Baseball and Music

Some things just go together--men and women, ham and eggs, peanut butter and jelly, April and showers, moonlight and romance. To separate them would, it seems, violate nature. Baseball and music belong with those imperative pairings. It's natural. It blends. Each becomes more meaningful because of the other.

An example of this is the recent tour of Dave Winfield, the Hall of Fame right fielder who once played for THEM.

You may remember that Winfield is approximately the size of Colorado; his earlobes have muscles. He covered the distance between bases with about three strides. One would not be surprised to see him in a Hollywood movie destroying Godzilla and King Kong with two powerful simultaneously delivered blows to the kisser.

But one would definitely be surprised to see this graceful, well-dressed athlete standing before a symphony orchestra, expertly participating in a musical extravaganza celebrating the uniqueness of the game of baseball.

Yet, that's what he's doing these days, and he's doing it to rave reviews. Already he has appeared with symphony orchestras in Seattle, Bakersfield, Houston, Chicago, Miami and Indianapolis, and he's scheduled to appear in Boston this summer reciting "Casey at the Bat" and "Forever Spring" supported by background music put together by baseball/music enthusiasts who are trying to bring the spirit of the grand old game into concert halls.

It wasn't always this way. The organ did not always punctuate each dramatic moment on the field. The national anthem was not always sung before each game--not even close.
The first professional baseball team goes back to 1869; the National League was founded in 1871--the American League in 1901. And the Star Spangled Banner didn't become the official national anthem until 1931--the tradition of playing it before baseball games didn't begin until the 1940s, during World War Two.

It's the same with baseball's own anthem, "Take Me Out to the Ballgame."

Written in 1908, it was an immediate hit--but not in the ball park. Making it an integral part of the action on the field was the brainchild of madcap owner Bill Veek (he had a midget on one of his teams--Eddie Gaedel, St. Louis Browns) that was brought to fruition by the colorful announcer of Chicago Cubs' games, Harry Caray. He led the fans in a chorus of the song in 1976 during the seventh-inning stretch of a nationally-televised game. The practice spread like wildfire; it is with us today and it probably always will be.

Many believe "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," composed by Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer, is the first of a small body of music devoted to the Grande Olde Game. Not so. It wasn't first; there's a lot of music.

J. R. Blodgett wrote the first song in 1858--"The Baseball Polka." And more than 100 other songs were written before the Norworth/Tilzer collaboration emerged from Tin Pan Alley. Altogether, baseball historians estimate there are more than 1,000 baseball songs, some of which became immensely popular, for example: John Philip Sousa's march, "The National Game;" "Joltin' Joe DiMaggio," recorded by Les Brown; "Willie, Mickey and the Duke," a toe-tapper that is still around.

But none of them threatened the status of the original anthem, nor is any future tune likely to topple it. It belongs. It captures the spirit of the game and the kind of fans that love it.
"Take Me Out to the Ball Game" is sung someplace in the world 365 days a year; it has been recorded by more than 500 artists from diverse fields, including Frank Sinatra, Liberace, Harpo Marx, Stan Musial and the aforementioned, Harry Caray. Only "Happy Birthday" and "God Bless America" is sung more often in the U.S.

Are you ready? Put the beer down. Stand up. Let's go!

"Take me out to the ball game...."

Leave a comment »

A Second Sliver of Hope

Inter-religious ... dialogue between Christians and Muslims is ... a vital necessity, on which in, large measure our future depends.  ... Christians and Muslims ... make up more than 55 percent of the world's population.  ... the relationship between these two religious communities (is) the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world.  ... --Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Oct. 12, 2006

 Diplomacy is slow; church diplomacy, slower.   Caution is the rule of the day.  Words are the weapons of diplomatic conflict; definition reaches exquisite heights.  Each word and phrase is studied and parsed.  Nuance is the rapier thrust, bluntness, the nuclear bomb. 

 So it isn't surprising that the letter to the Pope in 2006 did not result in hasty plans for a meeting.  But deliberations and the behind-the-scenes negotiations have apparently ended, and during this month, parties hope to hold an unprecedented Catholic-Islamic meeting.

 Stakes are high. 

 Richard Weaver's 1940s book, "Ideas Have Consequences" will be forever influential.  Nowhere is the truth of his title more apparent than in the War against Terror, which includes the march of rogue nations like Iran toward the possession of nuclear weapons, and the sobering fact, that an unstable Muslim nation like Pakistan already has them.  If the ideas that have motivated too many powerful Muslims during the current decade--and millions of followers and sympathizers--are not changed, consequences will be huge and painful. 

 The ideas in question have led to despicable actions: the murder of innocent victims around the globe; street celebrations in response to bombings in the U.S and Europe; violent riots following depictions in the West of Mohammad in a way that isn't flattering. 

 And they have a common source: schools and mosques dominated by teachers and prayer leaders who are Wahhabists, rigidly orthodox Muslims dedicated to the super-orthodox teaching of Abd Wahab (who, with Muhammad Ibn Saud founded Saudi Arabia in the 18^th century), a doctrine that too often becomes a lesson on how/why to hate non-Muslims. 

 If these teachers and prayer leaders continue to shape the minds of young Muslims, the War on Terror will be soon renamed the War of Civilizations. 

 No western nation can bring this change about.  It must be done internally by the 138 Muslim scholars who signed the open letter to the pope in 2006, and the 87 additional ones who have joined the plea for dialogue--225 voices for peace.

 The consequences associated with the failure to re-direct Muslim teaching have been defined by history.  Those who view the War on Terror as a hunt for Osama bin Laden are ignoring the rants of Ahmadinejad, bin Laden or other radical Muslim leaders who dream of the return of the glory days of Islam.

 Weak Europe and debt-ridden America prefer to forget that Muslims can unite against a common foe.  Under Mohammad himself, Muslims grew from a small religious sect to  become rulers of Arabia in less than three decades; once, they controlled much of lower and middle Europe; the Ottoman Empire was one of the most powerful military forces in the world until the caliphate was dismembered after World War Two. 

 This they did without nuclear weapons; this they could do again with them--and with the help of their internal allies in western nations, thanks to clueless immigration policies.  

 It is promising that influential Muslim scholars seek a relationship of mutual respect with Catholics.  But success will not bring "meaningful peace."   In fact, it may direct time and effort away from real problems.

 Islamic scholars, with the right goal, are aiming at the wrong target.  Terrorism does not exist because of theological/cultural differences with Christianity.  It exists because of theological/political differences within Islam.  When scholars start writing open letters to Ahmadinejad, bin Laden and the Taliban, hope for peace will become more realistic.  

8 comments »

A Sliver of Hope

The Cold War with Russia began immediately after the close of World War Two, and it continued under presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter until, in the 1980s, it informally ended under President Reagan and it formally ended under President George H.W. Bush when in 1989 the Berlin Wall fell. 

 The major American media has chosen to lionize Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party and leader of the USSR, as the man who democratized the Soviet Union.  For all practical purposes, however, it was President Reagan’s policies, military and diplomatic, that caused the Soviet Union to disintegrate.

 Also, the liberal media never gave proper credit to Reagan’s principal ally in the effort to civilize the Soviets, Pope John Paul II., a native of Poland, who was instrumental in planting the seeds of revolution in his homeland, which came to maturity in 1989 when, in effect, Soviet influence in that nation ended.

 Communism was (and is) first an idea that violently flowered into a form of government in atheistic Russia that could have over-run Europe.  Personal freedom (dignity) is also an idea, pne that that flowered in Christian Britain and found its greatest expression in Christian America.  This means the Cold War with the USSR, although fought with the used and unused weapons of mankind, was essentially a war of ideas, atheism vs. Christianity. 

 A similar war exists today: Radical Islam, which seeks to enslave nonbelievers under its narrow interpretation of Sharia (Muslim law) vs. Judeo/Christian nations that recognize freedom, nowhere better expressed than in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”

 This war too must be fought and won with the tools of religion as well as the tools of war.  Because war will continue ad infinitum until Radical Islam and its notions of superiority is replaced by Moderate Islam, which continues in its uniqueness but, at the same time, accepts as an ethic the words of the Declaration. 

Can the Christian idea and the Muslim idea come together in peace and dignity?

There is reason to hope.  The road could be long.  It will again require the marriage of political and spiritual leaders to bring it about. 

 The possibility of success was importantly planted in 1980 when Aal al-Bayt Institute, a prestigious group of Islamic religious scholars, was founded in Jordan by King Hussein.  It was considerably enhanced when it sent the following message last October to the world’s most prominent Christian leaders, including Pope Benedict: “The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.”  And the Institute called for cooperation between these groups, an invitation that was signed by Islamic leaders from 25 countries. 

 Is the spiritual component of the solution to the deadly puzzle moving into place?

 The Institute has spent years forming a global agreement about three issues: (1) Who is a Muslim? (2) Can one Muslim label as apostates another Muslim group? (3) Who has the right to issue legal rulings (fatwas)?  The answers to these questions have been agreed to by more than 500 Islamic scholars (ulama) worldwide .  

This consensus of the ulama is legally binding on all Muslims and, according to the Institute, “It assures balanced Islamic solutions for essential issues like human rights, women’s rights, freedom of religion, legitimate jihad, good citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim countries and just and democratic government.”

 Is the Institute the voice of moderate Islam that many have been waiting to hear?  Does it have in the Muslim world the spiritual clout of the Pope in the Christian world? 

 An invitation from such an influential body could be the invitation to peace that a leader like Ronald Reagan would be looking for.

 Is anybody looking?

4 comments »

Truth, Religion, Obama and Politics

It is difficult to view Obama's church as Christian
Not good training for a presidential candidate in the U.S.A.

The value system that motivates behavior and informs analysis is fundamentally intact by the time people graduate from college. And few would deny that religious lessons form much of what we call moral character.

So Americans are concerned about the religious background of presidential candidates when its tenets are out of the mainstream. If this is how a candidate has been religiously educated, the question is asked, how will it affect the way he/she would govern?

Barack Hussein Obama has attended the Trinity Unity Church of Christ for the past two decades. Its ex-pastor is Jeremiah Wright who married him and baptized his children; he has advised Obama for years.

Wright's comments have been on television for weeks. He has openly reviled the economic and justice systems of the U.S.; his racial comments are obnoxious. He preaches black liberation theology in his church; his mentor is James Hal Cone who is, so to speak, the St. Paul of that school of thought.

Liberation theology has its roots in South America, being formed there as a belief system for the under-privileged. Analysts refer to it as a humanistic doctrine with Marxist roots.

The theology moved from South America to the blacks of this nation in 1966, when 51 black pastors bought a full-time ad in the New York Times allying themselves with the "Black Power" movement.

James Cone, its leading theologian and a sponsor of Pastor Wright, has had some interesting things to say as quoted in a book by William R. Jones, "Divine Racism ...".:

• 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....
• Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
• What we need ... is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors ... by any means at their disposal.

Other similar quotations by Cone can be readily found on the internet.

• Cone thinks black men are "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power." ... "Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.'"
• "We must not expect white people to give us freedom--(it) must be taken against the will of those who hold us in bondage."

When pressed, black theologians like Obama's pastor and Cone will say that "black" is simply a word of choice that symbolizes all oppressed people. Observers can rule on that claim according to the evidence of their eyes and ears.

Dr. H. Wayne House, Professor of Theology, Faith Evangelical Seminary, says that black theology springs from liberation theology, which holds that traditional theology offers a false view of the gospel--that salvation is not peace in heaven but equality and justice for all in this life. Its theme is oppression--blacks are victims.

It is difficult to view Obama's church as Christian. Obama claims to be a follower of Christ. But what Christ does he follow? The traditional one who preaches love for all and promises heaven as a reward? Or the re-defined Christ who seeks justice for blacks and promises worldly power as a reward? And what does it mean in terms of political leadership?

Nobody sits still for 20 years listening to a theology he doesn't believe in. Evidence suggests Obama too accepts black theology as his own.

It is sad, after the progress of the past half century to see a school of thought like this so active in black churches. It has little to say that is complimentary to the U.S. economic and justice systems--it sees enemies everywhere. Progress since the 1960s is ignored.

It is not good training for a presidential candidate in the U.S.A.

26 comments »

Truth, Human Resources and Politics

Public debt has been rising since the 1960s; defense spending as a percent of all federal spending, declining. Conclusion? Defense spending has not been the reason for continuing federal deficits and mounting debt.

"Human Resources," is the line item in the federal budget that captures the costs of most entitlement and social programs. Under Eisenhower (1957-60) it represented 27 percent of all spending. Under Bush (2006), 63 percent.

Roosevelt and Truman, liberal presidents who immediately preceded Eisenhower, were also responsible men who, because of the demands of war, did not unduly enlarge the scope of Human Resources with three major exceptions: Social Security, Unemployment Compensation and the GI Bill of Rights.

Eisenhower inherited--with the above popular exceptions--and passed on a government that still essentially represented the living idea of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, one that spent tax money in accordance with the basic priority imposed by Constitution: Protect the nation--which includes protecting the value of the dollar.

What has happened since? It's time for a few facts.

Under Kennedy-Johnson (1961-64), revenue increased 25 percent; Human Resources, 33 percent. They dealt with the Vietnam and Cold Wars.

Under Johnson (1965-68), revenue increased 33 percent; Human Resources, 46 percent. He dealt with the Vietnam and Cold Wars, and he introduced the Great Society, a plethora of social programs later added to, by his followers.

Under Nixon (1969-72), revenue increased 41 percent; Human Resources, 79 percent. He dealt with the Vietnam and Cold Wars. Maturing social programs hit his federal budgets with the force of an earthquake. And in 1971, for the first time in federal budget history, the cost of Human Resources was higher than the cost of defense. The pendulum had swung; budget emphasis was upside down. The president's duty to defend the nation and its currency was compromised--the condition has worsened ever since.

Under Ford (1973-76), revenue increased 38 percent; Human Resources, 86 percent. He faced the Vietnam and Cold Wars. Great Society programs were cemented into the federal budget.

Under Carter (1977-80), revenue increased 62 percent; Human Resources, 65 percent. He dealt with the Cold War and the first major energy crisis (over-dependence on foreign oil). The America of 1980 was in a state of fiscal crisis.

Under Reagan (1981-84), revenue increased 43 percent; Human Resources, 54 percent. He dealt with the recession and the Cold War.
Under Reagan (1985-88), revenue increased 31 percent; Human Resources, 24 percent, the first time revenue growth was superior. He also ended the Cold War.

Under Bush 41 (1989-92), revenue increased 28 percent; Human Resources, 33 percent. Defense spending was down to 23 percent of total spending (55 percent under Ike (1957-60). He dealt with the Gulf War.

Under Clinton (1993-96), revenue increased 25 percent; Human Resources, 35 percent. A major tax increase was imposed in 1993; for the first time during this era of climbing debt, congressional power in 1994 went to Republicans--it was a relatively peaceful time.

Under Clinton (1997-00), revenue increased 25 percent; Human Resources, 35 percent. It was still a relatively peaceful time. Imposed taxes as a percent of GDP under Clinton in 2000 (peacetime) were as high as they were in 1944 under Roosevelt (wartime).

Under Bush 43 (2001-04), revenue increased 5 percent; Human Resources, 29 percent. He faced a recession, corporate scandals and the War against Terrorism. No modern president suffered from revenue loss more than Bush.

Under Bush 43 (2005-08, estimated), revenue increased 30 percent; Human Resources, 27 percent. He faced the continuing War against Terrorism.

Cost growth in excess of revenue growth produces deficits that increase debt. Cost growth in Human Resources has been ruinously out of balance for a half-century.

Can you guess why deficits persist? Why debt is dangerously high?

Politics: Some presidential candidates offer new entitlements as a way of attracting voters. How about that?

Source: The National Debt of the United States, 1941-2008, Robert E. Kelly, McFarland Company, Inc., N. Carolina, 2008 --Amazon.com and all major bookstores.

10 comments »

Truth, Defense Spending and Politics

It has long been known that persistent repetition to the public of a false idea converts it into a generally accepted truth. It is for that reason that truth-telling carries such an aura of importance in a free society, like the United States, where perjury is a serious offense.

This has been demonstrated over and over in American politics as leaders as diverse as Richard Nixon and William Clinton have discovered. If this were not the case, if lies became acceptable, meaningful communication would disappear and chaos would follow. Trust is the soul of a free society.

Few would disagree with that premise. Yet, at the same time, distortions uttered by political leaders--sometimes easily detectable (a chicken in every pot; eliminate poverty, etc.)--can be just as damaging as the outright lies of, say, a Joseph Goebbels. And the unintended consequences that follow can sometimes be extraordinarily expensive.

An example of this is the pernicious and persistent suggestion by the far left that federal deficits, that have generated mountainous debt over the last half-century, were caused by the size of the defense budget.

Since the ideologues who sold this bill of goods controlled all aspects of the federal government for more than three decades, and were fully supported by the mainstream press, and since independent radio and television outlets didn't exist as they do today, blaming defense spending for continuing deficits became the accepted prism through which federal spending was viewed.

The same message is being spewed again during the current presidential campaign by Democratic candidates, Senators Clinton (NY) and Obama (IL). And it's just as false today as it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Clinton and Obama sell themselves as agents of change, and the bait is a whole plateful of entitlement programs, led by nationalized health insurance.

How will they pay for this? The major remedy is: Bring the boys home--the current defense budget, they say, is the cause of deficits; lowering it will restore fiscal sanity and pay for the their proposed bag of social goodies.

For decades, the cry from the left has been the same. Cut defense and spend the savings on more social programs.

It's time for a few facts.

Defense spending under Eisenhower ranged from 55 to 66 percent of all spending--he dealt with the Korean and Cold Wars.

Under Kennedy-Johnson, defense spending was 45 to 48 percent of all spending--they dealt with the Vietnam War and Cold Wars.

Under Nixon-Ford, defense spending was 27-39 percent of all spending--they faced the Vietnam and Cold Wars.

Under Carter, defense spending was 23 percent of total spending--he dealt with the Cold War.

Under Reagan, defense spending was 25 to 27 percent of total spending (and he was pilloried for this "exorbitant" increase)--he ended the Cold War.

Under Bush 41, defense spending was 23 percent of total spending--he dealt with the Gulf War.

Under Clinton, defense spending was 16 to 19 percent--he served during a relatively peaceful period.

Under Bush 43, defense spending has ranged from 18 to 20 percent (2007/08 estimated) of total spending--he is leading the War against Terrorism.

And while defense spending was de-emphasized in this way (forcibly, because presidents increasingly found it impossible to fund the defense establishment the times required), deficits soared.

Remove your shoes and gloves and count. You will arrive at the only sane conclusion: Defense spending is not causing deficits today (or yesterday), and those who say so are misleading the American people.

The world is not pretty. War is upon us, brought to our shores by evil men. Defending ourselves is the imperative of the times, and should be the focus of all presidential candidates. Those who misdirect the American mind away from that truth should never lead a nation that hopes to survive.

22 comments »

WRITERS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

It is a rare writer who has not been asked a whole series of questions about his work, and his work habits.  In my experience the two most prominent ones are: Where do you get the ideas, and how do you get a book published?

 The sources of ideas are so different from writer to writer that it isn't possible to come up with a general formulation that would make sense.  But getting a book published is different--it involves a laborious process that all writers must commonly endure.  To illustrate, I'll concentrate herein on two types of books: novels and non-fiction.

 A novel must be at least 50,000 words in length.  These days, 80,000 is a more common minimum, and over 100,000, is not unusual.  This means the idea (plot) that supports the novel must be large enough and deep enough to justify the page count.

When the novel is complete, the next step is to find an agent--one cannot sell long fiction without one.  There are several sources, including the internet, that provide listings of agents and what they require of writers who seek their services.  Experienced novelists with a track record can enlist an agent before the novel is finished.  New novelists should complete their book before seeking an agent.  Big-time agents won't even talk to new novelists unless they are recommended by a trusted friend.

 Agents commonly want to see the first three chapters of any proposal.  If they like what they read, they will ask for more.  If interest continues, a contract between the writer and the agent may follow, before or during the refining process during which the writer responds to the agent's suggestions until both are satisfied with the end product. 

 At the end of the refining process (long or short depending on a number of variables) the manuscript is presented to a publisher.  If the editor likes it, he/she becomes the advocate for the book within the publishing house.  If success is achieved, the agent and publisher negotiate terms and the book is published.  For a new novelist the entire process can cover from two to three years.

 Non-fiction can involve an agent, but it can also be sold directly by the writer to the publisher.  Some major publishers will not deal with unagented writers, but many others will.  If an agent is involved, the process is much the same as described earlier.

To sell a work directly requires source books like those published by Writer's Digest that help the writer to identify the most likely publishers for his work, and follow this with query letters, fishing for interest.  When a hit is made, dialogue begins, usually followed by a submission of three chapters.  Thereafter, if the writer scores, a contract is offered, editing begins and the book is on its way.  To research, write and sell a work of non-fiction can also take 2-4 years.

 At the present time, I have a novel with an agent in New York that is about one-third of the way through the refining process, which will take months because of her busy schedule.  When that is finished, she will try to sell it to an editor within a publishing house who will, in turn, try to sell it to the editorial board.  If everything works out, the novel will be published; if it doesn't, it won't. 

 Also, I've just completed the non-fiction process.  From beginning to end, it has taken about two years to bring this project to fruition.  The book, The National Debt of the United States, 1941-2008, is currently available at most bookstores and at amazon.com.  I am pleased to have it behind me and now, like all writers, I'll begin to fish for a new idea that is big enough to fill 350-400 pages.  Why?  Because that's what writers do.  They write. 

1 comment »

1 comment »

"The conservative has his roots in the past, and seeks permanence; while the liberal glories in his vision of the future, and is a champion of change." -- Prospects for Conservatives, Russell Kirk, 1989, Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C.

"Conservative" and "republican" are not synonyms--one is not the same as the other. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) for example, are only marginally better conservatives than, say, Democrats Ben Nelson (NB) and Mary Landrieau (LA). For all practical purposes, these senators are loose cannons in their respective caucuses, predictably casting survival votes that will protect their jobs in the Senate.

Conservatism is not an ideology; but, usually, conservatives vote Republican--but in doing so they do not rubber stamp all Republican policies.

For example, conservative opposition defeated the McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill, which was also supported by President Bush. And conservatives still complain about the expanded cost of education in the federal budget, a by-product of a Bush-Kennedy handshake. Also, the increased cost of Medicare that followed a Bush initiative (which did not also require badly-needed reforms for that improperly funded program) is opposed by conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy of life that is lived according to universal principles that have come to us over the ages. Conservatives do not believe in the perfectibility of man by man; they seek to resolve modern problems by reconciling the wisdom of the ages with the demands of the day. Conservatives reject grandiose ideas like the Great Society, or Change (to what?); they seek instead practical solutions to this or that particular problem in this time and place under these particular circumstances.

These reflections lead to the current clamor about John McCain, and his fitness to lead the Republican campaign for the presidency.

Conservatives are disturbed that McCain never had to campaign nose-to-nose against a conservative candidate--he has won his delegates because of his appeal to independent voters, and to those who rightly consider the war against terror to be the over-riding issue of the day.

Resistance to McCain is not personal. He is an honorable man. But his judgment is questioned, and his perceived fidelity to conservative principles, as evidenced by his votes, is not reassuring.

McCain has a grade of 57 as a supporter of Republican positions in the Senate; 44 Republicans did better; on social issues he voted Republican less than half the time. The best Republican was 63 percent more reliable than he.

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts; he now says he will support them. Wobbly?

In January 2006, McCain said that closing Guantanamo Prison was premature; in March and April 2007 he said he would close it. Decisive?

News reports agree that "waterboarding" was used on three prisoners who supplied information that saved many American lives. Nationally and internationally, McCain, in effect, charged the U.S. with a policy of torture. His complaints were wildly overstated and harmful to the U.S. image. Balanced?

McCain-Feingold (Democrat) is considered by many as legislation that created more election problems than it cured. Judgment?

McCain-Kennedy (Democrat) proposal on immigration caused a national uproar that finally defeated it. Judgment?

McCain-Lieberman (Democrat) bill dealing with energy would, according to Heritage Foundation, be extraordinarily expensive and would solve little relative to global warming. More importantly, McCain, like Al Gore, blames mankind for global warming and seeks energy solutions that could cost billions--perhaps to no avail. On this and other environmental issues (like drilling in Anwar) McCain is solidly anti-conservative. Judgment?

Pro-life McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. This is the anti-conservative position. He voted to confirm one of the most liberal, pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, Ruth Ginsburg. Consistency?

McCain may be a dependable war leader; his reputation as a budget cutter is well-earned. But he has little else to offer conservatives.

4 comments »

Potential Monumental Voter Fraud

Identification is constantly requested as Americans in every day life try to cash checks, buy food or complete any number of transactions. The question is almost always the same: May I see your driver's license, please?

Now a driver's license is not proof of citizenship, nor is it the same as a valid passport. Yet, in the real world, the license is treated as such -- it automatically leads to many of the rights of citizenship.

Any American or legal visitor to the United States can obtain a driver's license for so long as they satisfy laws that apply thereto. But until recently, it has not been available to anyone else.

Then came partisan politics and the ensuing race to capture the Latino vote. And common sense went out the window.

The most recent example took place in New York. Gov. Eliot Spitzer decided to make the driver's license available to illegal aliens. And Hillary Clinton, leading Democratic contender for the presidency, agreed with him.

If the governor had prevailed (he didn't), it is estimated that 500,000 illegals living in New York would have qualified for the license--one more step toward an illegal entry of the voting booth.

If this problem were restricted to a huge state like New York, it would be a serious one. Any politician with presidential ambitions who takes New York has a great head start, and having the legal and illegal Latino vote on his side would be a major asset.

But the problem is not restricted to New York. Fourteen other states already issue licenses to illegals: Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, N. Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and W. Virginia.

The stage, it seems, is being set for the most colossal example of voter fraud that this nation has ever seen. Observe:

• The overwhelming majority of Americans want English declared as the official language; politicians vote against it.
• English literacy is a requirement of citizenship, but dual language on official documents is common, an obvious act of outreach to non-citizens (and illegal voters).
• No effective action has been taken to stop the flow of illegal immigration, especially on the southern border.
• Powerful politicians are pushing for amnesty and eventual citizenship to the 12-20 million illegals who are presently in the nation.
• No serious effort has been made to identify illegals presently occupied in American jobs.
• The nation is full of cities that provide safe haven for illegals.

As a consequence, swarms of illegals are in the nation working, paying taxes and increasingly demanding the rights of citizenship. And they are getting plenty of them: Their children are in American schools; hospital waiting rooms of the larger cities are flooded with them. And now, we're giving them a driver's license.

Seldom, if ever, have the major political parties been so separated from the will of the people. Americans appreciate and want immigration. But they also want other things:

• American laws must be obeyed.
• Borders must be protected -- the illegal inflow must stop.
• Immigrant quotas must be adjusted to meet American needs.
• Immigrants must assimilate.
• Employers who hire illegals must be significantly punished.

While it is the common wisdom that the war and how it is to be handled in the future will be the determining issues of the 2008 presidential campaign, no issue is felt more deeply in the American gut than this question of illegal immigration. Before too many weeks have passed, it could make or destroy some candidates.

Candidates who persuade Americans that they will protect the nation in war and at the borders should prevail--if the vote is honest.

3 comments »