Conservative's Conscience

The Mosque of Reconciliation?

The Cordoba Initiative, a Muslim organization, wants to build a mosque two blocks   from the site of the 9-11 tragedy, which was caused by a small band of radical Muslim terrorists.  Feisal Abdul-Rauf, founder of Cordoba, would be the Imam (teacher) in the new mosque. 

   Imam Rauf, an unusual man, is part of the reason for the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque.  He's had interesting and disturbing things to say:

• "... the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."
• "... United States policies were an accessory to the crime (9-11) that happened."
• "The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians."
• "The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist.  Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief."

These are the words of a man who looks but does not see.  He is a poor choice to lead Muslims and Americans into a more harmonious relationship.  

Resistance to the mosque at the public level has been considerable.  But President Obama approves of it, and energetic support for it also comes from the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg -- only 39 percent of New Yorkers approve of such a project; 72 percent want it built elsewhere. 

The rest of the nation shares the attitude of New Yorkers out of respect for relatives (who are generally horrified by the idea of such a project) of the deceased.

Pro-project supporters point -- with irritating frequency -- to the constitutional right of Muslims to build the mosque.  But, as opponents point out, that isn't the issue, and repeating it as such is simply an effort to paint Americans as anti-Muslim.  This is not a question of rights; it's a question of taste/manners/empathy.

According to The Muslim Group of America, there are almost 1,500 mosques in the United States; there are more than 100 in New York alone.

Muslims and their supporters accuse Americans of intolerance because they oppose this attempt to foster "interfaith cooperation."  How dare they?  When Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-controlled nations have hundreds of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues in their cities they may advance such a case.  Until then, their charge of intolerance is laughable.

Why would anyone continue to press for an edifice, allegedly designed to bring people together when, from the outset, the great majority of people oppose it and, some say, New York's workers will refuse to build it?  One obvious answer to that question is: Nobody but a fool.

Since Cordoba is not run by fools, one must seek another answer by questioning the sincerity of the alleged motive.  And that's where the rubber hits the road.  Many believe the real motive that fits the situation is the desire to erect a "victory" monument, one that will be hailed in much of the Arabian world as the final insulting act of the 9-11 massacres. 

Is there merit to this point of view?  Is there evidence to support the opinion that a number of powerful, radical Muslims, enemies of the United States, would hail and, perhaps, support such a structure for such a purpose?     

• 1980s: Pan Am plane bombed by a  Palestinian Muslim-1 dead; U.S. embassy, Beirut, bombed by Shiite Muslims-63 dead; Marine barracks, Beirut, bombed by Lebanese Muslims-241 dead; U.S. embassy, Kuwait, bombed by Iranian Muslims-6 dead; U.S. embassy, Beirut, bombed by Islamic Jihad-16 dead; Spanish restaurant for U.S. troops bombed by unidentified Muslims-17 dead; TWA flight hijacked by Lebanese Muslims-1 dead; Egyptian ship hijacked by Palestinian Muslims-1 dead; kidnapping, Lebanon by unidentified Muslims-1 dead; Pan Am flight bombed by Libyan Muslims-241 dead.
• 1990s: World Trade Center bombed by Osama bin Laden (OBL) followers-6 dead; two Americans murdered in Pakistan by OBL Muslims-2 dead; U.S. military offices, Saudi Arabia, bombed by an Iranian terrorist-7 dead; Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia bombed by unidentified Muslims-7 dead; murder of American civilians in Pakistan by OBL supporters-5 dead; four U.S. embassies bombed in Africa by OBL followers-263 dead.
• 2000s: USS Cole bombed in Yemen by unidentified Muslims-17 dead; 9-11 attack on WTC and Pentagon by OBL followers-3000 dead; American consulate, Pakistan, bombed-12 dead; housing compound in Saudi Arabia bombed by OBL men-34 dead; oil workers kidnapped in Saudi Arabia-1 dead; U.S. consulate attacked by unidentified Muslims-5 dead; three American hotels bombed in Jordan by OBL men-57 dead; U.S. embassy in Yemen bombed by OBL men-16 dead; the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the Ft. Hood shootings by the American Muslim officer, Nidal Hassan, are among the most current attempts by Muslims to inflict violence against Americans.

When one recalls the television images after the 9-11 incidents of dancing in the streets of Muslim-controlled nations, when one learns that (before the recent wars) Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, the Palestinian Territory and other Middle Eastern nations are largely controlled by radical Muslim leaders, and when one links such things with the incidents detailed above, the justification for American skepticism about the stated motives behind the mosque project becomes clear and justifiable.

The construction of such a mosque would bring glee to our enemies, sadness to the survivors of the attack and deep anger to most Americans.

Yes, Cordoba has the legal right to build the mosque on the hallowed ground.  But they would be idiots to do so.

Peaceful U.S. Muslims, who are willing to assimilate, could stop this project in its tracks if they would unite.

30 comments »

Massachusetts Hootenanny 2010, House Races, Overview

Except for the governor's office, Massachusetts has been a single party state for decades, and this is nowhere better demonstrated than it is in the U.S. House of Representatives.  

o       District 1 - The incumbent is John Oliver.  He was elected in 1991 and he's running again.  The ADA, a liberal pressure group, gives him a 100 percent rating.  In the Brown/Coakley election (January 2010), Brown was a big winner.  Oliver is vulnerable in 2010.  William Gunn will compete against him.

o       District 2 - Democrats have represented this district since 1949.  The incumbent, Richard Neal, has held office since 1989.  Brown destroyed Coakley here in the recent election.  Neal is running again and is opposed by two Republicans.  He is vulnerable.

o       District 3 - Democrats held this seat from 1935 until 1993; they lost it to Peter Blute and regained it in 1998 with the incumbent Jim McGovern.  Coakley seemed a cinch to win this district in her race against Brown.  The opposite happened -- Brown clobbered her.  McGovern is running again.  He is vulnerable.  Five men want to compete for his seat.

o       District 4 - Barney Frank is the incumbent.  He carries the highest possible liberal ranking from ADA.  This district has been represented by Democrats since 1947; Frank took office in 1981.  In the Brown/Coakley, Brown won big in 23 of 29 locations; Coakley did well in large population centers like Brookline, Fall River, New Bedford, Newton, Sharon and Wellesley.  Republicans smell blood in the water and have two candidates who seek the nomination.  Frank, running again, is vulnerable.  This will be a hot race; it will take a clever, focused campaign to unseat him.  Two Republicans want to retire him.

o       District 5 - Niki Tsongas heads this district.  ADA gives her a 95 percent rating.  Democrats have ruled here since 1975; Tsongas took over in 2007, succeeding Marty Meehan.  In the Brown/Coakley election in 2010, Brown prevailed in 20 of 28 locations.  His voting margins were significant.  Tsongas is vulnerable.  Four men want her job, and one of them could get it.  

o       District 6 - John Tierney has been the incumbent since 1997.  Except for a brief interlude with Republican Peter Torkildsen, this has been a Democratic district since 1969.  Tierney is a party man -- 95 percent rating by ADA.  Coakley, in her race with Brown, showed practically no strength here -- she took only six of 26 locations, and in those her margins were not eye-popping.  Salem seems the only secure place for Democrats.  Two Republicans have their eyes on this job, and it would be surprising if one of them, probably Bill Hudak, doesn't win it. 

o       District 7 - This has been a Democratic stronghold since 1923.  Ed Markey, the incumbent, has held it since 1976.  He carries a 100 percent ADA rating.     Coakley was strong here in her 2010 race against Brown.  Two Republicans currently vie for the right to run against Markey in November, but they face an uphill battle.  It would be a major upset if Markey lost.  Only one Republican strategy can unseat him -- link him with the Obama program, the consequential deficits, the economy and his myopic and destructive energy policy.

o       Districts 8 & 9 - District 8 has been democratic since 1955.  Both districts involve sections of Boston, which is solidly Democratic -- Somerville and Cambridge (district 9) are equally liberal.  Mike Capuano heads district 8 and is unopposed; it is an indestructible job for him for as long as the black population remains wedded to the Welfare State.  Stephen Lynch heads district 9, which has been under Democratic control since 1963 -- he took over in 2001.  Brown did well against Coakley in district 9 in 2010, except in Boston, which gives hope to an eventual opponent.  Two men seek that role, Keith Lepor and Vernon Harrison.  Because vote-rich Boston is such an important wild card, the best one can say at this point is that Republicans have a chance to take district 9 in November.

o       District 10 - William Delahunt, the incumbent, is retiring.  The field is full of candidates from both parties.  Based on the results of the race between Brown and Coakley, Republicans have an excellent chance to win this district -- Brown prevailed big in 30 of 32  locations.  It would be surprising if Republicans did not win this race in November.

Predictions made above are based on the assumption that the most reliable indicator of voter mood in Massachusetts is the final vote count of the Brown/Coakley senatorial contest in January 2010.  Changes since then have probably added to the incentives of those who voted for the young Republican.  

It should be apparent to anyone that, in terms of national policy, present incumbents are automatons who, 95-100 percent of the time, vote the party position.  To discover what they will do, ignore what they say and examine what the party has done. 

This looks like a good year for independent-minded, constitution-loving politicians.  Democrats could lose six districts, and are only absolutely secure in one.

The basic winning formula for contenders is this: Capture the Scott Brown message and spread it around.   

Several districts will be examined in detail in future columns.  Stay tuned.

3 comments »

National Jitters and Our Failed Institutions

The America of 2010 is nothing like the Founders wanted it to be; it's nothing like it was in the early 20^th century.  Here are a few things that have changed, things that in some intangible way once brought a sense of security to the American public: 

Corporate America

Certain corporate organizations once seemed as impregnable as rock -- GM, IBM, ATT, Gulf, Texaco, etc.  Today, GM is controlled by the government.  Other corporate giants have also disappeared or faded into the background.  Blue chip stocks of companies that "cannot fail" are a memory.

Banking

 Banks were once the model of durability.  In 2010, hundreds of banks will go broke. 

Society

Unmarried women with babies, unlimited abortions, broken marriages, confusion over homosexuality, drugs, minimizations of the parental role, slippages in church attendance, anti-religious attitudes, the crudeness of popular culture are all characteristics of the times to an extent undreamed of a half-century ago.   

Changes of such basic importance to the structure of any society leave the people in a state of unease.

Government

 Roughly speaking, the basic duties of the government formed by the Founders were: 1) To protect the nation; 2) to facilitate trade, nationally and internationally; 3) to protect the God-given rights of individuals; 4) to protect the value of the nation's money.   

 National Security

 In the twentieth century, America was pulled into two world wars, and found reasons to go to war in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq -- about 200,000 U.S. troops are stationed in about three dozen countries around the world.  George Washington would be shocked by this record.

New York has been bombed twice by Islamic terrorists; Washington D.C., once.  Only security agencies know how many other attacks were thwarted. 

Border security is deliberately loose because this administration wants it that way for political reasons (as did the previous one).  Millions of illegal aliens, many of them criminals and some of them terrorists, overload the nation's jails, schools, hospitals and welfare systems; the nation's culture is being threatened, etc.

The people of the United States are not as secure as they were in, say, 1950 when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power.

 Trade/Treaties          

 High taxes and trade agreements have caused companies to export thousands of jobs and force them to be more international in order to escape the twin tyrannies of unions and government.  Service jobs in the U.S. do not pay as well as lost manufacturing jobs.

Commercial treaties with socialistic nations have failed to protect U.S. pharmaceutical companies, which, in turn, have caused U.S. drug prices to inflate.  The government, of course, blames the companies.       

George Washington warned against entangling alliances.  Today, America is up to its hips in international agreements (like NATO) that, overnight, could pull it into wars that have little to do with U.S. national security.

Given a friend like the U.S. government, the American worker/company doesn't need enemies. 

Individual Rights

 The existence of government represents an agreement by the people to sacrifice some personal sovereignty for the good of the whole.  Each tax dollar sent to Washington represents a slice of personal freedom.    

Taxes have become excessive because government has expanded into areas that are covered by the Constitution only when that document is interpreted under the "living constitution" concept that was popularized by Woodrow Wilson and thereafter adopted by progressive jurists and politicians.  Today, many taxpayers send three to four months (or more) of "freedom" to Washington for politicians to redistribute according to their social values of the moment.    

Estate and inheritance taxes are confiscatory and immoral (stealing).

The power to tax has been abused in Washington because of its bottomless hunger to create a never-to-be-realized perfect society.  The IRS is feared by Americans.   

The value of money

 If the U.S. dollar falls all else falls with it.  By clear inference, it is a constitutional duty of every president to protect it.

The dollar is protected by balancing budgets so that debt does not needlessly increase, by borrowing only when extraordinary circumstances require, by repaying loans when due and by maintaining a healthy debt/gdp ratio.    

The federal budget has been out of balance since the 1960s.  The seriousness of this has been was masked by a healthy GDP.  Un-noticed was the growing importance of interest expense in the budget. 

By the time Jimmy Carter became president, the deficit was structural -- no combination of politically feasible tax increases or cost cuts could cure it.  Only a vibrant economy plus cost cuts of entitlement programs could do the job. 

The problem is even worse today -- debt ratios are moving into dangerous territory; interest expense has become a major budget line item.  If this continues, the dollar will crumble.

The problem with the value of the dollar was 100 percent caused by politicians who knowingly exceeded their constitutional authority.      

Things once taken for granted are now in a state of flux.  People are jittery.  Where do they put their money?  What church can they trust?  What is the government doing with American freedoms?

These concerns will activate record numbers of voters in November.  The year 2011 could be a make or break year for the United States.  

2 comments »

Our Raped Constitution

The Constitution empowers Congress to
... provide for ... the general Welfare of the United States

By and large, the first 27 presidents managed the nation within the restrictions imposed by Article I and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments despite wars that were fought, the costs of expansion from coast to coast and the many recessions. 

Each significant event no doubt seduced some presidents and their legislative allies to swoop greater control to Washington.  But they kept their heads and their humility.  They remembered and lived by common sense rules of life, among which were:

1. Unchecked power in the hands of any leader or faction endangers freedom -- because human nature is and always will be flawed;
   
2. Government structure must include internal checks and balances that make impossible the ascendancy of an unchecked, veto-proof  ruling class;
   
3. Central government duties must be narrow and defined if government size is to be controlled;
   
4. A written Constitution will be the last line of defense for citizens against overly ambitious and powerful political factions;
   
5. There will be a future need to occasionally amend the Constitution, and a system for thoughtfully doing so should be (and has been -- Article V) provided.        

Since no system of government is perfect, there were those in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries who demanded more of the central government than the Constitution allowed, and many maverick political parties appeared in presidential contests to, in effect, protest against the American form of government. 

These diverse groups found common ground in 1912 and re-formed under the name of the Progressive Party.  As such they entered the world of respectable politics when they found a well known and popular national champion, Theodore Roosevelt.

Progressivism is socialism in slow motion.  Immediate change isn't the objective; gradual assumption of power by the central government, over time, is the goal.  The ultimate purpose is to develop sufficient centralized power to control the private sector, and to redistribute wealth.  Fully grown, progressivism becomes socialism on the road to Godless communism. 

Progressives dispute the fundamental ideas that motivated the Founders:

1. Human nature evolves, they say -- it is perfectible in this world; progressives welcome centralized power;
   
2. Checks and balances within the system are impediments to the delivery of efficient services;
   
3. Federal powers should be broad and undefined;
   
4. The Constitution as written thwarts progressive objectives, but it must be temporarily respected out of political necessity because of its sentimental value.  To handle this problem politically, progressives claim loyalty to a "living" Constitution, one that can be interpreted according to the needs of the time;
   
5. The constitutional amendment process is obsolete -- legislators and judges can rationalize as constitutional almost any act they choose to legalize.     

As the first national representative of the Progressive Party, Teddy Roosevelt lost the 1912 election, but drew enough votes to deny victory to Republican William H. Taft, and ease the way to the presidency for Woodrow Wilson.   

Wilson disliked the American Constitution and said so on many occasions.   He adopted enough progressive ideas to win his 1912 victory; in 1916, he bought them hook, line and sinker in order to pull most of the vote that Roosevelt won in the previous election.  The Democratic platform of 1916 reads like a progressive's prayer book.  Democrats were no longer the party of Jefferson; they were the Wilsonian Party, or the Progressive Party in everything but name.

Wilson, caught up in World War One and its aftermath, didn't have time to implement many reforms of the American government, but he left two huge progressive footprints behind: Amendment Sixteen (1913): Legalized income taxes; Amendment Seventeen (1913): Stripped states of their power to appoint U.S. Senators.  The former facilitated the transfer of power to Washington, did irreparable harm to American society and added incentives for federal corruption; the latter weakened state power, increased federal power, (practically) made senators secure in their jobs for life and also added incentives for political corruption.

The next eight years were ruled by Republican presidents who put a temporary brake on the progressive political revolution. 

Then came Hoover, the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt (FDR).  Both men were progressives, the difference being one of degree. 

Hoover didn't have enough time to seriously modify the federal government, but FDR devoted full time to it, until World War Two appeared to dominate his agenda.   

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to ... provide for ... the general Welfare of the United States....  Notice: It does not empower Congress to provide for the welfare of your Aunt Katie.  The "United States" (the nation) is supposed to be the focus of Congress. 

That's not the way FDR read it.  Under the "living Constitution" theory, Aunt Katie (the private sector and individuals) became the target.  He got away with it and from that time on spending went wild; government grew in size, state and personal sovereignty declined and American business and people became hobbled by excessive taxation and regulation.  Finally, debt mushroomed once FDR's soul mate, Lyndon Johnson, took charge with the same veto-proof power that FDR had. 

When Johnson left office, America was an incipient Welfare State with growing social duties that eventually threatened national solvency, national security and the value of the dollar.

This is a sad tale.  The Founders' values, which were also the values of the people for a century, have been thrust aside; ambitious men, as predicted, have acted as men act when they have unchecked power:

1. Congress routinely enacts laws that diminish state power,
   
2. Businesses and personal lives are taxed and regulated to an elaborate degree -- freedom has declined;
   
3. The nation's treasure is being looted by pressure groups;
   
4. Spending is out of control;
   
5. Debt is headed for crippling levels. 

The United States, in perilous condition, is crying for enlightened leadership.

Is there a single reason for this?  Probably not; but if forced to choose one, this will do: The nation's leaders, over time, have raped the Constitution.  All else is epilogue.

54 comments »

From Cone to Wright to Obama Equals Trouble

Dr. James Cone is the leader of Black Liberation Theology (BLT).  In a biblical sense, it can be fairly said that Cone is the St. Paul of BLT.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a disciple of Cone; preached BLT in his Chicago church and in the public square.        

Barack Obama attended Wright's church for two decades as a congregant and as a friend, listening to the message of BLT; Wright was close to the Obama family; he married Barack and Michelle; he baptized their children.

There are two questions in all of this that beg for an answer: 1) Who is Cone?  2) Do you believe Obama could listen to Wright for twenty years if he did not find his views at least acceptable or, perhaps, admirable?

James Cone

 Dr. James H. Cone, Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York, has many degrees.  He has received many awards, and many books and articles bear his name; he has lectured all over the world.  During his lifetime he has either educated or poisoned millions of minds, mostly black minds.

Cone was an admirer of the Black Power movement, especially as it was preached by Malcolm X.  What did Malcolm X say that attracted Cone?  Let's let Malcolm X speak for himself:

• I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem....

That sentence says much about Malcolm X and his admirer, Dr. Cone.  Its meaning can be summarized as follows: "Do it my way, or I'll hit you." 

Malcolm had more to say, for example:

• Nonviolence is fine as long as it works.
• The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals....  But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God. 
• You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker.

 Malcolm X rejected the messages of peace and due process; he appraised with scorn the American economic system (capitalism), and the white men who largely created and sustained it; he was at war with the world around him. 

Dr. Cone approved and he expressed his admiration this way:

Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology. ... Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of black people.  Black Theology puts black identity in a theological context.

 Malcolm X and Cone: arms of the same tree, each vindicating and justifying the other.  Malcolm X wasn't a political terrorist; he was a soldier of God whose actions were justified by Cone's BLT.

Cone has other interesting views, for example:

• Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.
• If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
• Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
• Black Power ... is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.   
• Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed....  Either God is for black people ...and against the white oppressors, or he is not.

 Cone refers to himself as a Christian, but his loyalty is to a Christianity that is neither practiced nor preached in any church except some black churches like, for example, Rev. Wright's church (he's now retired) in Chicago. 

This is a thumbprint of the kind of thinking that informs the minds of millions of blacks, including pastors, like Jeremiah Wright.     

   Jeremiah Wright

Jeremiah Wright holds degrees from Howard University, University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary.  He has been prominent in the development of leaders for the African-American church, which teaches the BLT of Dr. Cone.  Wright and Cone are joined at the hip.

Wright has often spoken his mind in a loud voice.  It may be safely assumed that his conversations with the Obamas were not limited to basketball chit chat. 

It's difficult to believe that the following comments made by Wright were not heard by Obama long before they were publicized:  

• The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America....  
• We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.
• Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me.  ... he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office.
• The Jewish vote ... would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference ... they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is.

 These quotations profile the man who is instrumental in the formation of the black ministers of the future and the political leaders of today; this is the man who in church and in private has been informing the mind of the current president of the United States.  

Obama

 Obama grew up in an irreligious environment.  His classmates were admittedly radical.  His first sustained religious experience was with Wright.  He is an intelligent, thinking man. 

Obama now dismisses Wright by minimizing him.  But he has not in any way spoken out against the anti-Americanism that Malcolm X/Cone/Wright represent.

It is my view that Obama has three principal objectives: 1) Redistribute wealth; 2) centralize power in the federal government; 3) facilitate the implementation of black power.  

I believe Obama is a socialist, which explains his first two objectives; I believe he is a disciple of Dr. Cone, which explains his third objective.     

Take this subject matter seriously.  If I'm right, we are living in a dangerous time -- our president is anti-American who, in four years, can do much harm.

It pains me to write such things.

33 comments »

How Many Strikes And You're Out?

Three strikes and you're out.  It's true in baseball.  But most agree that everybody deserves a second chance except for those guilty of the most heinous crimes.  Even a third chance is common.  But when one goes beyond that, the odds are being stretched.

In the game of life, the three-strike rule is nowhere as rigid.  Given constant advances in medical science, it has become increasingly possible to beat the so-called odds.

I'm a fortunate beneficiary of this trend.  Some combination of genes, more informed medical treatments, doctors, hospitals and nurses has made it possible for me to write this column today, especially when such things are guided by the supporting hand of God.   Let me explain.

Eight years ago, I had a cancer that would have killed me twenty years earlier; perhaps, ten years earlier.  I survived -- strike one. 

I had two strokes earlier this year that destroyed my ability to speak.  I recovered -- strikes two and three.

Last week, I had another stroke.  Its fundamental cause was the newly discovered heart condition, which was also the cause of the previous strokes.  I'm alive and safe -- strikes four and five.

Following each of my major medical events, I wrote columns about my experiences.  It has been my hope that some readers will recognize something in my story that will help them survive similar traumas more knowledgeably that I did.

This most recent incident began with head pressure while I was working at the computer.  Soon, it became mild dizziness. 

Once you reach the later decades of life, you recognize that temporary instability caused by dizziness or imbalance (they are different) is not uncommon, nor is it usually very dangerous -- worth reporting to your doctor but not normally worrisome.  Ordinarily the episode subsides within a half-hour or so.

So, when this recent dizziness assailed me, I was not alarmed.  But I was sensible enough to lie down and take a nap.

A half-hour later, I opened my eyes and tested myself by picking a spot on the ceiling.  It kept moving.  I was still dizzy.

Just as one becomes accustomed to temporary instability, so also do attentive stroke victims become aware that, by virtue of their medical record, such an episode takes on a different and more important meaning -- something more serious may be afoot.

My dizziness was still mild, but I called my doctor.  The advice was: Head for the emergency room and get checked out.

Idiot that I am (and only mildly dizzy), I drove myself to the nearest emergency room (five minutes away).  Advice: Once you've had a stroke, never drive -- dial 911. 

The doctor soon decided to transfer me to the nearest overnight hospital.  This was done

by ambulance. 

Within two hours I was moved from my initial location in the hospital to the ward that specializes in heart problems.  There it was discovered I had a heart problem (never before suspected), a condition that had been masked behind medicines I had been taking for disassociated reasons.   

Ironically, the nature of my heart problem (and the cause of my strokes) was finally discovered because my normal medications were administered late, and the heart was exposed to doctors in its (almost) natural state for the first time in decades.         

The upper chamber of my heart does not function properly.  As a consequence, my blood flow can slow and possibly coagulate sending deadly clots to the brain.    

Treatments in the hospital were effective: Dizziness was gone in thirty-six hours; the heart, still unstable, was made functional.   When I left the hospital five days later, my blood mixture approached the safe zone, and I was given medications to accelerate that trend.

I was taught how to self-inject one of the medicines into my belly twice a day, a regime that would continue at home until my blood stabilized -- it did so in four days. 

The second medicine I take orally twice a day, and I'll be doing that for the rest of my life. 

Finally, I have my blood tested twice a week and the heart doctor's office, after each test, tells me how much of the medicine to take to keep my blood in the safe zone.

This life line will keep me safe until God calls me.  I will, my neurologist tells me, inevitably have additional strokes -- treatment is designed not to eliminate them, but rather to keep them small. 

That is the end of my most recent flirtation with the odds that began with a minor headache and ended with a mandatory medical regime that will endlessly continue.

I hope everybody over fifty who reads this column will keep it and review it from time to time; if you're young, I hope you send it to your parents.

And always remember: Three strikes and you're out is not always true.  The umpire of the game of life also writes the rules -- and He can be quite soft-hearted.        

7 comments »

Are You in Denial, Or Are you Ready?

It's no secret that the U.S. economy is in trouble.  In the private sector, the surface evidence for that is the unemployment rate, which hovers around 10 percent, with no sign that it will soon tumble.

In the federal government, the evidence for this is found in budget deficits.  Using numbers provided by the Obama administration (which many consider to be optimistic), the deficit for Obama's first term is projected to be $5.1 trillion, approximately the size of the total deficits suffered by Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.  

Obama's deficits are as high as they are because he has adopted as a method to fight the recession the tools used by FDR during the Great Depression.  He has launched massive federal spending programs, he has increased taxes and regulations, and he promises more of the same in the near future; he shares FDR's determination to redistribute wealth by every means at his command, including confiscatory tax rates.

FDR's experiment with this approach generated an economy that was essentially flat in 1929-39, an unemployment rate that went up by 356 percent, a government that grew by 80 percent and a public debt that increased 154 percent. 

In short, the FDR method was a disaster.  The Great Depression ended in 1940, despite his tinkering, because Tojo unwisely drew the U.S. into World War Two.  By 1944, with wartime production in full gear, the unemployment rate was well below 2 percent.

Despite this historical lesson, Obama adopted the high spending, high taxing and high control methods of FDR to fight the current recession.  According to his own numbers, public debt will increase 98% by 2012; the budget will still be delivering a deficit of almost $1 trillion; GDP growth will be modest and unemployment projections are far from enthusiastic.

In short, Obama seems to be getting the same results that FDR did -- political gain for him and for Democrats (because of the popularity of handouts) and punishment for the nation.   

The saddest part of this story is that Obama plans to expand the Welfare State by 32 percent during his first term.  This means he does not intend to substantially touch the entitlement programs that have been moving the nation toward bankruptcy for the past half century. 

This trend is unsustainable.  If politicians refuse to face the problem they have created, market forces inevitably will require them to do so.  Europe is learning that lesson today.  Greece is lost; its streets are in flames as it tries to cut back on jobs and programs; other EU nations are nearly as bad off.  The continent is nervous as spending cuts are planned.

And the U.S. is not exempt from such worries.  Despite the avalanche of money that Obama has poured into the states, the impact of the slow economy is being felt.

California is hopelessly in deficit.  But 46 other states also face budget shortfalls, a situation that figures to get worse as unemployment continues and revenues drop; 32 states can't make unemployment payments without federal loans -- about $40 billion of the loans is unpaid.  California owes the feds almost $7 billion; the following states owe more than one billion: Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.  This is a broad and creeping problem.

Cuts are coming.  It is inevitable.  It's not a question of if, but when.  At the federal level, survival as an international power will demand that federal employee fringes, and all social programs, be laid out and examined.  The government must survive, which means that cuts in social programs will be severe and sustained. 

When this is done (even begun) do you believe for a moment that what is happening on the streets of Greece cannot happen here?

California is trying to raise tuitions and cut school budgets.  In Berkley, students led rowdy demonstrations that led to traffic jams and clashes with police; the same thing happened in Oakland and resulted in 150 arrests; police had to use pepper spray to cool 300 protestors at the University of California; there were similar incidents in Santa Cruz, Sacramento and Northridge.

Milwaukee, Illinois, Washington, Texas and elsewhere also saw tests of the police as students and, in some cases, faculty demonstrated displeasure in ways that threatened serious violence.

And it has only begun.  When the hammer finally hits Washington and forces it to do what it should have done voluntarily 50 years ago, jobs will be lost, benefits will be cut and all hell will break loose.

To get through this mess, the nation needs firm and focused leaders in Washington.  That isn't currently the case.  Change it with your votes, or suffer.  Nobody will escape; it is time to pay the piper. 

Are you still in denial, playing schoolboy politics and wasting your energy on partisan politics?  Or are you ready to defend yourself and your nation as best you can?  You can make a difference if you try.   

45 comments »

Major U.S. Problems And Misdirected Energy

Look east; look west; look north; look south.  Big problems everywhere.  If ever there was a need for an experienced, cool-headed, problem-solving chief executive, it is now.

Do we have one?  An examination of two headline issues should give us a clue.

Medicare

 Before Obama, Medicare was essentially a problem of affordability.  Experts agreed its costs would soon break the federal budget.  There were other issues about the adequacy of coverage, but most seniors were satisfied -- drug prices and rising premiums were their major concerns.

The default administration position on Medicare is that it must remain a federal program.  It is regarded as a benefit (one of several) that attracts voters to Democrats, and they will not separate themselves from such a valuable lure.  A problem politicized in this way makes impossible a rational solution (even discussion).     

When unaffordable social programs "must be" federal, there is only one way to support them: Raise taxes.  Since that is an unpopular political act, politicians tend to perform it in a way that mystifies the public. 

This administration advanced the idea that nationalized health insurance will cure the health care problem, a complex approach that increases taxes all over the place.  But it does so, not because Medicare is, and has been, improperly financed, but because the ever-so-kind government wants to be sure that everybody is cared for.

Medicare should have been privatized, with the federal government retaining only those aspects of health care that people and states can't handle alone -- long term fatal diseases, extraordinary care, long-term care for the aged, etc.  That would have been reform, big time. 

The choice made to move toward a national system, directly or indirectly managed by the federal government, is a perfect example of misplaced energy that is, if history is a judge, doomed to fail.

Energy

There is not consensus in the U.S. about how, or if, disastrous change in global temperatures will take place.  And consensus should exist before this or any other administration turns the nation's economy upside down in search of energy nirvana. 

Despite these facts, the present administration has adopted such a course, captured as it is by environmentalists, the principal advocates of the global warming theory.  It gives (at best) lip service to the development of nuclear energy; it obstructs the development of oil, coal and gas resources; excessive public relations efforts praise the glories of energy-creating systems that have yet to exist in any meaningful way.

Any good, problem-solving leader would have grabbed one central truth that all parties currently accept, and he would have used it as the basis for consensus: In the long term (apart from global warming concerns), the use of fossil fuels as a dominant energy base is a bad idea -- it presents pollution problems that reduce the quality of life.  The long-term goal should be: Develop cleaner energy. 

A second inconvenient truth:  The heavy use of fossil fuels will continue for the foreseeable future in the U.S. and elsewhere.

A third truth: Fossil fuel development projects in other parts of the world create as much global pollution as those developed in the U.S.  If it makes sense to invest in foreign oil drilling, for example, it makes even more sense to do the same domestically.     

A fourth truth: More oil pollution, according to many sources, comes from ships than from oil rigs.  If demand for oil is constant, reducing domestic drilling will increase incoming ship traffic and, as its by-product, oil pollution. 

A final and conclusive truth: Dependence on foreign oil is America's central problem, not global warming.  Oil dependence is an everyday, ultra-expensive fact; global warming is a controversial theory.

Given such facts, why does the administration give the light of day to a "cap and trade" energy program that moves the nation prematurely away from its natural resources toward energy systems that do not yet significantly exist anywhere?

This misdirected effort does no more than get in the way of the only energy project that makes sense: 1) Mount an emergency program to develop natural resources and nuclear energy in the U.S.; 2) encourage investment in automobile technology and reduce to the minimum the consumption of gasoline; 3) develop long-term investment programs dealing with renewable sources of energy that includes plans for an orderly retreat from the fossil-fuel industry. 

The recent crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is yet another example of the type of leadership that is coming from Washington.  The administration has ordered all drilling in the Gulf to stop.  Thousands of wells have been dug in the area; this is the first spill of any size.

If oil rigs used in the Gulf remain idle, they will be moved and utilized elsewhere.  The resultant loss of domestic production will increase shipments of oil from overseas, which will increase pollution.

To stop drilling in the Gulf because of one spill is like grounding the airline industry because of one crash.  Time wasted -- nothing solved -- the problem broadens.

American history is full of presidents who grew in the job and eventually lived up to the duties of the time, or who failed to do so.  How will this president be measured against the duties of his time?

21 comments »

Open Letter to "Dolphin"

You ask: "Robert...please tell us who broke America"

Frankly, I was touched by the way you posed the question and must say, at the outset, you should be proud of yourself for caring.  Keep searching and engage yourself as possible.  You and others like you are the hope of the future.   

The answer to your question is an involved one.  But I'll try to summarize it for you in as few words as possible.

America began with an idea.  The Founders believed they could form a government by studying mistakes of the past and establishing a structure that would, above all, protect individual freedom and, at the same time, protect citizens from dangers that individuals and states can not handle by themselves.

Read everything you can find about the Founders, especially Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison.  You will soon learn that, collectively, they feared most the power of a large central government.  They, or their families, left Europe to escape centralized government, and they endured the Revolution in order to escape it once more.

As they formed the new government they cited basic beliefs that guided them through the long process:

o       Man was created by God, and God alone -- not government -- gave him the right to freedom, in all of its manifestations -- speech, safety, etc.

o       Man is dangerous; when he is involved in government he must be surrounded by checks and balances so that greed or ambition do not unduly intrude on his common sense.

o       It is the job of government to mange the needs of government; it is the job of the states and the people to take care of personal and local needs.

So focused were the Founders on the need to restrain the power of the central government that they added Article I, Section 8 to the Constitution and, later, Amendments Nine and Ten.  Taken together, these clauses make clear that government, under our system, must tend to its own business (war, economics, disasters, interstate commerce, etc.) and leave the private sector to handle the rest.

The U.S. government operated under those restraints until two men entered the political scene, one a Republican and the other a Democrat.  They had one thing in common: They didn't like the Constitution; they wanted to do things that were not permitted by it.  They thought they were smarter than the Founders -- they wanted to modify the government to their taste.  And to do so, they came up with an idea on how to interpret the Constitution.  To them, it didn't mean what it said; it had to be viewed as a "living document" that could be interpreted by modern judges (and others) according to the needs of the times.  

From that day to this, America has changed.  Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson didn't have the chance to implement many of their new ideas.  But Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), who agreed with them, did -- he even wrote his own Bill of Rights. 

He took advantage of the crisis that existed when he was elected (Great Depression) and, under the guise of fighting it, tore the Constitution to bits.  Before he was through, government ran some businesses, micro-managed others and had it taken a giant leap toward establishing centralized power.  The size of the government grew humongously on his watch; tax rates went through the roof -- and stayed there for decades.

FDR's most important legacy was the attitude that government activity was no longer limited by the pertinent Constitutional clauses -- it could do "what needed to be done," as determined by whoever was in power at the moment.  In a practical sense, this meant that above half of the nation accepted the Constitution.  The other half didn't -- their judges and politicians made law as needed. 

There was no doubt about the "new" power of government by the time Lyndon Johnson left office.  He created the Welfare State and set the path that all administrations have, de facto, followed ever since.  This is so because those who believed otherwise, including Reagan, never had the veto-proof congressional power that is needed to restructure unaffordable social programs like those that are destroying Europe and Canada today.

Many politicians were delighted with the "living constitution" approach because it permitted them to add social programs that made them popular, which ensured the safety of their careers.  And so spending became fashionable -- spending more than we had.

From the time Johnson left office, no president has left behind a smaller debt than the one he inherited.  The major cause of this, under every president, has been unaffordable social programs. 

When I wrote my first book on national debt in 1998 I pointed out that its level threatened national security, and that social programs, especially Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare had to be restructured.  My second book on the subject (The National Debt of the United States, 1941-2008) makes the same point more forcefully.  Today, to survive, we are borrowing heavily from our most dangerous competitors. 

The present administration shows no signs of facing up to the nation's primary problem -- unwillingness to control spending and reduce debt.  On the contrary, it is making the big spenders of the past look like amateurs.    

It is my estimate that America is a short distance away from serious trouble.  Corrective action is unlikely until something disastrous forces politicians to think of their nation more than they think of their own status.

I hope this answers your question. -- Bob Kelly

37 comments »

Europe Fails-U.S. Wins?

John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, in a recent speech given to students of New York University, emphasized three things: 1) An apology to Muslims for the way they've been harassed since 911; 2) an outline of how far the enlightened President Obama will go to correct such things; 3) the views that we are not at war against terrorism or terror and there is no such thing as a violent jihad; 4) the U.S. is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies, not with radical Islamists; he apparently believes they do not pose a serious threat to the United States.

            Brennan made some points more dramatic by speaking in Arabic, a language he once mastered while serving with pleasure in Muslim nations -- he spoke glowingly of Muslim culture, generosity and tolerance.  Female reaction to these views was not reported.      

            Do you feel secure knowing that Mr. Brennan is regularly whispering in the ear of President Obama's ever-so-receptive ear on the subjects of Islam, counterterrorism and homeland security? 

            Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, testified recently before the House Judiciary Committee on the recent bombing attempt in New York by a home-grown terrorist with ties to radical Islamists in Pakistan.  He was asked repeatedly if he thought radical Islamists were behind the attempted bombing.  Holder refused to concede the possibility.  This is the same man who, among other things, wants to give terrorists Miranda Rights when they are captured; and he wants to take them to court in New York City.

            Do you sleep more soundly knowing that this fierce legal warrior is protecting you against the bad guys?       

            For reasons that won't be probed in this column, the current administration will not realistically define America's enemies, and America will in some expensive way pay for its evasiveness in the future. 

            This tendency of this administration to ignore obvious dangers to national security can be seen as well in the economic field, and its obtuseness, in this case, is apparently shared by about half of all Americans.   

            The European Union (EU), for example, is twisting and writhing in economic pain.  The reason for this is finally being widely acknowledged:

• "...we can't just go on building up debt, not only because it risks the economy but it lands on future generations." -- British Finance Minister, George Osborne.
• "Across Western Europe ... the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis ...undermines the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War Two." -- NY Times

            The problems of Greece were covered in a previous column.  The EU, with the help of the International Monetary Fund (the U.S. is its major supporter), is bailing that nation out.  But that isn't the end of the challenge to international financial stability, the global problem that could plunge the world into depths never before experienced.

            The Washington Post summarized the situation with frightening clarity in a recent issue:  

o       Barclay's Chief World Economist, Julian Callow, reminded readers that European securities, which once carried zero risk, "are now being studied with the same focus given to holdings of U.S. mortgage-backed securities."

            And why should that not be so?  There is double-digit unemployment in Hungary, Ireland and Spain; budgets of Ireland, Spain and England are egregiously out of balance.  A series of failures could, according to Angelo Pangratis (head of the EU delegation to the United States) "fundamentally mark our times."  That's a diplomat's way of saying that European securities could be worth zilch.  Then what?      

            And how did all of this happen?  Ironically, the left-leaning NY Times came up with the right answer in a recent edition: 

o       "Europeans have boasted about their social model with its ... national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.  (They) ... can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle...."

            America has been moving toward the European model since the early 1900s.  The pace accelerated in the 1960s.  Its people have enjoyed the "freebies" coming to them from the federal government, the latest being Obamacare -- it will move the U.S. closer to ... guess what?  The European model.      

            Americans forgot that the government has no money but what it takes from them.   Their government has routinely spent more than it had; it ignored the dangers of climbing debt; the same irresponsible course, magnified, is being followed today by leaders similar to Brennan and Holder.  Federal deficits are out of control; debt is mushrooming and will soon reach EU heights.      

            By some sleight-of-hand maneuver, someone expects Americans to believe that what destroyed the Soviet Union, and what  is currently destroying Europe will somehow be good for America.    

            Don't believe it.  Rid yourself of these unrealistic leaders.  Complain! Telephone!  Write!  Above all, vote! 

            For whom?  Someone who believes in the vision of the Founders, which can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

15 comments »