An Amnesty Band-Aid

The general outcry of the Republican leadership and the party's intelligencia is that we must moderate our positions on social issues, particularly on illegal immigration.  “We lost the Hispanic vote because we are too hardline on amnesty!” they cry.  However, I would say that the Hispanic vote was lost to the Republicans before the election cycle even began.  This is nothing new; large segments of the Hispanic population have voted overwhelming for Democrats for decades.  Coming out in support of amnesty would be like putting a Band-Aid over a gaping wound in need of stitches.  In other words, we know that it is not the solution to the problem.  We have, in fact, historical evidence of this.  In the 1980s, Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens living in the United States.  This neither won the political loyalty of the Hispanic population nor stopped the flow of illegal aliens into this country.  So if amnesty isn’t the key to winning the Hispanic vote, what is?

I would say that the Republicans’ problem is larger than opposition to amnesty; it is about culture and assimilation.  Hispanic culture throughout the Western Hemisphere is as diverse as a cross-section of the cultures in Europe.  Each country (and each region within each country, for that matter) has its own traditions, way of life, and even its own dialect of Spanish.  What is it, then, that leads to Hispanics joining together as a voting bloc in the United States?   One thing that all Spanish-speaking nations have in common is that their populations overwhelming identify themselves as Catholic.  During the 1960s, the Catholic Church in Latin America (and more than a few parishes in North America) experienced the teachings of liberation theology.  This movement was largely a humanistic interpretation of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, and gave rise to the idea of “social justice," in the Marxist sense, not just as a political movement but a religious one.  Liberation theology advocates the redistribution of wealth and populist revolts to establish governments that would follow these teachings. 

With help from this movement, almost all Latin American countries were (and some are currently) controlled by regimes that fully embrace Marxism dressing in religious clothing.  To the leaders of these regimes, liberation theology was a means of preempting their own overthrow.  The people would not rise up in revolt because they were taught by their faith’s leaders that social justice is a religious obligation.  They did not hear opposing views or about different economic theories because the government controlled the education system (if there was any education to be had).  In the 1980s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith repudiated the Marxist elements of liberation theology because it ultimately led to a situation where “the Church of the people” conflicted with the “hierarchical Church”.  In spite of Vatican’s official disagreement with liberation theology, there are still to this day many priests and bishops (and a few cardinals) that embrace it.  When I lived in the Bay Area, I was hard-pressed to find a parish where priests were not pushing liberalism from the pulpit.  I even walked out of Mass during a homily in which the priest blamed the United States for the events of 9-11.  Little did I know back then (in 2005) that there was another religious leader named Jeremiah Wright who was singing from the same hymnal.

When Hispanics (or members of any other ethnic group) migrate to the United States, they do not leave their traditions and religions behind.  Nor should they; the beauty of our country as founded is that we are by default an inclusive society where all people are free to live as they choose.  Problems arise when no effort is made on the part of the immigrant to learn about the ways and culture of their new home.  In fact, in many states immigrants don’t even have to learn English for day to day interaction with the public. There is no expectation that any immigrant, Hispanic or not, legal or not, has to in any way adapt to the ways of their new homeland.  If we do expect it, liberals call us racists and xenophobes. 

That is what conservatism is up against. We have to undo 40 years of conditioning that has led generations of people to believe that it is a government’s job to make Christian charity compulsory.  Not only that, we also have to undo the conditioning of generations of Americans who were taught that “multiculturalism” means that we cannot and should not expect immigrants to truly adopt the United States as their home and assimilate into American culture.  If it sounds like a tall order, that’s because it is.  In states like California, it may even be impossible.  This is why we need to seek cultural solutions, not political ones, to our current problems.  We must emphasize the common ground that we have and educate everyone on what can be done to meet our common goals.  We all want better for our children.  We want to have the freedom to pursue our dreams and be our best.  We want equality of opportunity for everyone who seeks success.  These are the things that all good people want, regardless of their race, creed, or nationality.

 

A Greasy Paper Bag

A very wise friend of mine once said, “Life’s lessons don’t always come to you wrapped in a pretty package.  Sometimes they get handed to you in a greasy paper bag.”  She told me this when I was at a definite low point in my life. I had been having difficulty with my boss at work and was just laid off.  This happened just as my fiancé was having difficulties at his job.  To add insult to injury, I learned that same week that I had not passed all of the sections of the Professional Engineering exam and would have to wait until October (the weekend we had planned to get married) to re-take it.  However, my friend’s gentle reminder gave me the encouragement that I needed to look at the situation with a clear mind and learn the lessons that were needed to move forward.  Given the way that the election went last night it’s time to roll up our sleeves, dig through the greasy paper bag, and find out what’s in it.

What did we learn about ourselves as a nation?

Mitt Romney was not incorrect when he said that at least 47% of the population was lost to him.  Last night was saw what happens when an administration chooses to buy votes by adding to the welfare rolls and removing any sort of working or job training requirement in order to receive government aid.  Why work for a living?  Working is for suckers!  The people who came out to vote for Obama were voting to preserve their bottomless bag of goodies from “Big Daddy Gubbmit.”  We truly have become a nation of petulant children who expect mommy and daddy to foot the bill on everything from our cell phones to housing, from college tuition to healthcare.  Hence we have the Occupy movement. 

There is also an obvious lack of self-esteem in this country!  The exit polling indicates that while voters thought Romney was better equipped to handle the economy, people voted for Obama because he “cares” about people like them.  He “cares” about minorities.  He “cares” about women.  He “cares” about the GLBT community.  This is an effect of the chickafication of society; it’s more important have someone “care” than it is for you to actually care for and like yourself.  Other than pandering to these groups, what has Obama done for them?  The last time I checked, unemployment among minorities is higher than the national average.  Are there no women or gays who have lost their jobs in the last four years?  These groups see themselves as victims, and it’s easier to be a victim and do nothing for one’s self than it is to stand up for one’s self as an individual with dignity and self-worth.  Self-esteem comes from achievement, and I am not talking about the “everyone getting a trophy for participation” kind.

How do we show the way to these lost souls?  It’s simple.  The government cannot possibly sustain the level of current spending, let alone the projected growth in spending.  These entitlements will collapse under their own weight.  When they do, from whence will all the freebies come?  There will be no more freebies.  Sure the government can try to raise taxes and may even succeed in that regard (as with California’s Prop 30).  However, the golden goose is going to croak sometime.  When it does, these people realize that the only way to get and keep what they want is to earn it, we will be there to show them how.  Accomplishment breeds confidence which, in turn, leads to self-esteem.  When victims start to stand up for themselves, liberalism will lose its appeal.

What did we learn about the Republican Party?

We conservatives should never EVER allow the Wizards of Smart in our own party or in the media tell us that we should nominate someone because they are “electable”.  Every time in my lifetime that this has happened, the Republicans have lost the White House.  Every last one of them told us that our only choice was Romney.  I am not making disparaging remarks about Governor Romney.  He is a good, decent man and an all-around class act.  Compared to Obama’s lack of credentials, Romney had an excellent track record on the economy in both his private and political careers.  He was also quite milquetoast compared to the flashy, hip “Campaigner in Chief”.  The one glimmer of what could have been was Romney’s brilliant performance in the first Presidential debate.  I only wish that he had been that articulate and fired up for the whole of the campaign.  Being President is not just a job, it is a vocation.  If one does not have the fire within to be President, one should not run.

The GOP was scared to be seen as the “mean party”.  They didn’t want to look like the boys of Cobra Kai beating up Daniel-San.  They were so concerned with the optics that they forgot the message.  At no point in the campaign did I ever hear of Obama calling on his supporters to quit picking on Romney’s faith.  Neither did I hear him ask for moderation of the comments misrepresenting Bain Capital and the role of private equity investment in our economy.  In fact, he was the source of some of those remarks!

  The Republican Party needs to stop worrying about what liberals will say about them because no matter how many minorities we as a party embrace, no matter how nice we are, no matter how mild-mannered we are, Republicans will always be portrayed as the party of mean, racist, sexist, homophobes who have taken advantage of the poor to gain wealth.  Who are the people that matter?  The conservative base and the folks who do not follow politics but every four years, that’s who.  If a candidate cannot mobilize his base to campaign for him (rather than against the other guy), how can he hope to persuade the people in the middle?

What did conservatives learn about themselves?

Even when we are not entirely enthusiastic about a candidate, look at all the work we can do!  I live in Santa Barbara County, which went blue this election.  Yet everywhere I went, there were signs for Republican congressional and state assembly candidates, as well as Romney-Ryan signs.  Even if there was a lack of enthusiasm, there was a lot of visibility. Imagine if our candidates had been able to fire up the base and get conservatives excited!  I have trouble believing that Lois Capps would even have had a snowball’s chance in hell of re-election if there had been a conservative on the ticket.

We are the ones with the real power in the Republican Party.  The House of Representatives is still in GOP hands because of Tea Party candidates who have held their ground on principles.  It is up to us to take the reins of leadership from the GOP establishment.  Since 2006 they have squandered the blood, sweat, and tears of every single one of us who has worked on the phone banks, sent mailers, posted signs, and faced off debates with acquaintances (sometimes even losing friendships over our beliefs).  The establishment will not give up power easily.  In fact, they may even try to tack farther left to stay in power in Washington, D.C.  We cannot let them!  Hold them accountable because we sent them to D.C. and we can send them home.

What do we do now?

We keep on doing what we have always done: we work hard to support ourselves and our families.  We give to charity to help those less fortunate than ourselves.  We persevere.  Even as the government makes it more difficult to do so, we will find a way.  We need to be vocal about our principles and demonstrate them in our daily lives and lead by example.  I know this sounds like what we were doing in the campaign, but this cannot be an “every four years” sort of thing.  We have to do it every single day.  Regardless of who may or may not be watching, we have to put our best selves forward and be the living examples of how conservatism works.

We must also work for change.  We have midterm elections in two years.  If you have the passion and the drive to do so, run for office.  We need fresh faces and new voices articulating our ideas.  Encourage your friends and family members to run if you don’t have the heart or stomach for it.  Our Founding Fathers envisioned the citizen-statesman, someone who is called from private life to serve his country as an elected representative and then return to private life when his work was done.  It’s time for us to quit looking to the establishment to change their ways and time for us step up.

Vote Early, Often, and Illegally

The Obama administration continues it's Democrat Voter Drive (after the colossal flop of the War on Women) by announcing today that it will grant immunity and work permits to young adults who were brought to the United States as children.  According to the story posted this morning on The Hill's website, those eligible for this "deferred action" (as Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano calls it) are illegal aliens under the age of 30 who were brought here before the age of 16 and claim to have been in the United States continuously for the past 15 years.  They also cannot have a criminal record and must apply for a two-year work permit.  This work permit does not have a limit on the number of times that it can be renewed.


At first blush, this strategy serves two purposes.  This first is to assuage Latino lobbyists who have previously raised concerns that the Administration is not doing enough for them.  In the not to distant past, President Obama chided the pro-amensty crowd for blaming him for the failure to pass the DREAM Act.  As of last year, the President said "The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things.  It's just not true."  So, other than the fact that Obama is busying trying to get re-elected with a shrinking economy and high unemployment, what's changed?


The other, perhaps less obvious, purpose is to ensure that these newly legal residents will vote like good little Democrats.  The illegals that can apply for and be issued work permits are practically guaranteed to have been properly indoctrinated in the ways of liberalism.  The youngest in this group will have just graduated from high school.  The oldest in the group will either be in grad school or less than five years out of college.  Couple that with the high probability that these young adults were raised to not assimilate into American culture (but rather maintain a culture separate from and untrusting of American culture), and you have a recipe for the perfect class warfare voter.


Of course, some people will still look at this and say that this doesn't affect voter rolls because legal residents are not necessarily citizens.  Because only citizens legally have the right to vote, these young adults would not be eligible.  One would have to be naive to not account for the recent Department of Justice assaults on state governments seeking to purge their voter rolls of fraudulent registrations or enact voter ID laws.  Just like the seemingly off-the-wall question that Mitt Romney was asked about the states' ability to take away birth control, Attorney General Eric Holder's aggressive opposition to fix the issues of voter fraud and voter identification was a prelude to this latest outrage.


I call this an outrage because it is being done via an executive order and without legislation from Congress.  Congress already tried this once before with the DREAM Act.  The attempt was shot down in flames when people flooded the phone lines and inboxes of their Senators and Representatives to protest it.  Liberals can only get their way by either judicial activism or by fiat.  While illegal immigration is a large and as of yet unresolved issue, there is a much more threatening precedent being set here: can the President use an executive order indiscriminately?


At this nation's founding, the idea of an all-powerful executive was repugnant.  To the mainstream, it still is.  From a constitutional standpoint, the President has the following authority: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."  The Internet is already abuzz with liberals pointing to Reagan's granting amnesty to illegal aliens as an example of this already being done in the past.  There's one little problem, though.  Reagan granted amnesty because Congress had first passed a law that granted him the authority to do so.  


Because the power to make Federal laws is exclusively reserved for Congress, what law is Obama executing by the issuance of this executive order?  Undoubtedly, the constitutionally of this will be challenged.  In fact, observers on the left and the right already acknowledge that this is unconstitutional.  The question is, will it be too late or will it even matter to this President?  The fact that it is backdoor amnesty is outrageous.  The manner in which it is being done is Orwellian.

Back with a Vengence!

So, we meet again! After much tumult in my personal life (getting laid off, working multiple jobs to pay the bills, getting a roommate, interviewing for a new job, getting a new job, losing the roommate, and on and on and...you get the idea) I have returned to the blogosphere. First of all, let me say that I have a lot of ground to cover since I really don't have an outlet other than the unfortunates known as my family and friends. I'm sure that they get sick of discussing politics with me, especially my "to the left of FDR" friends. To them I say: Relax, go read some HuffPo, and hug a tree while I blog.


The last time that I posted, voters in California had just rejected four of five ballot initiatives brought to you buy our opportunistic State Senator-turned-Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado and a bunch of backroom dealing political hacks. They tried to convince us that we greedy working people needed to cough up more money to pay for Sacramento's precious social programs and feed the bloated tick that is our state's bureacracy. We were told that if we didn't tax ourselves into poverty, then the state would slide off into the ocean . Well, we didn't and...didn't. My apologies to the states of Arizona and Nevada; I'm sure that you were looking forward to some oceanfront property.


Our state is facing record deficits (again) and IOU's being issued to employees and contractors (again). According to the Employment Development Department, California's unemployment rate is 12.4%. On a national level, the unemployment rate was just reported at 9.8%. In the face of all of this what has California's legislators done? They have voted even more government spending, raised "fees" on industries and businesses still in the state, and passed a cap-and-trade bill that has our state's private sector economy shrinking. Whole companies have either gone belly up or have left California. In spite of all of this, what did the voters of California do? They voted to keep the status quo. Why? There are a few factors to consider.

Factor #1: California now has more people living off the government, both in the form of handouts and government employment. A state that is drowning in red ink is also the state's biggest employer. More than half of those employed in California are government employees. These employees all pay dues to their respective unions. As a former state employee (I quit because I actually like to finish projects), I had to pay $40 a month to the union despite the fact that I wasn't a member! How did they get away with this? State agencies are union-shops in California. Because I supposedly reaped the benefits of collective bargaining, I had to pay dues. What a racket! Even if you aren't a member, you are still funding the union's PAC and their candidates.

Factor #2: Almost all of the sane people have left the state, leaving the rest of us in the minority. I graduated from high school in a class of 150 students. Of those 150, about one-third of them have left California. There are roughly 37 million people in California. Of those people, 33% of them are under the age of 18 and a little over 11% are 65 and older. So, right off the top, you have 44% of the population that isn't working for a living. Of course, one would assume that the under 18 crowd is being provided for by their parents in some way or another. However, 2008 marked the first year that more people were actually leaving California than were coming here. If the people that I see in my day-to-day life are any indication, the only ones still here are senior citizens, kids, and illegal aliens that have fled Arizona.

Factor #3: At the state-level, the Republican Party still doesn't get it. Look at who we had for political candidates this last go-round. We were asked to hold our noses, once more, and vote for the lesser of two evils. Meg Whitman ran like John McCain. In other words, she ran a horrible campaign. It should have been easy to beat Governor Moonbeam; look at all the material you have. Jerry Brown hasn't had a private sector job since 1970. To give you a little perspective, my mom was ten years old the last time that Jerry Brown earned a paycheck that didn't come from a municipal or state treasury. Whitman didn't have to run a negative campaign to beat Jerry Brown. All she had to do was list his accomplishments while serving has Governor, Mayor of Oakland, and Attorney General.

Is California beyond hope? It's difficult to stay optimistic in the face of this past November. If California is going to recover and become prosperous again, we need to quit doing more of the same. By and large, all the State Legislature's incumbents were re-elected. Even though the governorship switch parties, it didn't change the agenda. Schwarzenegger abandoned conservative principles years ago so he could "get along" with everyone entrenched in Sacramento and still get invitations to Hollywood cocktail parties after he leaves the state's capital. I also suspect there was an element of domestic harmony to be maintained, as well. If you thought Ah-nuld was a schmuck, wait until Moonbeam gets sworn in for the third time.

At least we still have the recall referendum.

Shame, Shame, Shame!

The New York Times has excoreated Californians for voting against more tax-and-spend (and tax some more) policies. Ah, yes. Shame on those of us who work for a living, for wanting to keep more of our hard-earned money so we can continue living in the most expensive state in the Union without being on the government dole. We should all hang our heads because we are so very selfish for not wanting to continue to send our money to Sacramento. What a bunch of ingrates we are! How dare we prevent more funding for the n'er-do-wells in government who are already too busy spending our tax money to actually get a real job? What an outrage that we may actually have to trim the fat off the budgets of the state's various bureaucracies, not the least of which are education system, environmental regulating agencies, and *gasp* welfare benefits! Mea culpa.

Of special note, all of the emphasis is being placed on cuts in the state's education system. First off, look at how liberals love to use children as a human shield for their policies. Strictly looking at the amount of money spent per child in California and then looking at the results, I'd say that California's education system has been a poor investment. Students graduating from high school should have enough education to either go to college or get an entry-level job. I hate to break it to you, but there are teenagers graduating who can barely read and write at the sixth grade level. Don't even get me started on the lack of work ethic or professionalism of these alleged young adults. And why should they have to work for achievement in academics? After all, in the state of California teachers seem to have made it a regular practice to pass the failing students (we don't want to damage their budding self-esteem). When they graduate with their Cracker Jack diploma, they can continue to live off their parents or apply for welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the California Teacher's Assocation is allowed to engage in the type of behavior that helped the United Auto Workers bring down the auto industry in this country. Think fat pensions, tenure based on seniority (not performance), and a political action committee that might as well be a branch office for the DNC.

The governor, in an effort to scaremonger us into voting for higher taxes and more borrowing, threatened to cut funding for law enforcement and firefighters...during a wildfire that destroyed 80 homes and almost 8000 acres in the Santa Barbara area. That's low (even for a politician). Why not reduce welfare benefits and use that money to maintain the funding for law enforcement and emergency services? Reducing welfare would serve multiple purposes. It would take away the incentive for laziness, incentivize hard work, and possibly discourage some would-be illegal aliens from coming here. I also bet you would see a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant, unwed mothers in California.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. Not for the outcome of yesterday's vote, but for the fact that it even had to take place. The last time the people of California were this focused on the state's budget issues was back when we recalled Gray Davis and elected "Ah-nuld". California's budget mess should have been straightened out then, rather than enacting some feel-good brand of bipartisanship that only kicked the can down the road. Only now that individuals and businesses are relocating to less hostile environments (and taking their tax dollars with them) are the politicians being faced with having to enact real budget reform. Let's hope that Californians have finally learned a lesson that they won't soon forget.

"Why Make Trillions When We Could Make...Billions?"

In an effort to show that he is working on maintaining a balanced federal budget, the Lord Messiah, Barack Obama the Most Merciful (LMBOMM, for short) had told his Cabinet that they must cut $100 million in spending from the proposed $3.5 trillion budget (see the story here). For visual reference,

that is this many: $100,000,000

from this many: $3,500,000,000,000

Do you notice something strange about this? The amount to be cut is only 0.0029% of the budget! Apparently, our "articulate, bright and clean" president (per our vice president's description) either really sucks at math, or is a graduate of the Dr. Evil School of Economics, which is located on the same campus as the Joe Biden Institute of ABCs and 123s (and the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Don't Read Good, and Want to Learn How to Do Other Stuff Good Too). Maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. After all he may have meant to to say $100 billion, but the teleprompter technician miskeyed it.

All joking aside, though, even $100 billion would be a pittance compared to the size of this budget (it would only be a 2.9% reduction). Just think about it. Three. And One-Half. Trillion. Dollars. There is slightly over 300 million people in the U.S. That means that if they decided to divy this up to every man, woman, and child we would each get $11,666.67. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the people that make over $250,000 a year are included in that 300 million people. This budget is 60 times Bill Gates' estimated net worth. If you hear a peculiar sucking sound, that's the sound of your hard-earned money leaving your wallet. Don't worry, though. Obama is going to "spread the wealth around" and make things better for you...with your own money.

Real Change is My Cup of T.E.A.

A few things caught my attention about yesterday's TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. First off, how very normal the attendees looked. If one were to believe Janet Napolitano, we should have been looking at a bunch of fatigues-wearing, gun-toting Aryan Nation and Ruby Ridge types. We should have also expected to see effigies of Obama being burned or hanging from a noose. Another thing that struck me was how the media coverage largely focused on reaction from elected officials (i.e. the targets of these tea parties), not what was being said at the rallies. Any attention that was drawn to the attendees contained the following: 1) these were all orchestrated by conservative think-tanks and talk radio, 2) attendees are nothing more than anti-government malcontents, and 3) the attendees fit the Department of Homeland Security's description of the "right-wing extremist". The drive-bys also had a penchant for referring to participants as "teabaggers". Use urbandictionary.com to look it up, because I'm not going to explain it here (this isn't a public high school sex ed class).

Now, I attended one of the the tea parties here on the central coast of California. There were anywhere from 1500 to 2000 people. This was just one of the seven tea parties held between Ventura and Monterey (that I know of). The crowd had people of all ages, ethnicities, and walks of life. Attendees were unfailingly polite, even when the event was over and everyone was trying to vacate the parking lot. There were no riots, no burning cars, and no one attacking the police detail. In short, we were better behaved than most California protesters (unlike the protests that followed the passage of Prop 8).

In addition to protesting higher federal taxation, we were also protesting higher state taxes and onerous environmental regulations based on incomplete or fake research. California has the seventh largest economy in the world. Why is it then that California is in tank with an ever-increasing budget gap, while we have the highest income tax rate in the nation (and the sixth highest per capita total taxation)? Our current legislators think that the solution is to increase our income taxes, our sales tax, the fuel tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, and our vehicle registration fees. On top of these increases are new taxes on services such as auto repair and veterinary care.

Why do we have regulations in our state that stifle economic growth in the name of "environmental preservation" when there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these measures actually work? The last thing California needs is the tax base leaving for places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Or, in the case of some of my wiser friends, Texas. On a side note, can I adopt Rick Perry as my governor? Between that, and having Rudy Giuliani run for mayor of Los Angeles we could really clean up California. All I'm saying is think about it.

Who's going to pay taxes to support welfare benefits and state employee retirement plans? Illegal aliens and welfare recipients don't pay income taxes and theoretically don't pay very many other taxes, either. Even supposedly recession-proof industries like engineering and health care are suffering here, thanks to an orgy of lawsuits and state-funded programs ruining any prospect of private sector survival. California, and other welfare states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York are prime examples of what the rest of the nation will become if people don't wake up and take action. The tea parties were a great first step...now we need the follow-through to bring about change that we can really believe in (without the aid of a teleprompter).

With Friends Like This...

I wonder if the Obama campaign will comment on this one.

What started out as a typical, Left Coast wingnut-turned-overpass jumper protesting the Iraq War turned into a HUGE traffic snafu. Highway 101 was shut down in both directions. In case you're not local or are unfamiliar with California's Central Coast, Highway 101 is THE major highway in the area. If you want to get to any of the interstate highways from here, you have to use U.S. 101 at some point. At first, I only heard about it because some of my co-workers were stranded in the gridlock. Apparently, this was a big enough deal that it made the news on KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles (which is roughly 2 1/2 hours away).

This leads me to ask a few questions:

1) Does this guy know something that we don't? Is Obama in such dire straits that supporters have begun to resort to suicide, rather than entertain the possibility of living in an America with President McCain?

2) Could this possibly be a publicity stunt? It could be an emotional plea for for us to vote for Obama, lest we see some of our neighbors, friends, and colleagues kill themselves.

Maybe this was nothing more than a case of some guy going off his meds. At any rate, I can't help but notice that you don't hear too much about right-wing lunatics threatening to jump off freeway overpasses unless they get a yard sign.

Price Check!

First off, I would like to apologize for my relative silence during this election cycle. My life beyond the blogosphere was chock-full of tasks and issues for me to address (busy at work, even busier social life, buying a house). Secondly, pretty much anything that I had to say was being said by those with voices bigger and more widely heard than mine. Now, on to the fun stuff...

Apparently, B. Hussein Obama and Joe Biden need to get someone to give them a price check on achieving the American Dream. One day, Obama is telling us that $250,000 a year is the height of achievement in the United States. Then, not more than a month later Obama sets the price at $200,000 a year. Right on the heels of that, his running mate lowers the bar to $150,000 a year. Clearly, achievement has a salary cap (and it's well below the MLB salary cap).

As a twenty-something, college-educated, single woman, I find the idea of limiting achievement repugnant. I thought the whole point of going through college, saving to buy a house, and working hard at my choosen career is so that I don't need to have the government or anyone else support me. I make a comfortable salary as an engineer (between $50,000 and $75,000), but I'm not content to just go on making the same amount of money throughout my career. I want to advance in my career and be compensated for taking on more responsibilities. It would be nice to have more disposable income so I can travel, donate more to the charities of my choosing (California's welfare programs don't count as a charity), and treat friends and family to a night out. I currently contribute to a 401(k) and would like to start putting money away in an IRA. After all, I don't plan on working forever.

I'm sure that I could do all of that and more on a $150,000 annual salary, but why should I be limited? Let's say that I decide to start a business with a couple of employees, and I clear $500,000 in gross income. My business would, therefore, meet the Obama-Biden definition of "rich". Keep in mind, that is gross income. If my business has employees, I'm required to pay them, payroll taxes, worker's compensation, and other associated overhead costs of having employees. The Obama-Biden answer to my complaint is, "Well, if you hire more employees, we'll give you a $3000 tax credit for each new employee." I'm not sure to which small businesses they've been talking, but $3000 would barely cover the cost of processing the new hire paperwork. Besides that, who starts a business with an upper limit on revenue? That's like playing a football game, but telling your team that they can only score 14 points (even if the other team racks up 51).

Isn't the whole point of America that the only limits we have are the ones that we place on ourselves? The truth is, the American Dream is priceless and should be without limitations. When success and achievement are penalized, what incentive is there for people to excel? Why would someone want to strive for success in their career or financial well-being if the government is going to come along and "spread the wealth around"? Why not wait around for someone else to be the sucker and put in all the hard work, while you kick back and wait to reap the benefits? Eventually, the golden goose is going to quit laying eggs and people will just quit working altogether...including the box boys (and girls) at the grocery store.

Hat tip to Christina, who provides some video links of the laughable-if-it-weren't-true.

Shall We Dance?

This past Sunday, the following interview took place on ABC's "This Week". Please note, that George Stephonopoulos gives her multiple opportunities to back out of the hole that she's digging for herself.



She refers to the rebellion on the Hill (GOP representatives remaining on the floor, in the dark, without C-SPAN cameras) to debate lifting the ban on drilling for oil as "the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies". Meanwhile, she and others who oppose drilling and exploration on our own territory are portrayed as stewards of the planet, defending it from evil, destructive human beings. This is in spite of the fact that the simple act of drilling for oil would actually create jobs and stimulate the economy. How noble and principled Speaker Pelosi is to sacrifice the livelihoods of others to save the planet. Or is she?

Here's the latest from politico.com, regarding the re-election strategy that Speaker Pelosi has for representatives who are at-risk of losing their seats. She has accused conservatives in Congress of being "regional" in their support of drilling, implying that they are selfish for putting the concerns of their constituents ahead of the environmentalists' agenda. It seems perfectly acceptable, however, for Democrats to support off-shore drilling if it helps them keep their power in Congress.

I wonder if Speaker Pelosi's dance card is full.

Deportation: The Economic Boogieman (or, Why I Don’t Get My News from MSN)

This article is a shining example of why I refuse to watch “P-MSNBC” or take any MSN news article without the benefit of an entire salt shaker. To demonstrate how biased and just plain wrong this article is here is a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal (the italicized text is mine).

At least 12 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S. Most pick crops, wash dishes, build houses, cut lawns and do other jobs for between $6 and $15 an hour. They make up about 5% of the total U.S. work force. But …What if we threw them all out?

Lettuce and strawberries would rot in the fields. Dirty dishes would pile up in restaurants. Thousands of farmers and builders would go bust. Predator aircraft drones would prowl the Mexican border. And chunks of Los Angeles and Houston would look like ghost towns. (The assumption that increased border security will specifically target Mexicans features prominently in this article. We’re supposed to pretend that: 1) all aliens entering this country are from Mexico, 2) only Hispanics want to come to the USA, and 3) we haven’t actually captured Arabs impersonating Mexicans at border crossings. Also, completely disregard that we do have another border to our north, which if I am not mistaken provided the point of entry for several 9/11 hijackers.)

The biggest losers would be middle-class families with two working parents, living in high-immigrant states such as California, Texas, Florida or New York. Why? They would pay more for food, housing, entertainment and child care as a shortage of low-skilled workers drove up some wages, and therefore, some prices. Meantime, their own pay would remain the same. (Their pay might stay the same, but what about the need for less tax money to go to things like welfare, education, and subsidized healthcare? Perhaps with less withholdings in taxes, a middle-class family would not require two paychecks to make it in suburbia. One parent at home = free child care) What's more, the ripple effect of thousands of businesses shrinking or closing for lack of staff might put one of the parents out of a job. Not to mention the garbage collection going to pot and no one to polish the missus' nails.

The winners, for a change, would be the low-skilled unemployed, living just about anywhere -- if they were willing to move. Of the 12 million illegal immigrants, about 8 million are employed, mostly in low-skill jobs. The U.S., meantime, has about 22 million less-educated jobless adults, many of them blacks and legalized Hispanics, according to a 2008 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a research group based in Washington, D.C. (And this is a bad thing? I thought we wanted to have a country where even the uneducated, low-skilled segment of our population could afford a living. Isn’t that the rallying cry of the amnesty crowd? After all, non-citizens theoretically cannot get a job that pays a living wage.)

Economists say if these people agreed to bone meat or install insulation, they could earn 6% to 10% more than the deported workers, as wages rose to lure new workers. That could mean $18,000 to $30,000 in pay a year. And the economy? Short term, the effect of lost manpower and spending by illegal immigrants would be "devastating" or cause "some temporary dislocation," depending on whom you ask.

Are Americans willing to do these jobs?

Ray Perryman, the president of The Perryman Group, an economic analysis firm in Waco, Texas, calculates our $14 trillion economy would suffer $652 billion in lost output -- a dramatic 4.6% slice off gross domestic product. He predicts tens of thousands of businesses would close. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, predicts perhaps a 1% slip in GDP. (Please note that any other non-profit policy group is simply referred to as a “research group”. The Immigration Policy Center, later referenced in this article, is not referred to as an “amnesty think tank”.)

Why the big difference in opinion? Because people are hard to predict. Just how quickly would Americans fill the vacated jobs? And at what pay rate? Perryman points to Texas, where he says there are more than 1 million illegal workers, but only 450,000 unemployed residents. "If you do the math, it just doesn't work," he says. He doubts that many needy Virginians would move to Texas for often-grueling, low-paying jobs. (How has Perryman defined “unemployed residents”? If it is only individuals over the age of 18 who are seeking full-time employment, then his numbers are skewed. What about high school and college students who are only looking for part-time work…or not at all?)

Rector disagrees. He says it would take time for "Cousin Fred" in Texas to phone up his jobless mates in Virginia, but, "There are a lot of people who work for less than $20,000 a year." And they would move for a job.

Still, until the unemployed did jump in their Hyundais to head south, several industries in high-immigrant states would have a terrible time. Some are listed below. The figures in parentheses show the percentage of illegal workers in each industry's work force, as calculated by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. The figures are nationwide; in some localities, they would be far higher.

• Home help (21%): Los Angeles would still have its sunshine, but there'd be far fewer helping hands to clean floors, cook dinner and shush the kids. Not to mention in New York, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Miami. Some working parents might have to quit their jobs to care for the kids or break the family piggy bank to attract a housekeeper from a neighbor. (Has anyone ever heard of hiring a teenager to do the yard work or sit with the kids? How about cleaning up your own mess? I grew up in southern California without the benefit of a housekeeper, nanny, or cabana boy. Plus, household chores are a great way to pry you or your kids away from the X-Box.)
  
• Farming (13%): "Agriculture would come to a screeching halt," says Nicole Rothfleisch, executive director of the Imperial County Farm Bureau in Southern California. She says El Centro, the county seat, has the highest unemployment in the state (18%). But farmers can never find enough local help. (Obviously, it pays better to be on welfare in Imperial County). Pay is $9 an hour, and the summer temperatures can hit 110 degrees. The locals, she says, "want cushy jobs with air conditioning." (Here’s a tip: Can’t stand the heat? Leave the Imperial Valley!) Economists say many farmers would go broke as billions of dollars' worth of crops lay unpicked. Farms would merge and switch to crops that can be picked mechanically, like round lettuce or oranges used solely for juice. (Why can’t the state prison system contract out inmates to work in the fields? We have them picking up trash on the highways and working in the state parks clearing brush and rehabilitating hiking trails.)
  
• Food manufacturing (14%): The big meatpacking and poultry-processing plants would slash production, increase wages (now $12 an hour in Texas) and send managers in helicopters to scour the countryside for workers. In 2006, when six plants of meatpacker Swift & Co. were raided for illegal workers, the company began offering $1,500 bonuses to Burmese refugees in Texas for each friend or relative they could recruit. (As someone who grew up around livestock, I can attest that meatpacking is messy work. I can also say that knowing a good butcher comes in handy when you’re planning a large family gathering. I would rather see higher prices in the grocery store and know that my money is going to stay in this country’s economy, not get sent to the homeland of whoever is getting paid less than minimum wage.)
  
• Construction (12%): If it looks bad now, imagine an economy where homebuilding is really crushed, says Rick Montelongo, owner of a building and remodeling company in San Antonio. "It would be a huge blow," he says. Workers' wages, which make up 30% of the cost of building a home, would have to rise "substantially," he says. That would make it more expensive to build new homes, resulting in even fewer sales for an industry already experiencing a sharp downturn. (Why do we have to all have brand-new homes? Why can’t people just settle in older housing tracts that have been revamped? It surely would cut down or eliminate urban sprawl. Isn’t the whole idea of the housing tract with a postage stamp for a backyard? Besides, there is always going to be people that want a custom built home, and will pay whatever it takes to get it.)
  
• Hotels and restaurants (11%): There'd be a triple whammy here. Latino staff and customers would both be lost, while the price of fresh food would be driven up by shortages. (I live in a community where more than half of the population is made up of Hispanics working in the ag industry. I don’t see them going to the local fine dining or family style restaurants. Where do they go out to eat? The taquerias and Little Caesar’s for the 2 for 1 cheese pizzas. Again, when it comes to wait staff, hire part-timers. We have no shortage of teenagers that could use some character-building.) Distraught restaurant owners would pin up job ads at colleges, when they weren't up to their elbows in dish soap. The billions of dollars spent annually by illegal immigrants would disappear, bad news for small restaurateurs and fast-food joints. (Where did this figure come from? There is minimal economic stimulation coming from the illegal immigrant population. For starters, many of them live in the same house with more than one family. This is to save money to send back to their home country. Then there’s the added bonus of illegals using fake IDs to obtain welfare benefits because their employers pay less than minimum wage.) But over time, the industry would adapt. Self-service cafés would pop up. And more restaurants would serve chicken parmesan prepared in a factory and warmed up in a microwave. Yum. (There were no restaurants before the 20th century? Aren’t their any aspiring Emerils out there that want to learn the restaurant business from the ground up?)

As for the middle-class family in California or Texas, there would be some upside. Getting Johnny into the emergency room when he broke his arm would be easier with fewer uninsured Hispanics crowding the lobby. (How about when you’re appendix has burst and you’re on the brink of death? It’s called an emergency room for a reason! It’s not the place to go if you have the sniffles.)

Some schools might even offer smaller classes. Steven Camarota, the research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, calculates that 3.3 million children, or 6% of school kids, have at least one undocumented parent. It costs about $10,000 per year to educate a child. So if all these kids left the U.S., too, it'd save $33 billion, Camarota says. "It could take a lot of pressure off the school system," he adds. Of course, some near-empty schools would have to close. (The last time I checked, people are still having babies. Our population growth hasn’t exactly come to a halt. Near-empty schools, indeed.)

What about taxes? Would the average American family get any relief? That's hotly debated. Camarota reckoned in 2004 that the federal government would save $10 billion net a year if all illegal immigrants were expelled. That's the difference between what the illegal workers pay in income and payroll tax and what they and their kids collect in federal benefits. (What payroll tax? If you don’t have a Social Security number, how does the government collect taxes from you? The whole reason that illegal aliens get hired is because they are willing to work for less and their employers don’t have to pay into things like Social Security and Medicare.) However, some economists insist that just the opposite is true. (And their insistence is based on what? Because they are the economists and they say so? Sorry, the “I’m the Mom” defense quit working on me when I was six.)

At the state level, there's more agreement. Places such as Arizona, Texas, California and Nevada, which fork out billions for education and health care, would probably be ahead -- though not by a lot overall. So, American family tax relief? Maybe a little. (It would be a whole lot more if the afore-mentioned states stuck to their budgets and didn’t find new ways to spend tax money each year.)

And then there's the neighborhood. Critics of lax immigration policies say that drug running, traffic accidents and crime would go down with the illegal immigrants gone. But The Immigration Policy Center, a Washington research group, argues that studies show that immigrants in general are less likely to commit crimes or to end up behind bars than native-born Americans. (This number does not include the “anchor babies”, the native-born children of illegal immigrant parents. Overwhelming numbers of criminals in our prison systems are either illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants. These first-generation Americans are not brought up to assimilate into our society. They are raised to identify with the sub-culture of illegal immigrants.) The debate goes on.

How likely is it that this will happen? Politically, it's highly unlikely. Logistically, it would be a nightmare. (So we can track a Canadian-born cow with Mad Cow Disease or a guy who cheats the IRS a couple hundred bucks, but we can't find out who's here illegally?) Although polls show that most Americans want stronger border enforcement, deporting the illegal immigrants already here is not popular. A CBS News poll found 33% of Americans favored deportation, while 62% preferred offering legal status. In a Gallup poll, 13% favored deportation and 78% favored offering citizenship. (Polls are meaningless unless one knows how the questions were worded or how the sampling was done.) Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama leans toward deportation.

Emphasis now is on deterrence, which is proving costly. Estimates for the construction of a 15-foot-high double fence between the U.S. and Mexico range from $1 million to as much as $70 million per mile. The border is 2,000 miles long. (This is the biggest canard of them all. The Department of Homeland Security has already allocated the funds for the construction of the border fence. Why is it not yet done? Pro-amnesty groups have the enviro-wackos on their side, screaming about affecting environmentally sensitive wilderness. This is in spite of the fact that illegals camp out in these same sensitive areas, leaving trash and destroying wildlife along the way. The cost of building a secured border pales in comparison to the amount of extra money paid out in welfare benefits, inmate housing, law enforcement, judicial proceedings, and education.)

The blatant disregard for facts, impartiality, and common sense leads me to conclude that does Ms. Skeel have an agenda: insult the intelligence of her readers and portray anyone in favor of securing our borders as reactionary, xenophobic buffoons. She excels at the former and fails miserably at the latter.

Give Him the Paddles! STAT!

MY parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed by. Today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance, for Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations.

Obituary for Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know my Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Hat tip to...Mom!

Terrorist Mastermind, or Presidential Candidate?

Well, a new Osama tape has surfaced. Personally, I think that al-Qaeda is doing what the U.S.S.R. did when Stalin died. The Soviets let on that Stalin was still alive, until a suitable replacement could be found. In their desparation, it looks like they've found a double to be "Osama" (fake beard, anyone?). If these guys weren't dead serious, I would be laughing myself silly.

One segment of the tape purports that he's been following American politics closely. He said that it was our disapproval of the war that led to a Democrat-controlled Congress. Apparently, they were not paying that much attention. Look at how the Democrats won previously Republican seats in Congress; they jockeyed themselves into positions to the political right of the incumbents! The big issue that swung the election was border security, not the war.

Then comes the big sell: "Embrace Islam...There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent.” Hip, hip, horray! Sure, sharia law is replete with honor killings, gang rapes, and is a hell of a lot less tolerant than Judeo-Christian value systems. Look on the bright side, though: you don't have to pay taxes. All he needs to do is throw in universal healthcare, and he could be a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Thank God (not Allah) that I'm an infidel.

Sad, but True...

Am-I-Dumb.com - Are you dumb?

I'll Bet Hillary Doesn't Like this One

I remember a whole lot was made of Forbes magazine publishing a favorable article about Mrs. Bill Clinton, a.k.a. "The Senator formerly known as Rodham-Clinton". Well, Forbes has just put out it's list of 100 of the world's most powerful women. At the top of the list is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who happens to be a -- brace yourself, gentle reader -- a conservative. That's right. The first woman Chancellor of Germany was a member of Helmut Kohl's cabinet. Why is this significant?

Well, from post WWII to 1989, East Germany was part of the Soviet bloc. When reunification took place, there were two very different socio-economic structures that had to become one again. West Germany had a healthy, capitalist economy. East Germany, under Soviet control, had a failing command economy with its citizens dependent on the government for subsistence. With the two halves put together, you had the former East Germans wanting a government safety net for their day-to-day needs, and former West Germans wanting their eastern compatriots to rise above their situation and assimilate into the western lifestyle. The government's process of reunifying took a couple of years. The socio-economic reunification was much slower, as evidenced by the Christian Democratic Union getting voted out of power in 1998.

The election of 1998 led to Gerhard Schroder, a member of the Socialist Democratic Party, becoming Chancellor. The SPD (the initials in German) ideologically embraces Marxism and the nationalization of industry, the very same economic theory that drove the Soviet Union into the ground (actually, it was that and the fact that Reagan wasn't a pansy). The rise of the SPD was a setback to the economic recovery of reunified Germany because they expanded government programs, and increased taxes to support this expansion. Look what happened when Germany joined the EU; on paper, they looked stable enough to be members without dragging the Euro down. Upon closer inspection (without the rose-colored glasses), one could see that a nation with a 30-hour work week and 40% income tax rate was not going to be as healthy as it let on. Seeing their lots unimproved, the German people spoke with their ballots and returned conservatives to head the government.

With all of the limp-wristed, weak-kneed featherheads we have in charge on this side of the pond, we may have to go through what Germany experienced before we as a nation get our heads back on straight. A lot of people don't how good we really have it. Does that mean there's not room for improvement? Hell no, it doesn't. Read my previous posts if you think that I'm satisfied with the status quo. The changes we need to make are not for the faint of heart; they require leadership, not focus-grouping. The initiative needs to come not just from our elected officials, but from each of us. We need to quit waiting on somebody else to make our decisions and stop buying into the idea that concensus makes everything alright. I would hope that after electing liberals to power in Congress, and seeing the aftermath, the American people wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It is time for there to be more strong men and women, both in government and in our everyday lives.

Engineering Humor

Actually, this is for anyone who's ever taken a math or science exam without the benefit of studying. Some of these guys must not have even attended class until test day. Too bad for them; there don't appear to be "style points".

First CA Driver's Licenses, Now This.

Living in California all of my life (and thereby having more than my fill of "multiculturalism"), I thought I had seen and heard almost every product of political correctness known to humanity. Apparently, one must travel to Nebraska to see the latest in PC absurdity. Two Native American tribes are being investigated for selling tribal membership to illegals, under the auspice of providing legal documentation for these people. Neither of these tribes are recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (so they're kinda like Ward Churchill). Since the tribes are not federally recognized, simply being a member is not enough to prove U.S. citizenship. Two illegals were caught trying to procure passports with their tribal membership documents.

For those of my readers that do not know me personally, I am one-eighth Chippewa. Since I was born outside of the community were my tribe originates, my parents were supposed to fill out registration paperwork for me to be recognized as a tribe member. They didn't realize this, and so the registration period passed. My younger siblings were, however, registered within the allotted time. In spite of the fact that my mother and siblings were tribal members, I was not allowed to register until the tribal government had an "open enrollment" period. I was finally able to register...when I was twenty-five years old!

The fact that I was not registered does not change the fact that I was still of Chippewa descent. It did affect my legal standing as such. Since I was not a registered member of the tribe, I was eligible for neither financial assistance for college, nor health insurance through the tribe. Likewise, paying a membership fee and a laminated card will not make you a Native American. I am sure we will hear Chicano studies majors all over the country saying, "Technically, Mexicans are the descents of Spaniards and Native Americans, so they are members of Native American tribes." Well, they're half-right; they're of Native American descent with regard to tribes found in Mexico (e.g. the Maya and Aztecs). I have blogged previously on why illegal immigration is bad for both law-abiding and the immigrants themselves. Sadly, this is further proof that I was correct.

Playing the Roman Fool

According to the latest report by the U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government is on the verge of collapse in a very similar manner to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (read the Financial Times article summarizing the report). "The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon." Walker, a Clinton appointee, raises some valid points, but is certainly not the final word on the matter.

At the time of its decline and fall, Roman citizens were paying more than 25% of their income to cover taxes. The holidays to celebrate and honor Roman deities were reduced to being an excuse to indulge in gluttonous behavior. The empire covered vastly different cultural and geographic regions. Government officials were emptying the coffers by building palaces and putting on diversions for the plebes (gladiators and public executions at the Coliseum, anyone?). Fast forward to the 21st century. We have redistribution of wealth through taxation and government programs, mention of God has been removed from our institutions, and newcomers to our country are not encouraged to assimilate into our culture. Our elected officials bring home the bacon for their constituents in the form of pork spending attached to legislation that's supposed to help the men and women of the armed forces and secure our borders.

I wholeheartedly agree with Walker's assessment that “declining moral values and political civility at home [...] and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government" have set us on the path toward self-destruction. I would have to take issue with Walker's additional citations of "slashed government services" and an "over-confident and over-extended military". Maintaining and expanding "government services", like starting government-run healthcare, go hand-in-hand with the fiscal irresponsibility that is the hallmark of "The Great Society". In the face of retiring, and presumably ailing, baby boomers Congress should reform Social Security and healthcare regulations so that we of younger generations will be better prepared for our own golden years. Currently, we bear the burden of footing the bill for today's benefit recipients. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are a result of the rising costs of practicing medicine and fewer individuals choosing this profession. Who can blame today's college students for being turned off by the threat of malpractice suits and dealing with HMOs? Even in the face of higher doctor's bills, we're still better off than nations with "socialized medicine".

As to our military operations overseas, it is necessary to protect ourselves from the enemies without, as well as within. The Visigoths were able to cross into the Roman Empire and ultimately sack Rome itself, due to weaken border defense. Enforcement of immigration laws in addition to routing the enemy abroad is the key to ensuring victory in the battle that will define us for centuries to come, while preserving our civil liberties. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather not have to fight al-Qaeda in my own backyard (though I wouldn't hesistate to take pot-shots from my kitchen window). If we do not vanquish the people who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of everything that America stands for, we won't have to worry about falling our own sword.

The Quote of the Day!

"If you wake up every morning and need to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you have a pretty sorry existence." -- Karl Rove.

Those Muscles and Helmets are Just Fabulous!

In yesterday's Democratic debate, Mike Gravel stated that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality because men fight for the guy in the trenches next to them, not for love of country or an ideal. He mocks Der Schliekmeister's position of "don't ask, don't tell" as uneducated. I do believe that Senator Gravel needs to revisit his high school's class on western civilization. If that's not possible perhaps he needs to watch the History Channel.

From the time that a Spartan boy was six or seven years old, he was taken from his family and sent to live in military barracks. This was the beginnings of his education in the art of war. Rations were meager, so the boys had to steal food to stave off starvation. This practice was, in fact, encouraged to teach them how to forage. If caught stealing, the boys were beaten severely. The boys were also put to the test in war games, meant to sharpen their skills and toughen them for actual combat. There was no headgear or padding involved; if a blow was dealt by a more skilled opponent, the recipient could die. Another part of a Spartan warrior's training was to be "apprenticed" to a seasoned warrior.

Many people have the misconception that this relationship was homosexual. This may have been the case for some, but it wasn't the rule. In the ancient world, the idea of romantic love was not the highest form of love between two people. This was because a woman was not viewed as an equal to a man. It was brotherly love, the love between equals, that was held in highest regard.

I know that Gravel served in the military, but I have to wonder what he did exactly during his service that would lead him to believe that encouraging homosexuality would improve our military's performance. In my studies of western civilization and battles that defined our culture, the bond forged between warriors in the throes of battle is one that transcends physicality. These brave souls, past and present, fight for more than survival and each other. Through strength of conviction, they are willing to lay down their lives to defend family, faith, and country.

Besides, they already tried to destroy the cowboy image with Brokeback Mountain. The least they could do is let me ogle the film version of King Leonidas.