Occupy Wall Street = Acorn and Other Disgusting Stuff

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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 donated 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.

1. 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.
2. 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 economic turmoil we face today.

It is usually proper to expect someone to clean up the mess they made. The problem with this situation 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?

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:

1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for over 20 years, says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
2. Governor Blagojevich of Illinois is indicted on charges of bribery and fraud trying to sell the Senate seat.
3. 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.
   
4. 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
5. 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???
6. 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.
   
7. 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?

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

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

"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. . .?

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

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

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?

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 or covering, are inviting men to rape them. One of the clerics is quoted as defending this philosophy 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 accosting 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 predators who are no longer accountable for their actions?

Photo courtesy of:
http://community.petpalstv.com/profiles/blogs/i-have-3-cats-who-are-all-diabetic-what-is-this-about

Mr. Gorbachev, There Is One Major Difference

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

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

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?

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

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

1. Those who want to become a part of this country and enjoy the benefits of living here.
2. Those who want to learn and earn as much can they can and take it back to their native land.
3. 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.