of different races? I think I need more time to evaluate this.

. . . Okay, I think the only way I can survive in a multi-cultural environment is to revert back to the things my mother taught me:

1. Only say nice things about others, even when they say nasty things about you
2. Protect the weak and innocent then, let the stupid take responsibly for their own actions

Box Office Manipulation

2007-06-03T07:14:00.001-06:00

I was overcome by a wonderful epiphany this morning. As a matter of regular curiosity, I checked the rankings of the box office films from this weekend. As I wandered aimlessly through the list, I noted again that the top grossing films were all the very recent movies, many of which contain dark and disturbing images such as the Harry Potter series and Lord of the Rings. I think we seem to accept this list as the "best films ever made."

I have often heard that "Gone With The Wind" continued for decades to be the all-time most viewed film, but on this list, it has dropped to #76 and is in danger of falling of the list entirely. I was saddened to see the number of films that carry an "R" rating and was afraid that it reflected the sorry state of our viewing appetite.

Then I noticed that the gate receipts could be adjusted to our current dollars. This allows old films like "Gone With The Wind" and "Sound of Music" to compete directly with "Pirates" and "Potter".

What a surprise!! This list not only has only 1 dark film in the top 20, "The Exorcist" in #9, but also contained all my favorites including "The Sound of Music," "Doctor Zhivago," "101 Dalmatians," "Ben Hur" and "The Sting."

My personal all time favorite, "Star Wars," was firmly still entrenched in 2nd place right below the all -time classic, "Gone With The Wind." Of the current "top ten films," the only ones to remain were "Star Wars" in second, " E.T." in fourth, while "Titanic" dropped to ninth.

There can be several lame excuses brought forward to discredit my elation, such as; these films were shown before videos and DVDs so they played in theaters longer or they have been around longer so more people have had an opportunity to see them, so this isn't a fair comparison. Maybe, or maybe not. It's possible that the real money makers throughout history have been those films that had universal themes, poignant plots and were set in a venue that wasn't offensive to good people.

Here are the top twenty on each list for you to compare:

Current Domestic Gross

Rank	Title(click to view)	Studio	Lifetime Gross	Year
1	Titanic	Par.	$600,788,188	1997
2	Star Wars	Fox	$460,998,007	1977^
3	Shrek 2	DW	$441,226,247	2004
4	E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial	Uni.	$435,110,554	1982^
5	Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace	Fox	$431,088,301	1999
6	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	BV	$423,315,812	2006
7	Spider-Man	Sony	$403,706,375	2002
8	Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith	Fox	$380,270,577	2005
9	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	NL	$377,027,325	2003
10	Spider-Man 2	Sony	$373,585,825	2004
11	The Passion of the Christ	NM	$370,782,930	2004^
12	Jurassic Park	Uni.	$357,067,947	1993
13	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	NL	$341,786,758	2002^
14	Finding Nemo	BV	$339,714,978	2003
15	Forrest Gump	Par.	$329,694,499	1994
16	The Lion King	BV	$328,541,776	1994^
17	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone	WB	$317,575,550	2001
18	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring	NL	$314,776,170	2001^
19	Spider-Man 3	Sony	$312,764,000	2007
20	Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones	Fox	$310,676,740	2002^

Domestic Gross, Adjusted For Inflation

Rank	Title (click to view)	Studio	Adjusted Gross	Unadjusted Gross	Year^
1	Gone with the Wind	MGM	$1,329,453,600	$198,676,459	1939^
2	Star Wars	Fox	$1,172,026,900	$460,998,007	1977^
3	The Sound of Music	Fox	$937,093,200	$158,671,368	1965
4	E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial	Uni.	$933,401,500	$435,110,554	1982^
5	The Ten Commandments	Par.	$861,980,000	$65,500,000	1956
6	Titanic	Par.	$844,515,900	$600,788,188	1997
7	Jaws	Uni.	$842,758,600	$260,000,000	1975
8	Doctor Zhivago	MGM	$816,811,300	$111,721,910	1965
9	The Exorcist	WB	$727,541,800	$232,671,011	1973^
10	Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs	Dis.	$717,220,000	$184,925,486	1937^
11	101 Dalmatians	Dis.	$657,455,500	$144,880,014	1961^
12	The Empire Strikes Back	Fox	$646,028,600	$290,475,067	1980^
13	Ben-Hur	MGM	$644,840,000	$74,000,000	1959
14	Return of the Jedi	Fox	$618,910,900	$309,306,177	1983^
15	The Sting	Uni.	$586,560,000	$156,000,000	1973
16	Raiders of the Lost Ark	Par.	$579,973,400	$242,374,454	1981^
17	Jurassic Park	Uni.	$567,234,400	$357,067,947	1993
18	The Graduate	AVCO	$563,059,800	$104,901,839	1967^
19	Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace	Fox	$558,153,800	$431,088,301	1999
20	Fantasia	Dis.	$546,426,100	$76,408,097	1941^

Where The Sun Doesn't Shine

2006-11-05T15:52:00.001-07:00

I just completed two airline trips in the past three months. The first was a trip to Europe two days after the British captured the terrorists this past August and the second was a quick business trip from Salt Lake to Denver. As we negotiated our way through the various security measures set up to "protect" us from further terrorist activities, I was reminded of a recent article by Ann Coulter in Human Watch.

Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned From Airplanes

by Ann Coulter
Posted Aug 16, 2006

Last week marked the first official admission that everything government airport screeners have been doing until now is completely pointless -- unless you're an airport security guard with a thing for women's undergarments, in which case it's been highly effective.
As we now know, all the ingredients necessary to blow up an airplane can be carried in small liquid containers. Airport security has not even been looking for small liquid containers. Judging from my personal experience, they seem to have been focusing on finding explosive devices inside women's brassieres.
After five years of submissively complying with bag checks, shoe checks and underwire bra checks, Americans have now been informed that the hell we've been going through at the airports (but which the president and members of Congress do not go through because they refuse to fly commercial air) has been a useless Kabuki theater.
The procedures that have wasted millions of hours of time cannot keep the most basic bomb materials off an airplane. This is like locking your windows to prevent burglaries, while leaving the front door wide open.
Airport security has been using metal detectors to confiscate sharp objects that could be turned into make-shift weapons, which could then be used by terrorists to commandeer control of a plane and fly it into a building.
Except the terrorists can't do that because we've seen that trick before.

But her closing comments were the most illuminating to me.

What stopped last week's terrorist attack was ethnic profiling. . .
Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead.
Airplanes, ports, bridges, subways and shopping malls cannot ever be sanitized against every type of attack that can be dreamed up by fanatics engaged in asymmetrical warfare. We have to target the fanatics themselves. Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.

I was horrified to realise, that the next most humiliating thing the terrorists can do, is to concoct a plan to attempt to smuggle weapons or explosives on to airliners hidden in a human body cavity. It doesn't even have to work. Once their attack is discovered and thwarted by our effective ethnic profiling monitoring, cavity searches would become manditory on any flight to the United States.

Osama Bin Laden would howl with delight to realise that it was no longer a figure of speech when he says we can take democracy and shove it . . .

Who's To Blame, The Cat or The Meat?

2006-11-05T14:23:00.002-07:00

An article appeared in Human Watch:

Unveiled Women and 'Uncovered Meat'

by Robert Spencer
Posted Nov 02, 2006

It begs some very interesting questions. The gist of the story quotes two Muslim clerics that claim any woman that ventures out of her home without a hijab are inviting men to rape them. One of the clerics is quoted as defending this phylosophy with the following example:

If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat'’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster… If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she'’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don'’t happen.

This prompts another metaphor:

If I walk down the street with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets and someone comes up to me, knocks me down and takes them all, who is at fault? Me for wearing $100 bills or the thief for acosting me?

It is a childish, irresponsible attitude to claim that "the devil made me do it." Are Muslim men so lacking in self-control or discipline that the sight of a woman's face or hair changes them in to raving, maniacal, sex obsessed preditors who are no longer accountable for their actions?

Mr. Gorbachev, There Is One Major Difference

2006-10-18T07:31:00.001-06:00

In a speech in Midland, Texas, given by Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he said:

"You remember President Reagan standing in Berlin and saying, 'This wall should be torn down,'. . . Now the United States seems to be building almost the Wall of China between itself and this other nation with which it has been associated for many decades and has had cooperation and interaction with."

The Berlin Wall was built to keep the legal German citizens from leaving the tyranny of the Soviets while the wall in Texas is designed to keep illegal aliens from sneaking in and destroying the country we have.

What would you have done if 500,000 people from India stole across the border into the Soviet Union each year and sent 3/4 of what they earned back to India? Then, after 10 million of them were living in the USSR, and you tried to control their flow, they marched, protested and declared that they would continue to inflitrate your country until they had made it into an extention of India?

Would you have politely said,

"I think what is really needed are ideas and proposals about how to improve that cooperation and work out all of those issues regarding immigration flows."

or would you have sent them to Greenland or Siberia?

I guess my dad was right, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Maybe The Pope Was Right

2006-09-21T21:02:00.001-06:00

Last week in a speech in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a little-known medieval text recording debates between a Byzantine emperor and an educated Persian. The Pope recalled that the emperor had told his adversary: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope acknowledged the "startling brusqueness" of these remarks, but went on to express his view that "spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable".

Now, the Islamic world has erupted in anger, again. There have been demonstrations demanding his replacement, clerics have demanded his death, a hit-man imprisoned in Turkey has warned of his assassination if he visits Turkey, five churches in Palestine were attacked and a nun was shot in Somalia by gunmen. It is just like the aftermath of the Danish cartoons that made fun of the Prophet, or Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses that vilified Mohammed. Anger, outrage and violence were followed by death threats. Hmmm…what do we learn here?

Maybe the Pope was Right?

Our Bi-Polar Foreign Policy

2006-09-20T08:26:00.001-06:00

In discussing the current state affairs in the world, my oldest son, Aaron, mentioned that the major cause of the distress we encounter world wide is a result of our “bi-polar foreign policy. Every eight years we completely flip-flop our policies, cancel long-term commitments and created a whole new batch of enemies.” As I pondered his remark, I was struck with the succinct nature of his comment.

In the 1950’s, we secretly sponsored, funded and encouraged Ho Chi Mien to rise up against the French in Indo-China. We thought that the French would just roll over and let go of this colony and we would have a solid friend in Southeast Asia. Much to our surprise, the French not only refused to allow Vietnam independence, but they asked for our help to quell the rebellion. So, we dropped Ho Chi Mien like a hot potato and supported the French. In his anger over our betrayal, he went to Communist China and asked for their help. They were more that happy to supply support and assistance. Thus began a decade and a half of the most decisive conflict the U.S. had experienced since the Civil War.

In the 1980’s when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden formed an underground resistance to counter this move. Because the Cold War was still in full swing, we took the opportunity to support and encourage him to drive out the Russians. We covertly supplied and trained him and his forces, but when the reality of victory faded, we left him high and dry, and he hasn’t forgotten. His hatred at our betrayal has continued for another decade and a half with no light at the end of this tunnel

As a ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours when he rose to power in the early 1980’s, but as soon as he declared war on Iran, he became our ally. Iran infuriated us in the 1970's when the religious Ayatollah rose up against the Shaw of Iran and took control of the country. We were branded as decadent and evil in the eyes of Islam. American hostages were taken and held for years. Not only were we powerless to resolve the situation diplomatically, but our covert military operation sent in to rescue the hostages, crashed in the desert and a second team had to be sent in to rescue the first. Because of our history with Iran, we supplied Saddam with arms and expertise in an effort to defeat Iran. Then, when we lead Saddam to believe that we might turn a blind eye if he attacked Kuwait, we turned around and trounced him when he did.

This perpetual policy of bait and switch has been the bane of most of our international ills. Had we been better at choosing our friends, and supported them through their trials, we would be much better off today. We have felt that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but when conditions change, the definition of enemy changed along with our support and allegiance.

Our standard should read: The United States of America will support and uphold any government and/or people that foster the principles of human dignity, individual security, personal property ownership, freedom of expression and economic stability.

Why should we spend billions of dollars to sustain the economies of those who support regimes and principles that run counter to the values that made us great? Or to replace enemy leaders with others that are just as bad for their counties, but give lip service to America? If our aid was reserved for only those countries that adhered to such principles, because we are actually the only bank in town, dictators and totalitarians around the world would modify their practices to qualify for the aid they need to survive. China and Russia have enough economic problems of their own that they could not continue to feed the rest of the world.

It may not be right to prohibit private economic ventures and trade to continue with such countries, but we have no obligation to give tax dollars in aid or grants to support governments that thwart our goals. We would still have the choice to intervene if lives were at state, but it would be a choice, not an obligation and our funding could be channeled through third party entities such as the United Nations, UNICEF or The Red Cross.

When we set standards that coincide with our values and adhere to them as we expect others to do, we will have others throughout the world support us and rally around us. If we don’t, then the next election will be the time to solidify another enemy.

Why Don’t We Believe The Terrorists?

2006-09-10T22:05:00.001-06:00

I have been trying to understand why so many people don’t believe the terrorists? Or is it that they believe them but don’t know what to do about it? Maybe they just don’t know how you deal with a bully?

We have Islamic extremists all around the world predicting dire and devastating consequences if the Western, Christian world doesn’t accept and embrace Allah and Islam as the perfect society. Their method of proselytizing is terror, death and destruction until we acquiesce to their request. And these are people that have shown that they can convince others to die to promote this ideology. Rather than following the advice of General George Patten and allowing them the opportunity to die for their beliefs, many people are claiming that we need to not fight them but give diplomacy a chance.

When Iran says that Israel will be annihilated and Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah agree to help, why do are we critical of Israel for preventing it? In an interview with Haaretz Magazine, Prime Minister Tony Blair from Great Britain responded to the question:

Regarding Iran, do you agree with the comparisons to the 1930s that we often read about?

Mr. Blair:
When you have the President of a country as powerful as Iran say those things, it may be very foolish of us to assume he doesn't mean them. And when he's also trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, then I think the warning signs are pretty clear... I think for a president of a country to say they want to wipe another country off the face of the earth and at the same time he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability - if we don't get worried about that, future historians will raise a few questions about us and about our judgment.

The sad truth is that diplomacy, discussion and compromise only work when both parties want to agree. When either or both parties are determined to get what they want and not give an inch to the other, no amount of talking will change the situation. That is exactly the course that Hitler took in his conquest of Europe. He would take a country, raise the ire of the world and then say that it was all he wanted and he would take no more. A short time later, he would do the same trick again.

We had exactly the same situation occur in Bosnia and Croatia with Slobodan Milosevic. He had no intention of discussing any of the United Nations resolutions until he had accomplished his objectives. When he reached a goal, he would then agree to discuss a cease fire. He would drag the discussions out until he was ready to advance his next agenda, walk away from the table and begin his next offensive. And the world waited while he massacred nearly 200,000 people.

Saddam Hussein put off the United Nations for 10 years, not defying their demands, just not following them. In spite of all the mis-information regarding weapons of mass destruction and how imminent a threat Iraq was to the United States, there was an interesting development that occurred with in the months after our invasion that has been overlooked. Within six months, the Irish Republican Army called a cease fire and disarmed, Libya offered to allow the UN in to inspect their nuclear program and Iran also agreed to discuss their nuclear program. These entities had defied the world for more than 20 years. They saw that the US would do more than cry foul and pout on the sidelines. They realized that they could be next.

Iran reversed its position when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came into power and he saw the quandary we faced with the lack of support at home over the Iraqi war. Now he feels that he can do anything he wants because we wouldn’t dare take on another problem and there is no one else capable of stopping him.

What do we do now? Our position of strength has been eroded at home and our media has convinced the world that we are the source of all their problems. What do we do when Muslims around the world chant, “Death to America” and plot activities to realize it? People complain about the 45,000 Iraqis and 2500 Americans that have been killed in the 3 1/2 years of this war, that’s about 12,000 per year, but forget that under Saddam, 15,000 – 20,000 Iraqis were killed every year for 25 years. And those Iraqis who have been killed the past two years have been killed by the insurgents, not the US.

What we need to do is decide if we can sleep in our warm beds with full stomachs and not fear that the police or army will bust down our door and haul us off to be tortured or killed, while millions of people all around the world live with these fears every day as their leaders skim billions of dollars from the aid we send to pad their own retirement funds.

No one wants to be the world police. But, by a raise of hands, who wants to see the atrocities around the world continue? We need to show the millions of good people in Iraq that the few thousand insurgents can be defeated if they stand up and help us stamp them out. Then we must stay the course and see that it happens for if we leave before the job is done, democracy may never recover from the aftermath.

Immigration: a mutilated concept

2006-09-10T19:00:00.001-06:00

There are three basic groups of people that come to America:

Those who want to become a part of this country and enjoy the benefits of living here.
Those who want to learn and earn as much can they can and take it back to their native land.
Those who sneak into the country for one of the first two reasons.

The first group is always welcome here. They are the immigrants that wade through bureaucracy and red tape to eventually earn the right to move here, find work and become productive citizens. They leave a legacy and posterity that are proud to promote the concepts of self-government, private ownership and personal responsibility. I have friends from all over the world, Argentina, Brazil, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico and the Philippines to name just a few. They came, worked and realized the American Dream of owning their own home, providing for their families and controlling their own destiny. Some of their descendents have even married my children and are now part of my immigration legacy.

The second group is also welcome. They typically come from underdeveloped countries to attend college and work for 5 to 10 years. Then, when they have mastered their professions, they return to their mother land and bless the lives of countless brothers and sisters with the knowledge they gained. They become pillars in their communities and teach the principles of hard work and self-government.

The third group is creating a lot of controversy today. I know and have worked with many of them and agree with those who say that most of them are a contributing part of our economy and that life would be different with out them. But as true as these statements are, everyone seems to overlook the fact that they have broken laws that were implemented to protect they very people they want to become. I worry when left leaning activists want to grand amnesty or absolution to 9,000,000 to 11,000,000 illegal aliens who broke the law to come here. What part of illegal alien do they not understand? Do these supporters have the same flagrant disregard for law and order?

A recent report cited that 10% of the population of Mexico lives in the United States. These are not Mexicans that have become American Citizens, these are Mexican Citizens that intend to stay and vote for the changes needed to keep them here. This is no different than allowing Guatemala or Argentina to vote on a referendum as to whether or not they can immigrate to this country and not be prosecuted once they do.

I worked with a man who embezzled $150,000 from the small business we work for over a two year period. When he was caught, his father-in-law offered to pay back the entire amount if no charges were pressed. His reasoning was thus: What would be accomplished if the man was sent to prison and his family had no one to support them? The answer is simple: He would learn that actions have consequences, his children would learn that actions have consequences and his next employer would probably not loose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The father-in-law could use that same $150,000 to support his daughter’s family until her derelict husband had paid his debt to society and hopefully learned his lesson.

What happened? The charges were dropped, the money was paid and an unrepentant felon was released back into society to prey on some other unknowing business owner. (I hope he gets a job with the ACLU, Barbara Streisand or Michael Moore.)

Most of my ancestors came to America between 1640 and 1750. They came from England, Scotland, France and Germany to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Georgia to start a new life in a new land. They held no allegiance to their old country, the lands that had abused and mistreated them. They had to swear allegiance to the King of England as they disembarked from the boat, but when the tyranny of the King and his disregard for law became intolerable, my relatives rose up in revolt and helped to start this country where the rule of law would prevail and the American Dream was available to all who would work for it.

Our borders should be open to all who would embrace this philosophy and closed to those who want to make this country just like the one they left.

Hollywood Can Now Dictate What You Watch

2006-07-16T16:03:00.002-06:00

Hollywood has fought forever against the government censuring or dictating what they could say, but the tables have turned and Hollywood can now dictate what we watch.

A sad commentary emerged from the Denver Federal Courts on July 7, 2005. In an Associated Press story entitled Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch said that

". . .editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights."

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection." (Italics added)

I don’t know what planet this judge just arrived from, but he hasn’t been playing in my sandbox lately. Generally speaking, the public doesn’t care whether or not the “creative artistic expression” of film makers is injured or nurtured. They are only interested in the final outcome, and according to the decline in theater attendance over the past few years; the public is disappointed, if not nauseated, with the current trend of films.

The only people in this country concerned about piracy and intellectual protection are those who produce works worth pirating. The position of the Studios can not actually be about preserving the artistry of their work or the purity of their presentation. The fight really boils down to two points, ownership and Hollywood's hypocrisy.

Ownership
Several years ago there was a great deal of consternation among many of the directors of the early black and white films when Ted Turner began to colorize their films. The lighting and filming techniques differ so much from black and white to color, that many of the effects done specifically in the original films were ruined when change to color. Turner’s trump card in this situation was that he owned the films. This allowed him to modify them without permission and in spite of the objections of the creators. His objective was to make them more appealing to his current, color friendly audience and thereby reap a much larger revenue.

Ownership is the key to the editing done by CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms. To have access to any of the “sanitized films,” a person must purchase a membership and become a member of the co-op that actually purchases copies of the film. (This is the very same method used by Private Clubs to restrict membership and circumvented discrimination laws.) As an owner, you have the right to modify the film any way you choose, because it is yours. You can rent or purchase these films from the organization, depending on your preference.

I personally have been a member of two different co-ops, and as a result have chosen to view several dozen sanitized R-rated films. Were it not for this program, I would not have watched or purchased any of these movies and the writers, directors and producers would not have earned the royalties they received. I even own a copy of the first generation of edited videos of Titanic.

The point that the film makers are ignoring is that once they offer their work for sale, the film or DVD no longer belongs to them. It is true that they own the intellectual property and it is wrong for someone else to profit from their work without the creator receiving compensation, but if I buy the Mono Lisa and spray paint a mustache and horns on her, no one has a legal position to prevent me.

Hypocrisy
The final point to be made is the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs. A quick example to illustrate:

James Cameron is one of the most successful and popular writers/directors/producers of our time. He is a creative, skilled and talented individual. He has directed and/or produced over a dozen theatrical releases, of which all but 2 or 3 have been R-rated. The R-rated films include: True Lies, Terminator2, Aliens, The Terminator, Piranha II, Strange Days & Point Break. Titanic was PG-13, but I don't know why.

Cameron was the initial victim of the sanitizing movement when Titanic became the first film to be edited and shown at the Towne Cinema, a small dollar theater in American Fork, Utah in 1998. Shortly there after, Sunrise Video, also in American Fork, began to edit and sell copies of the video. These were not bootlegged, but legitimately purchased copies that were edited and sold as edited copies. Neither Cameron nor 20^th Century Fox lost a dime, but actually made a lot more money than they would otherwise have done. In spite of this, Cameron was very vocal in his condemnation of the practice and nearly cried over the artistic damage done to his movie. Keep in mind that the only things deleted were the naked poses of Kate Winslet. Nothing was changed, only deleted.

According to my brief understanding of the law in these matters, the plaintiffs must show damage or a loss from the action of the defendents. There was no monetary loss, but increased revenue because of these acts. Their product was not damaged, because it was my video tape that was edited, not their master tapes. The fact that I can't see part of the film now is no different than if I looked away or fast forwarded through the objectionable portion.

It appears as though Judge Richard P. Matsch's ruling was not based on the law, but on his own personal beliefs. Bad form for a federal judge.

And now for the hypocracy. If Cameron was sincere about the purity of his films and dedicated to the dream that every person in the world had a right to see his vision as pristine as he created it, why did he allow nearly all of his R-rated films to be sanitized by the television networks and shown in their edited versions on national TV?

When all is said and done, it appears that art yields up its purity to greed and hypocrisy.

An Unconvincing Truth, or Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story

2006-07-02T16:54:00.001-06:00

For years we have been entertained by movies that were “based on a true story,” or “inspired by real events.” An in-depth analysis usually reveals that other than the title and a couple of main characters, the original story and the finished movie share very little. Dramatic elements, suspense, intrigue and some sex are usually added to make the production more appealing to a larger audience. While the show may be very successful as a movie in terms of income, informed patrons are heard to mutter as they leave, “that director never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.”

As more and more discussion about Hollywood Al’s movie, “An Unconvincing Truth,” (Oh, I’m sorry,) “An Inconvenient Truth,” reaches the public, the hard facts that are presented there are beginning to thaw faster than the polar ice cap.

(We will skip over the trite retorts given to skeptics that if they don’t believe, they are obviously stupid and move on to some more concrete evidence.)

The Associated Press (AP) released an article on June 27 entitled:

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Some of the quotes include:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. . .”

“. . . But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Although the AP gave Gore high marks, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement the same day chastising the AP for lack of full disclosure and pointed out some troubling relationships with those supporting the Gore film.

AP Incorrectly Claims Dcientists Praise Gore's Movie
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones....

2006-06-04T18:37:00.001-06:00

First I was homophobic, now I'm xenophobic and I expect soon to be labeled climaphobic.

For those who may not be aware, these words are broken down at Dictionary.com as follows:

Homo is defined as:
-Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Xeno comes from the Latin word xenos:
-A stranger or foreigner.

Clima is the root of climate:
-The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Phobic is someone who has a phobia. A phobia is described as:
- A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
- A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

It has been the practice of liberal pundits to label opponents that can't be silenced, with an SAT word they calculate their critics can't comprehend. The assumption is made that any rational educated individual will agree with their hypothesis, regardless of its veracity or logic. All other dissidents can be lumped into homogeneous groups with maligning connotations and summarily dismissed.

When I didn't agree with the deviant philosophy of homosexuality, I was considered a homophobic. If this designation is said with a sarcastic twist, it makes one feel as though they are infected with a most repugnant malady. Nevertheless, attaching a moniker, even a noxious sounding one, does not change the facts of any disagreement; even if I agree to disagree.

Presently, those who are in favor of giving amnesty to millions of individuals who have broken the laws of our country by entering illegally. They are taunting those who would extradite these aliens back to their country of origin, as mean-spirited and xenophobic. Whether or not I am uncomfortable with strangers or foreigners I can’t communicate with has nothing to do with the economic damage imposed on our country from healthcare to social security by the blatant breaking of the law. If the law is wrong, it needs to be changed, but until then, it needs to be obeyed. Even parking tickets need to be paid, if not, why have a law?

As this neurotic behavior continues among the emotionally charged, but factually challenged; because of my disbelief in the ‘theory’ of global warming, I expect very soon to be labeled a climaphobe, a label I will wear nobly until science, not the technophobes change my views.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

2006-05-29T07:34:00.002-06:00

The political practice of siccinctly placed sound bites to support their position has again been implemented by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. In his efforts to smear President Bush and publish his opposition to the war in Iraq, he has lashed out at the American Soldier.

Like an insurgent sniper, he continues to take pot shots at the GIs to support his convictions.

In a story by ABC News, he is reported to have said the following:

Rep. Murtha Says Fallout From Killing of Iraqi Civilians Will Turn Out Worse Than Prison Scandal
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
WASHINGTON May 28, 2006 (AP)

...The shootings last November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, were covered up, said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha said on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

Murtha said high-level reports he received indicated that no one fired upon the Marines or that there was any military action against the U.S. forces after the initial explosion. Yet the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident, he said.

"I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened," Murtha said. "This investigation should have been over two or three weeks afterward and it should have been made public and people should have been held responsible for it."

A retort to his comments from a Marine also appeared in the Washington Post

Mr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment
Sunday, May 28, 2006; B06

A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].

So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.

Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.

ILARIO PANTANO

Jacksonville, N.C.

Mr. Pantano's comments are food for thought for all politicians and reporters who try and convict through the media. This type of blatant accusation should be considered slanderous and libel if presented before convictions have been reached. If such blowhards were thus held accountable for their actions, there would be less heartbreak and sorrow among the falsely accused and the guilty will eventually receive their just rewards.

The legal presumption of innocent until proven guilty seems to have take a holiday the past few years.

What's a Voter to Do?

2006-05-21T20:18:00.001-06:00

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La has been revealed as another blight spot on Capital Hill. He has risen to infamy following the reports from an FBI sting operation that videotaped him receiving over $100,000 in cash to be used as bribes; as well as audio tapes where he describe measure to funnel other money through his children to him for future bribes.

Filing: Tape Shows Lawmaker Taking Money
May 21 4:35 PM US/Eastern

By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer…

The affidavit says Jefferson is caught on videotape at the Ritz-Carlton as he takes a reddish-brown briefcase from the trunk of the informant's car, slips it into a cloth bag, puts the bag into his 1990 Lincoln Town Car and drives away. The $100 bills in the suitcase had the same serial numbers as those found in Jefferson's freezer…

Jefferson assured the FBI informant in their coded conversations that he paid the money to the Nigerian official, even though the money was still in Jefferson's possession when agents searched his home Aug. 3.

On Aug. 1, two days after Jefferson picked up the $100,000, the informant called Jefferson to ask about the status of "the package."

Jefferson responded: "I gave him the African art that you gave me and he was very pleased."

I hope you caught the fact that even though he was given the money to pay a bribe to a Nigerian official, he lied to the FBI informant and kept nearly all the money for himself.

This is the same Rep. William Jefferson, D-La that we read about last September after Katrina hit New Orleans. I found this blog by Jonathan Tasini that refers to the news reports at that time.

More Ethical Problems for Rep. Jefferson

… Seems like Rep. William Jefferson has even more ethical problems. As I reported before, Jefferson is under FBI investigation.

Now comes a new report that might indicate a pattern: CNN's John Mercurio's The Morning Grind reports on a Roll Call story that says "Rep. William Jefferson, under investigation by the FBI, went on the defensive Wednesday in the wake of a damaging ABC News report that the Congressman allegedly used National Guard resources to gather personal belongings from his New Orleans home amid the Hurricane Katrina rescue operation...."

Here was the ABC News summary: Sept. 13, 2005 — Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a local congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops, ABC News has learned. On Friday, Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken. Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A 5-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request."

There is more on Rep Jefferson and other questionable Congress members at http://www.beyonddelay.org/index.php, a site dedicated to exposing legislative ethics violations.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La

Five days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, on September 2, 2005, Rep. Jefferson allegedly used National Guard troops to check in on his home and collect a few belongings – a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box. Military sources told ABC News that Rep. Jefferson asked the National Guard to take him on a tour of the flooded portion of his congressional district. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard said that during the course of the tour, Rep. Jefferson asked that the truck stop at the Congressman's home. The Congressman entered his house and collected his belongings, returning to the truck, which was now stuck in the mud. The National Guard ultimately sent a second truck to rescue the first truck and Rep. Jefferson and his belongings were returned to the Superdome.

Questions, questions, questions….

What was in the ‘laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box’ that was more important than the lives of his constituents who were still perched on rooftops, without food or water?

Was it more money from the freezer?

Cryptic correspondence with undercover FBI informants?

How does a person serve for 16 years in the House of Representatives and become embroiled in such a blatant criminal investigation?

Was he just born that way?

Is it because after 16 years, graft, corruption and elitism have become a way of life?

Or is Jefferson a poster child for term limits?

Wanted: Real Leaders

2006-04-09T14:57:00.000-06:00

The following is a letter I wrote to Joe Klien from Time Magazine regarding his article entitled:

Pssst! Who's behind the decline of politics? [Consultants.]

Dear Mr. Klien,

I was very impressed by the above mentioned article you wrote. I have reached the same conclusion over the past several years. It actually began with Rush Limbaugh in his early days. I listened fairly regularly back then and one day realized that the reason so many people devoutly followed him was because he lead. He articulated his views with passion, eloquence and was unfazed by those who opposed him. Whether you liked him or not, you knew where he stood.

These are the very traits you identified that the people of the United States seek when electing leaders. I voted for President Bush both times because even though I didn't always agree with every thing he did, I definately knew where he stood. I wanted a leader, not a poll puppet. I wanted a man that believed in God as I did. I wanted someone with personal conviction and passion.

Political tactics today consist of discrediting your opponent's beliefs while keeping your beliefs fluid enough to move freely to what ever the safe topic of the day might be. Hillary Clinton has mastered this maneuver. Say what ever your audience believes, whether you believe it or not.

I agree with your prediction for the 2008 Presidental election that:

The winner will be the candidate who comes closest to this model: a politician who refuses to be a "performer," at least in the current sense. Who speaks but doesn't orate. Who never holds a press conference on or in front of an aircraft carrier. Who doesn't assume the public is stupid or uncaring. Who believes in at least one major idea, or program, that has less than 40% support in the polls. Who can tell a joke—at his or her own expense, if possible. Who gets angry, within reason; gets weepy, within reason ... but only if those emotions are real and rare. Who isn't averse to kicking his or her opponent in the shins but does it gently and cleverly. Who radiates good sense, common decency and calm. Who is not afraid to deliver bad news. Who is not afraid to admit a mistake. And who, above all, abides by the motto that graced Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Oval Office: let unconquerable gladness dwell.

I hope that there is such a candidate. I will likely vote for them, regardless of their race, gender or party.

Thanks for your insight.

David L. Mefford
david@mefford.org

Does Hillary Clinton Really Understand the Scriptures?

2006-03-23T19:17:00.000-07:00

I was amused by the article about a speech given by Hillary Clinton regarding the upcoming immigration reform bill in the Senate.

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants
By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

I was wondering what Mrs. Clinton was referring to in both of her examples.

First, in the story of Good Samaritan, the traveler was from Samaria, a state within the political boundaries of the Country of Israel. The assumption can be made that because he was a Samaritan, a group of mixed Jewish and Canaanite blood, he was born in Samaria, was a legal citizen of the Country of Israel, and thereby free to wander at will from Galilee in the north to Judea in the south, helping anyone he chose assist. He had not entered from a foreign country illegally, obtained work with fraudulent documentation, and was not sending his wages back to support his family in his country of origin.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the State of Judea in the Country of Israel and except for a short stint in the land of Egypt; the record says he lived the balance of his life in Nazareth of Galilee. He did travel on an annual basis from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the celebration of the Feast of the Passover, but this was a legal trip, one that did not require visas, passports or other authorization.

In light of this information, I am completely at a loss to be able to relate Jesus and the Good Samaritan to the immigration reform bill. The legislation is designed to grant citizenship to 9 - 11 million individuals that entered this country illegally, but found work and have been able to elude the law for more than five years. That is more people than presently live in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona - combined. It will also remove recent border jumpers and send them back to their country of origin where they would have to apply for entry under the current laws.

How does anyone have the audacity to stand up and say that someone who intentionally broke the laws of this country has a right to be absolved of that crime and not face the consequences they have earned? There are those who state that these immigrants only take the jobs that current legal residents refuse to do. Wrong; they take jobs that legal immigrants would take them if there were not so many illegal immigrants restricting the number of legal immigrants we can allow into the country. They are taking the jobs from those who are obeying the law, not those that are too lazy to work.

Immigration laws are important and necessary in our country. Without them, we would be flooded with new citizens faster than the economy can absorb them. What a remarkable place the United States of America is. It is one of the only countries in the world that has to put up fences to keep people out. The better solution would be to improve the economies of other nations so their citizens wanted to stay home because they had freedom and the opportunity to make a good living. Then immigration would not be an issue.

The immigration laws of this country may be in great need of repair, but as long as they are the law, they must be followed and enforced until changed. If not, we do not have a democracy, but anarchy.

Is that what Hillary Clinton is advocating?

Government Of The People, By The People, For The People

2006-03-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

The recent events surrounding the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and the resulting management of United States sea ports security by an Arab country has eroded a misconception of the United States government.

A vast majority of countries around the world, especially those who don’t like the U. S., think that George Bush owns, controls, and dictates what America does and doesn’t do through out the world. In their eyes, Mr. Bush represents all that they despise about the Western World. Because they haven’t experienced democracy in their own countries, they don’t understand that even though the President directs the largest and most powerful army in the world, he is unable to use it for his own personal pleasure.

In their world, kings, dictators and other totalitarian leaders own everything and everyone. The country exists for the pleasure and gratification of the leader and his supporters. It is easy to see that coming from this perspective, one would perceive that leadership in the United States is no different.

The Dubai Deal, while not done with the direct guidance of the President, was strongly supported by him as his administration’s policies and something that was good for the country. But the backlash from the voters resounded up through the halls of Congress and slapped Mr. Bush soundly in the face. Polls indicated that more than 65% of the country did not want this kind of deal to be made. With the power of this mandate in hand, the Congressional leaders were able to step into the fray and convince the UAE that modifying the deal to drop the US ports would be in their best interests. Without the support of the people, this deal would not work.

There have been those throughout the term of the present administration that have complained that the Republicans have run an agenda counter to the wishes of the American People. It appears obvious now that if the President or Congress chooses a course of action that is counter to the basic feelings and needs of this Country, the People will speak up and dictate what will happen.

President Lincoln would be please to know that nearly 150 years later, the United States of America still possesses a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Brokeback Hypocrites

2006-02-16T21:02:00.000-07:00

I have avoided commenting on "Brokeback Mountain" and the controversy surrounding it. There is a very true principle that discussion of an idea, even though it is a wrong idea, can give can it credence, legitimacy and legs. With this risk in mind, I will express a few truths that are overlooked and need exposure.

I have not seen the film and will not. But this is irrelvant, since I am not commenting on the film, but on those who support it. I have read many reviews that were supportive and sympathetic of the themes displayed so my opinions are not based on negative, right-winged conservatives. But there are two disturbing issues that have surfaced from these discussions.

First, drama has proven over the millennia to be a powerful influence on the actions of the human race. Literature has changed the course of nations. It is always a disservice to society when disgusting tales of losers and reprobates are portrayed bigger than life on the silver screen. The precise form of deviant behavior is irrelevant for the damage is still the same. The fabric of society is shredded, not re-enforced. Conversely, those who overcome adversity and challenges rather than wallowing in it, motivate society to improve, perservere and triumph.

The other disturbing element is not the proselytizing of a lifestyle that I personally believe brings damage and unhappiness to all it touches. (It is ironic that the film poignantly supports this very idea.) The problem is the cavalier, in your face, narrow minded, bigot attitude from the film’s supporters. I have worked on stage, in films and I even directed Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister when she was a student in high school. I have worked with straight people, gay people and those who didn’t know what they were. Everyone is trying to find happiness. It is too bad that, as Garth Brooks put it, too many are looking for it in all the wrong places.

It hurts to see how so many of the vocal liberal community ridicule and demean those who do not believe the same way they do. Choosing not to watch a program that is counter to my beliefs is no different than a pro-choice activist choosing not to attend a pro-life rally, or a peace activist refusing to see a film that glorifies war and carnage. Participating in something that offends one’s senses, is not required to be objective or informed. In this country, we have the right to agree to disagree. Making light, ridiculing or harassing an individual for their beliefs is fine as long as you allow them the same opportunity to make you feel like an idiot for the way you believe.

Preserving Your Right to Be Offended

2006-01-22T16:57:00.000-07:00

I am continually amazed at the number of people who believe that the Constitution guarantees them the right to not be offended. The First Amendment, by definition, allows me, or you, to say anything; whether it offends someone or not. The only limitation is slander, in that you cannot say something that is untrue if it causes damage or harm to someone else. Actually you can still say it; you just have to be willing to pay for the resulting damages.

This myopic view of self-expression is most pronounced among the religiously challenged, the morally challenged and the sexually challenged. Those who espouse that it is their right to be able to walk down the streets of America and not be offended by any display of religion. Those who want to live by relative truth, depending on what the definition of “is” is at that moment, and don’t want to be accountable to absolute truth. Those who haven’t figured out whether they are male, female or whatever, and don’t want to have their process of exploration dampened by guilt.

Yet even these dissenters all agree that they are a small minority in this country, and as such, are eligible for protection under the Constitution. But this raises a serious contradiction. I have always been taught that democracy, or even a republic, is ruled by the common consent of the majority of the population. This is why elections are determined by a 51% margin. And changes to the rules by which we are governed have to be agreed upon by a 3/5 or 2/3 majority. Where does it say in the Constitution, the Amendments or even the Federalist Papers, that the will of the minority has the ability to supercede the will of the majority?

The only rights we posses in this country are guaranteed to individuals, not groups. We have the rights of expression, security and privacy. We have the right to assemble, choose our leaders and to determine our own destiny. We also have the right to disagree, to demand change and to see those changes realized when the majority agrees with the need for the changes.

With this in mind, why do the majority in this country, the 80% that have declared a religious belief and the 65% who regularly attend or practice their belief, have to hide in back rooms and shuttered meetinghouses? When 80% of the people in this country believe in a Supreme Being, why do the words, “one nation under God” and “in God we trust,” need to be stricken from our society? Why do minorities have the audacity to choose to move into a religious community because they like the environment and want to raise their children there; and then turn around immediately to criticize, demean and demand that the community change to their own personal preferences?

It reminds me of a line from the movie “The Age Of Innocence,” when the male lead is willing to break the arranged engagement to his fiancé to marry another that he really loves. His secret love, refusing to accept his sacrifice, says, “If you did, you would cease to be the very thing I love.”

Don’t they see,... or do they?

The Battle Over Christmas

2005-12-18T19:58:00.000-07:00

My heart has been heavy as I have read numerous articles regarding the absence of Christmas in the Season. I have heard from both sides, those who lament the vacancy and those who would cut of my nose so as to not offend another. I am afraid that the real truth is that Christ was removed from Christmas long before Holiday Trees and The Hanging of the Greens.

At the time of Christ, His birth was not celebrated. As the centuries rolled along and the powerful churches of the Middle Ages utilized the existing celebrations to create an excuse for promogating Christianity, Christmas was generally regulated to a Church Service commemoarting the His birth. The modern traditions of evergreen trees, gift giving, caroling, yule logs and feasts all had their origins in non-Christian winter celebrations of light and fertility.

Even in the days of the Dickens Christmas, gifts were seldom given. People attended family dinners and neighbors would sing songs of the Savior's birth and share treats and goodies. These traditions were gradually assimilated into the American culture from the immigrants of the late 1800th century.

I remember my grandparents of others of the first half of the 20th century only expecting one or two small gifts as children, a display of love and appreciation, not a gluttony of goodies.

But the last 50 years has seen an ever greater push toward material giving and mountains of gifts. Now parents feel guilty if they haven't spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on each child and many children feel cheated if they don't receive what they have been promised on TV. It is a time to get something for nothing, a season of selfishness.

It doesn't matter whether it started with greedy retailers, politically correct gurus or international inclusionists, the Spirit of the Season has been choked for decades.

There is a movement growing to limit purchased gifts of a few to children and adults should exchange home made gifts or services. The savings from this frugality should then be shared with those less fortunate. This is going to be a hard sell because of the tremendous economic impact it would have on retailers in the United States.

I think that we need to find ways to think of others, rather than ourselves, share love and good will rather than presents and cards. Becoming angry with a person who wishes to not offend another is really the unchristian act. If Christians can not motivate others to join them because of the joy and peace they derive from living the truth, then boycotts, insults and retaliation will never work either.

Rather than using money, power and force, let us use the tools that Jesus gave us of love, compassion and faith to change the world.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

2005-10-09T08:28:00.000-06:00

As a follow up to a previous article from Oct 4, 2005, a new article that appeared in the Washington Post reveals that Ronnie Earl, District Attorney from Texas, has more guts and gumption than common sense.

DeLay Lawyers: D.A. Tried to Coerce Jurors
By SUZANNE GAMBOA
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 8, 2005; 7:30 PM

The story claims that Earl not only went to a third grand jury when the second grand jury refused to indict Tom Delay after the first indictment had to be dropped because there was no legal basis, but he intimidated the third grand jury into making their decision. As in all journalistic reporting of court cases, it is impossible to determine who really did what. This is why we have our day in court rather than our day in the media.

But the evidence released so far continues to indicate that Mr. Earl is either trying to make a flimsy charge stick or he is totally inept as a prosecuter.

Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message?

2005-10-08T08:03:00.000-06:00

Two articles appearing today from Democratic sources, substantiate an idea that has been festering with me since the Election of ’04. In the first,

Carville: Dems need stronger narrative to win
By Elizabeth Gibson
October 07, 2005

James Carville, a political humorist, in a speech to Democratic students at Northwestern University, explained

…that Democratic candidates can’t succeed by shouting out to every group in a crowd. Instead candidates should tell stories with the three elements of any good story — setup, conflict and resolution.

“No Kumbayah crap,” Carville said.

Another article from the Washington Post,

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; A07

quotes two former Clinton advisors, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck. They complained that the Democrats must change their philosophies to run more down the center of the political spectrum rather than relying on either leftist-liberals or trying to capture the swing voters.

...Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

Howard Dean, when elected as the Democratic Party Chairman this past summer, declared that the reason the Republicans defeated the Democrats in 04 was that the Republicans had a better defined message and a more succinct way of expressing it. If the Demos wanted to win in the future, they would need to better articulate their stance so the American People could embrace it.

The problem with the Democratic platform has nothing to do with clarity, definition or volume, it has everything to do with substance and character.

When my grandfather was a Democrat, it was the party of the working man with a goal of "a chicken in every pot." The leaders believed in God, resisting communism and protecting America. We had just spent six long years of World War II defending these principles.

Today, the party has been over-run by leftists, extremists and special interests that are not only of little concern to the majority of Americans, but quite scary. Everyone finds comfort in those who look, act and believe as they do. When the fringe of the nation demands that religious middle-class heterosexuals greet with a kiss hedonist yuppie homosexuals and that lower income blacks should be embraced by upper income white executives, all the parties involved have just a little trepidation.

The relocation of the poorer black families from Hurricane Katrina highlighted some of this attitude as the refugees expressed concern about living in other “cultures” and most have chosen to return to their “home” as soon as possible.

Demos have tried too hard to make a collalition of all the fringe groups and in so doing, have alienated the core electorate of the nation. Whether we like smaller or larger government, involvement in international affairs or prefer isolationism, most people want security in their homes, their jobs and in their community. The electrate has learned that policies change, storms arise and the world moves on. Because of this, they will always lean toward leaders they feel have character, integrity and the charisma to lead in a crisis regardless of the party.

This is what the Democrats need to learn to internalize in order to win. If they could do that, I would likely vote along with them since they would have become a viable alternative.

Maybe The Stink Will Stick

2005-10-04T19:46:00.000-06:00

There is nothing quite as exciting as watching history in the making.

Texan Ronnie Earl, the Travis County District Attorney, jumped again into the national spotlight and secured a place in legal history when he dropped the charges against Tom Delay because the law Delay was indicted with breaking was not created until a year after the alleged conspiracy took place. Because of this blooper, he asked the Court to drop the previous count and issued new charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering. Of course, this new action begs the question; did anyone research this charge to see if there was actually a law in place in the State of Texas that was violated?

That sounds harsh, but in light of Dan Rather’s career curtailing calamity and the equally notorious and far from factual reporting on the mayhem of Hurricane Katrina that slung mud on the federal government, (aka, the Bush Administration); one wonders if the Democratic mind has the capacity for rational thought. Now, I realize that there are a great many good Democrats on the grass roots level that have the ability to think and act intelligently. I know that they don’t resemble the national figures any more than I remind you of Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. But I ask you; what is going on?

Is the left so emotionally charged and angry at the present situation that they are blinded to legal procedures and scientific discovery? I remember the consternation I felt during the Clinton years. I not only disagreed with the polling for politics style of leadership and abhorred Slick Willy, the great compromiser, but I had a personal distain stemming from damage he had inflicted on those I loved and cared about. Regardless of my revulsion, I watched the impeachment proceedings and cringed when emotion tended to move the trial out of the rule of law and into a personal attack.

But I realized that nothing lasts for ever. I didn’t vow to move to Canada or kill myself if change was not immediate. I knew that real leaders would emerge to fill the vacuum.

In the case of Tom Delay, it appears that Mr. Earl is repeating a previous blunder, (Conspiracy Theorist Indicts DeLay,) from 1993 when he tried to indicted

“Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with allegedly misusing staff and equipment in her state treasury office for political purposes.”

He realized just before the jury was selected that he didn’t have the evidence needed for a conviction and asked that the charges be dropped.

"When the case finally went to trial in February 1994, Earle, lacking the evidence to prove his charges against Hutchison, asked the judge to dismiss them before a jury could be sworn in. That would have allowed Earle to go after Hutchison again, at a later time, with the same charges. Because of the prohibition against double jeopardy, however, dropping the case after a jury was seated meant Earle would never be able to harass Hutchison with the charges again.
Judge John F. Onion, Jr., spurned Earle’s request and swore in a jury. Earle then refused to present any case. Onion ordered the jurors to acquit Hutchison, which they promptly did."

Charge them and drop them appears to be the Travis County motto. If you can’t convict, maybe the stink will stick.

Will Blacks Be Welcome in Utah? Part 2

2005-09-29T06:21:00.000-06:00

Just a short follow up on a previous blog about whether Blacks from New Orleans will be welcome in Utah. The Salt Lake Tribune had this article about a family that chose to stay in Utah.

A Utah Welcome Home
Neighbors pitch in to give evacuee family all they need

By Todd Hollingshead
The Salt Lake Tribune

A touching story that shows that compassion for others is not limited or restricted to race or religion. It is sad to understand that we detest in others those character traits we despise in ourselves. I am afraid that those who cry "racist" the loudest are actually the most guilty.

Where Was Big Brother?

2005-09-28T07:40:00.000-06:00

We have become a country of second-guessers, Monday morning quarterbacks and backseat drivers. It doesn’t matter what the event; the instant replay, blow by blow analysis and ceaseless dribble regarding who did what or who didn’t do what rolls out from the time the event begins until long after our interest ends.

The current classic example is the hearing when Former FEMA director Michael Brown appeared before a House Republican Committee hearing. He was slammed, ignored and rebuked for failure to perform tasks that were not his. Comments by Mr. Brown include:

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional," two days before the storm hit, Brown said…

"I've overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," he said…

"So I guess you want me to be the superhero, to step in there and take everyone out of New Orleans," Brown said…

"We put that money in our budget request and it was removed by the Department of Homeland Security" he said…

Brown in his opening statement cited "specific mistakes" in dealing with the storm, and listed just two.

One, he said, was not having more media briefings.

As to the other, he said: "I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together. I just couldn't pull that off." ..

Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., “pushed Brown on what he and his agency should have done to evacuate New Orleans, restore order and improve communication.”

"Those are not FEMA roles," Brown said. "FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."

In spite of his statements, the committee unleashed undue criticism and blame. It sounded like each member was taking the opportunity to make pre-authored statements that would distance themselves from the mess rather than addressing the problems and Mr. Brown’s comments.

"I'm happy you left," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn. "That kind of look in the lights like a deer tells me you weren't capable of doing that job…"

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told Brown: "The disconnect was, people thought there was some federal expertise out there. There wasn't. Not from you…"

Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas told Brown: "I don't know how you can sleep at night. You lost the battle…"

In a testy exchange, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn, compared Brown's performance unfavorably with that of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks…

The problems of Katrina are only being repeated with Rita.

I am terrified of the ‘where was Big Brother’ attitude that has been vented from these events. And the thing that upsets me the most is that the cry and hullabaloo is likely coming from only a few and amplified by the media. I have every faith and confidence that the majority of those that stayed or left shouldered the responsibility to care for and protect themselves

There are reports of people complaining that there is no power, water or sewage in many of the hard hit parishes in western Louisiana. Those who chose to stay should have done so with the understanding that they would be on their own. That means no help from the outside!!! What part of “Get out of Dodge” did they miss?

Reminds me of the note seen hanging on the wall of a car repair shop, “Lack of preparation on your part doesn’t necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.”

This country was built by people who had the courage and tenacity to do it themselves, with or without help from anyone else. But I see more and more, this independent attitude eroding away to a childlike dependency on a Big Brother, a Protector, an all powerful government.

It has been said so many times before, "Any government that has the power to supply you with everything you need, also has the power to take away everything you have.”

When Should We Leave Iraq?

2005-09-24T21:46:00.000-06:00

The movement to declare the Iraqi War as unjustified, bring the troops home before another American is killed or another Iraqi is humiliated or tortured is appearing to gain steam. At least in the eyes of the media. I have noticed that the Media has had a field day as new icons for this movement have come to the fore front.

In a story from Yahoo News on September 23, entitled, Human Rights group alleges Iraq prisoner abuse, the author describes how 3 un-named soldiers have come forward and declared that in the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division, abuse was a regular course of action.

The abuse was meted out as part of military intelligence interrogations or merely to "relieve stress" of troops, the report said.

"Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC (persons under control) tent. In a way it was sport," a sergeant is quoted as saying.

"One day (a sergeant) shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guys leg with a mini Louisville Slugger, a metal bat," he said...

"The accounts here suggest that the mistreatment of prisoners by the US military is even more widespread than has been acknowledged to date, including among troops belonging to some of the best trained, most decorated and highly respected units in the US Army," the report said.

Also Cindy Sheehan and her entourage marched on Washington demanding "Peace now" in an article in the Washinton Post:

Anti-War Demonstrators March on Washington
By JENNIFER C. KERR
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 24, 2005; 10:25 PM

Other notable quotes included:

"President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let's move on," Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein "a noble mission" but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded...

"We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily," she said...

"Bush Lied, Thousands Died," said one sign. "End the Occupation," said another...

Folk singer Joan Baez marched with the protesters and later serenaded them at a concert at the foot of the Washington Monument. An icon of the 1960s Vietnam War protests, she said Iraq is already a mess and the troops need to come home immediately. "There is chaos. There's bloodshed. There's carnage."

In the British paper, The Independent, there was a story entitled:

Soldier's chilling testimony fuels demonstrations against Iraq war
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 24 September 2005

The story details and embellishes reports from Hart Viges relating to mass killings and slaughter by US Troops in Iraq.

"I don't know how many innocents I killed with my mortar rounds," Mr Viges, who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, said during a presentation this week at American University in Washington. "In Baghdad, I had days that I don't want to remember. I try to forget," he added...

The rare insight into the chaos of the combat including an order to open fire on all taxis in the city of Samawa because it was believed Iraqi forces were using them for transport...

Actually, those are the only notable quotes from Mr. Viges. The balance of the article is the authors thoughts, updates on casualties in Iraq and some quotes from Kathy Kelly, a veteran campaigner with the group Voices in the Wilderness, declaring that Mr. Viges' testimony will greatly benefit her cause.

So, according to these reports, the country has galvanized behind the anti-war movement and the conscientious objectors and our boys are ready to come home? A grieving mother, a conscientious objector and a few un-named soldiers are not policy makers for the country. I don't want us to have to be there, but even if as a country, we chose now to leave Iraq, there are some harsh realities to face.

At this point, it really matter's little if the Administration lied about the weaponss of mass destrutcion or whether the Iraqi intelligence communtity duped us into believing they had WMD to prevent our aggression. The facts are that we are there and Saddam and his WMD are not.

What happens if we pull all of our troops home tomorrow or next week? There is no stable government, no constitution, no established laws, little working infastructure and what is there is being destroyed by the insurgents nearly as fast as we can repair it. There is great tension between the competing Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites over religion, security and soverenty. The insurgents under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have vowed to remove all the infidels from the land and have declared war on the Shiite majority. They also have targeted any Iraqi that has worked for, cooperated with or smile favorably on an outsider. We are loosing a handful of troops each month while the Iraqis are loosing hundreds.

And what about the thousands of Iraqis that have been killed, maimed or lost loved ones because of the insurgents? The peace activists would have you believe that we are responsible for their sorrows because our presence is prolonging the insurgency. But they are actually being killed because they have dared to stand up and challenge the age-old totalitarian rule of dictators, oligarchs and theocracs that has dominated the region for millennia. If we left, their lives would not be spared, but would be annialilated immediately because they pose a threat to the controlists.

If we pulled out before there is a stable government, the country would plunge into civil war. It would likely become divided into three or more unstable ethnic regions with insurgents and terrorists continuing to decimate the population in an effort by each group to gain a majority by eliminating the opposition. I fear that the bloodbath would be remincent of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge or more recently, Yugoslovia as it divided into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia where millions of people were brutilized, raped and massacred; men, women and children. Political and ethnic cleansing would be the order of the day.

But is that our problem? Is it okay for 100,000 or 500,000 Iraqis to be butchered as long as no more American soldiers loose their life? Which course is the most humane and moral? If we are to think globally and act locally with the enviroment, shouldn't we be doing the same politically? Where does our responsibility for freedom end? At our borders, with our allies, with our family?

Pulling the troops out of Iraq too soon would be selfish and much more self-serving than anything the administration is being accused of doing. It would create more instability in the region. It would demoralize those groups around the world that are hoping that someday their country will allow them the basic freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where the rule of dictators will be replaced by the rule of Law and their children will have hope for a productive future without fear.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Halloween and a Scary Christmas

2005-09-22T21:17:00.000-06:00

I always did have a problem while growing up when we would harvest our garden in September and early October, but not celebrate Thanksgiving until the end of November. It was refreshing during the 2 years I lived in Canada to enjoy Thanksgiving on October 10, it helped make sense of the holiday.

Then as I grew older, it became irritating when the national holidays were assigned to the closest Monday. So Lincoln's birthday was February 12 and Washington's was February 22 but we would celebrate both on a Monday in between. I could almost accept that. But when Memorial Day was changed to the last Monday in May and Veteran's Day became the second Monday in November, it didn't take long to have trouble remembering that Veteran's Day was really November 11 and Memorial Day was May 28,... or was it the 31. (Oh well, does it really matter any more?)

I was gratified to realize that there was something sacred about Christmas, the Fourth of July and New Year's Day. I know there is nothing sacred about New Year's Eve, but it would have been very confusing to have it the last Monday of December or the first Monday of January if New Years Day was still on January 1. I suppose we could have had New Year's Eve and New Year's Day on the same day??

But back to the point. I walked into Walmart the other day, and noticed that the Halloween promotions were already displayed. I quickly calculated that with Halloween starting 6 weeks before the actual activity, we had about 3 weeks until the Christmas decorations arrived and 4 weeks until the Hanukkh menorahs lined the isles but I think someone forgot all about Thanksgiving. Well not forgot, everyone will want to take Friday off of work, but there certainly isn't any time or space in the media or markets for William, the Pilgrim or Tom Turkey.

So to make sure I have this straight, I need to buy the kid's Trick or Treat costumes on the way home from Back to School night so I will have plenty of time to shop for Christmas before I buy the pumpkins to carve before the candy is gone and then I will still have time to buy those final items on the Christmas wish list when I purchase the turkey and cranberries, but I have to set aside some time to make a dreidel, set up the tree and grab some noise makers before they all dissappear and still make it on time to the family picnic on Labor Day.

It's no wonder that we feel that the Holidays are a little overwhelming.

As The Chickens Come Home To Roost....

2005-09-18T08:08:00.000-06:00

Several articles showed up today in the news as predictors of what we will continue to see. They each chronicle the typical government response to large sums of money; divert it to your own pet project or skim a large chunk off for you and your friends.

The first story, Money Earmarked for Evacuation Redirected by Rita Beamish of the Associated Press, reports on money that was earmarked for Hurricane Studies. She found that most of the money never made it where it was intended, but was redirected in to studies about the causeway and other unidentifiable places.

The $500,000 that Congress appropriated for the evacuation plan went to a commission that studied future options for the 24-mile bridge over Lake Pontchartrain, FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said.

The second, Louisiana Officials Indicted Before Katrina Hit, by By Ken Silverstein and Josh Meyer, LA Times Staff Writers, explains that State officials were already in trouble trying to accounting for $30 - $60 million dollars that had been given to them for hurricane and disaster preparedness and studies.

Senior officials in Louisiana's emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste, mismanagement and missing funds when Hurricane Katrina struck.

And federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted for funds that were funneled to the state from the Federal Emergency Management Agency dating back to 1998.

The third, FEMA's Woes Were Merely the Beginning, by Nicole Gaouette, Alan Miller and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, LA Times Staff Writers, discusses the Federal Agency's problems and unpreparedness for such a disaster.

Interviews with federal officials indicate that recovery difficulties have gone beyond the Federal Emergency Management Agency and span key agencies in Washington, where top officials are trying to respond to a huge reconstruction problem for which they had no policies or plans. Large contracts are pouring out of agencies, but the task ahead involves issues Washington hasn't thought seriously about since the 1960s.

As we sift through these articles it becomes evident that Murphy's Law has been broken. There are too many people in high places that have risen far above their ability to perform and are now responsible for situations that they are completely unable to handle. As I read, I wanted to cry out and volunteer to manage these problems. There are many experienced individuals around the country that can properly plan, direct and succeed at this monstrous task. But the sad truth is that while they were busy learning the tricks of the trade, the present position holders were handing out campaign bumper stickers and soliciting contributions for the present office holders.

I worried when the majority of the appointees of President Clinton all seemed to come from Arkansas and the appointees of President Bush appear to have a home address of Texas.

Now the worry is over and the predictable results are in play. We have thousands of people handling billions of dollars in reconstruction money that don't know how to change a door knob or plan a family picnic.

The Supreme Court, John Roberts and the Rule of Law

2005-09-16T06:45:00.000-06:00

I have been able to only hear some of the proceedings in the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have read a great deal of what the opposing and supporting sides are saying about him. There are a few basic points that have emerged from the debate and should be elaborated upon.

First - The attitude of many people regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court has shifted over the last 50 years. Rather than being a body that reviews laws to determine if they are consistent with the Constitution and existing law, the Court is seen as a body that should decide the morality of law. This would empower them with the authority to create or to strike down laws according to the beliefs and attitudes of the members of the Court. It would negate the power of the people through the Congress to create laws. There was a reason the founding fathers invested the power to make laws in the Congress. By doing so, this power remains in the hands of the people. When it is given to 5 of the 9 Justices that are appointed by the President, we no longer have a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy.

Second - Because too many special interests groups believe in the power of the Court to create law, they have adamantly stated that no person should be on the Court if the Justice does not hold the same moral values that they adhere to. We have seen repeated attacks on Judge Roberts as interrogators have tried to determine his personal beliefs and values on the principles they hold most dear. The most compelling reason to me that Judge Roberts in a perfect person for the job rests in his repeated declarations that his passion is preserving the Rule of Law, not in furthering any particular personal agenda. Any Justice on the Supreme Court should hold this standard in the decisions they address.

Finally - There are many legal activities that I personally feel are damaging to either individuals or society, but because they are currently legal, I must allow those who choose to do these acts the same freedom I expect them to allow me. If a law or activity is dangerous, destructive or harmful, it is the responsibility of the people through the Congress, not the Courts, to create or change the law. By following this path, we will find the true intent of the Founding Fathers when they stated that the purpose of the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Mud Slinging Govenor Takes on a Gun-toting President

2005-09-14T07:02:00.000-06:00

An Associated Press article quoted the soft spoken Gov. Blanco:

Blanco: Body Recovery Taking Too Long
Sep 13 2:41 PM US/Eastern

NEW ORLEANS

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed out at FEMA on Tuesday, complaining the agency is moving too slowly in recovering the bodies of those killed by Hurricane Katrina.

The dead "deserve more respect than they have received," she said at state police headquarters in Baton Rouge.

She said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency still has not signed a contract with the company hired to handle the removal of the bodies, Houston-based Kenyon International Emergency Services.
Calls to a FEMA spokesman in New Orleans and the Homeland Security Department in Washington were not immediately returned.

I am amazed at the brashness demonstrated by some people. This is the lady that was given over a week to prepare for the worst disaster to strike this country and when her turn came to "stand and deliver," she failed miserably. Now to top it off, she continues to rant and rave against the people that are bailing her out. What kind of a dog bites the very hand that feeds them?

The other disgusting reality is that if the Govenor had done her job properly in the beginning and had evacuated the area properly or had supplied the aid needed, there would not be the amount of dead bodies to recover.

I work with disaster victims all the time in my occupation. If this was a business enterprise, most companies would have told her to take a flying leap at the moon. No amount of potential profit would justify working with this nasty, demanding, cantacerous, spiteful snippet. But to avoid confirming her damaging dialogue, the Federal Government and its supportive agencies are stepping forward and addressing the problems.

The Govenor's cadundrum is grasping the enormity of the task and the reality of the steps needed to avoid providing additional ammunition from future mistakes. Since she didn't grasp it in the beginning I don't know why we should be surprised when she can't grasp it now.

I have had other clients that fit the mold of the Govenor. The over-riding similarity between them is that since they really don't know what they want or how things should be done, they have a difficult time recognizing the goal when they reach it.

It was gratifying to see that the Mayor of New Orleans has changed his tune and is now trumpeting a more positive melody of how soon the City will be open and back in business.

My own company is sending personnel to work with the local restoration firm that will dryout the Hyatt Regency. This building will work as a staging ground for the other restoration companies that will do the cleanup and restoration. The amount of manpower and equipment to dryout and restore these communities is beyond the scope of most people. If too many people are allowed in to begin the work too soon, situations reminiscent of the Superdome and Convention Center will emerge again as too many start competing for too few resources.

My daddy used to say that when the mouth was open, the ears were closed. I hope that the Govenor can close her mouth long enough to see and hear what is actually happening and not spend her time inventing negative accusations to sling mud on the President. A mud slinging Govenor against a gun-toting President, I wonder who would win that fight?

Let's Play Katrina, The Blaming Game

2005-09-11T21:19:00.000-06:00

The accusations of failure and deliction of duty on behalf of the federal government that are oozing out of the goo left by Katrina would be hilarious if not for the fact that too many people are not checking the facts and are believing them. There have been many articles in the media dealing with the proper order of responsibility and the dismal failures on the local level. The article,

The Left's False Assault on President Bush by Peter Ferrara, Posted Sep 8, 2005 in Human Events is the most concise to date dealing with the actual facts.

Mr. Ferrara makes several important points,

The federal government is not the first responder
FEMA is a financial institution and has no law enforcement authority or personel
The resources of FEMA are designed to restore the communities after the fact
The National Guard are not under the direction of the President, but the Govenor
It is illegal for federal troops to be used against United States Citizens.

These restrictions were set in place to protect the rights of the citizens from being trampled by a dictator minded President. It is ironic that the very people that have complained that President Bush is taking away our freedoms, liberties and setting up a dictatorship, complained when he did not take control and overpower the State and Local officials.

When we understand the way the country is supposed to be run, it is easy to see that the failures to protect and preserve the people of New Orleans lies directly in the laps of the Mayor first, and then the Govenor. I am also amazed that Mayor Nagin and Govenor Blanco are the only ones that are screaming that they were abandoned. Why aren't the Govenors and Mayors of Mississippi and Alabama making the same statements? They have expressed a desire for aid to have come sooner, but they are not blaming the problems they have on President Bush. They are digging in and fixing the mess themselves.

There was little that could have been done to avert the havoc that Katrina unleashed on the city. We do not have the ability to build strong enough to withstand the intense winds and tidal surges that came with this storm. We didn't even know what 145 mph winds would do to the buildings. The tragedy here is the mismanagement of resources, the failure to learn from previous experiences and the paltry partisan politics on the part of the local officials that costs the lives of hundreds of people in New Orleans. If these people are not held accountable for involuntary manslaughter, they should at least be booted from office. If the citizens of Louisiana are unwilling to do this, then they will have made their own bed and will have to sleep in it.

Disastrous Floods, Salt Lake vs New Orleans

2005-09-11T20:51:00.000-06:00

I work in the Flood and Fire Restoration business in the Salt Lake City area. I received a call to handle a sewer back-up in one of our local cities. It had a couple of anomalies, a dog was fell in the sewer line and plugged it up and it moved twice, stuck each time and flooded a total of 18 homes. The city did not accept any liability for the problem, but agreed to pay for the cleanup and restoration costs in the name of public safety and then will go after any liable parties that may be uncovered.

The ironic piece to this story is that this back-up occurred two days before Katrina hit New Orleans. I was able to compare both disasters side by side. The thing that struck me most was that in both cases, the residents were victims. They had done nothing to cause the problems they were facing and looked to others to solve the problem. Both felt helpless as the government agencies worked their way through the web of potential legalities before being able to take a position. Our company was called out and stood at the ready, but needed to wait until either the City or the residents agreed to pay for our services before we could begin.

It took a couple of hours, but the City did agree to pay for the costs of cleanup, allowing my crews that were standing by to begin. Once this decision was made, the residents pulled together to help one another and several offered to wait and allow others with more seriously damaged homes to be cleaned first.

Aside from the fiascos at the Superdome and the Convention Center in New Orleans, the residents from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have acted in much the same manner. There are emerging many stories of heroism and sacrifice. I hope we will hear more of them as time goes on.

I am sure that out of the million people displaced by the hurricane, there were only a few thousand that we are embarrassed to know. That is less than 1%. The angry accusations aimed at the federal government are coming from people who either failed at their job during Katrina or have a history of Bush Bashing. Either way, they really are not a creditable source.

More on this later.

Guns Save Lives

2005-09-11T15:39:00.000-06:00

Here is an interesting article about how concealed weapons actually save 3-4 times more lives each year than are destroyed.

Guns Save Lives: A Fact that Scares the Left

I especially like the part about the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's use of a study that was later revoked by the author. I guess that even lousy data can support a flawed idea.

Continued Threats by Al Queda

2005-09-11T15:21:00.000-06:00

On this, the 4th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Towers, Al Queda released a new video vowing to continue their crusade against all non-believers of their radical philosophies. They claim, "We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators." It is ironic that their definition of peace is the same definition they condemn.

Unfortunately for their movement, there have only been a handful of people around the world that have succumbed to their fear tactics. Most of us have continued with our lives and many have volunteered and are courageously fighting around the world to defeat these tyrannical outcasts from society.

I pray that we all may have the fortitude and endurance to live, fight and if needed die for the cause of freedom for all mankind regardless of race, religion or gender.

Will Blacks Be Welcome In Utah?

2005-09-11T11:44:00.000-06:00

The article, Black refugees ask if Utah will really accept them, recently interviewed diplaced refugees from New Orleans whether they felt they would be welcome in Utah. The majority expressed apprehension and distain for the Beehive State and didn't think they would be accepted.

I have heard several people here in Utah express concern about having large amounts of refugees coming to the state, but the concerns had nothing at all to do with race, but with honesty and work ethic. Anyone who is willing to work hard and give to the community is welcome. Those who want a welfare check, have crimminal intentions or are waiting to be persecuted are invited to seek haven in another location.

Active Mormons do make up a large part of the population, but there are plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and general reprobates for most people to find a kindred spirit. One or more Utah cities have consistantly been voted in the top 10 cities to live in the United States. There is less crime, higher student scores, a greater percentage of the population attending religious services and clean, semi-affordable housing.

But the sad thing that always seems to occur is when others choose to live in Utah because of the values, standards and cleanliness, instead of embracing the standards and values that made this a desirable place to live, they usually try to change it to become just like the place they chose to leave. I have never understood that.