Conservative's Conscience

Political Correctness and Associated Costs

Judging by the plethora of Supreme Court rulings over the years, an outsider would get the impression that Americans are psychotic about their insistence on protecting their extra-special right of free speech.  For example, the governing constitutional language that protects it ("Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech....") was, to those who wrote the First Amendment, designed to protect POLITICAL speech -- the right to peaceably dissent from a prevailing political position. 

The Court in its rulings has gone far beyond that straightforward objective, to such an extent that, for example, striptease dancing, foul language and pornography have at one time or another been accepted by it as examples of constitutional "free speech."

However, when, as they say, one lifts the cover and peers beneath, one finds that if free speech were measured in terms of gallons, Americans have been losing their right to it by the quart, every year for a half-century. 

Today we all know that to speak openly about any hyphenated-American is to invite classification as a heartless bigot, or a homophobe.  The latest example of this is any form of "free speech" that concerns the violent Islamists (practitioners of fundamental Islam) in the world and in this country.  The result of this attitude is the modern acceptance of restrictions on speech, popularly known as political correctness, defended on the grounds of compassion, etiquette or the need to promote multiculturalism. 

So, without help from the Supreme Court (which has become an out-of-control branch of the federal government, which routinely abrogates powers more properly assigned to the legislative and executive branches), free speech drifts away. 

Famous comedians of yesteryear who told (usually about themselves) hilarious ethnic jokes for a living would be stoned in today's politically correct world.  More importantly, the prevailing norms prevent open, robust, but civilized discussion of serious domestic problems.

The fear of speaking openly about issues that need discussion and resolution has also had significant cost internationally.  Arguably, for example, Islamists have weakened NATO more than the Soviet Union or Russia ever did.  And this will get worse as time marches on (Europeans are propagating at a lower-than-survival rate; Western Europe could be governed by Sharia law (Muslim law) in the next century).    

Most nations in Western Europe have large and growing Muslim populations.  Unlike the United States, where seven million or so Muslims are dispersed across the country, the European immigrants cluster together and, unassimilated, become nations within nations.  Their imams (prayer leaders in mosques with the political wallop of, say, ministers in America's black churches) are often Islamists who openly teach and preach revolutionary doctrine.  These groups are a constant source of worry and concern to political leaders.

If you believe internal pressures exercised by Islamists on, say, England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have played no part in their weak-kneed responses to problems in the Middle East, you are dreaming; and if you believe European criticism of American foreign policy has nothing to do with internal Islamist pressure you are not thinking.    

We're seeing the same intellectual cowardice in the United States today.  Two startling incidents make the point:

o       Islamic prisoners have been held in a specially-constructed prison in Guantanamo Bay.  It's an ideal location -- no threat to Americans.  But, for political reasons (Islamic pressure?), it has become a target of those who (insanely) hold that these prisoners deserve the same legal rights afforded to American citizens.  President Bush buckled to pressure and agreed to close it; President Obama said he'd empty it by January 2010, but failed to specify what he intended to do with the terrorists.  A hint of his intentions has just been revealed.  The leader of the 9-11 group will be brought to U.S. shores and tried in a New York court as a criminal, defended by lawyers who are charged with the duty to get their client acquitted.  This decision to treat this terrorist as an ordinary criminal was made to re-establish the Clinton position that the United States is not at war with Islamists (wherever they are), but is instead dealing with a small group of gangsters who -- like Al Capone -- will one day be punished in U.S. courts, under the same laws and protections that govern Americans.  The hope is, apparently, that Islamists will appreciate this tender treatment of one of their own. 

o       A rogue Islamist officer in the U.S. Army recently murdered thirteen soldiers in Texas.  Throughout his career he openly showed his allegiance to Islam; he maintained active correspondence with an al-Qaeda leader.  As he was killing the soldiers he shouted praise to Allah, no doubt expecting he would soon be in the arms of the virgins in heaven, the promised reward for soldiers of Allah.  But he survived.  And the elite media is already full of psychological explanations for why the poor man went on this rampage.  Words like Islamist, terrorist and war are seldom uttered.  Fear is in the air.  Who will do what to whom if we execute this guy for being what he is? -- a one-man Islamist army who was caught. 

We have become a nation of wimps.

Those who deny the United States is in a war -- those who believe the bad days will be over as soon as bin Laden is caught, or as soon as a few hundred Taliban are killed -- are living in a dream-world.  Their children will be fighting this war.

This is overstatement?  Consider this: Extremists control Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and other smaller Arab and African countries.  Russia and China will never support us.  History is waving good-bye to England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy.  Central and South America are being radicalized; Cuba is still Castro territory; Canada is broke.                       

Keep your powder dry.   

13 comments »

Urban Legends and the Harm They Do

Everything you always wanted to know about the Constitution but were afraid to ask

Mikhail Gorbachev, a dedicated communist, once said (paraphrased): We both seek freedom.  You (the U.S.A.) provide freedom to choose; we provide freedom from want. 

There, in a nutshell, you have the lure of communism: It comforts those who doubt their ability to survive in a free market economy; it offers instead the warm and comfortable teat of a "caring" government.     

Until 1916, America chose liberty; ever since, it has been tilting toward security; in the 1960s, the tilt became a sharp slope.   

Urban Legend #1 - Regarding the Constitution as a "living document" has had beneficial results.

The Constitution was regarded, until 1912, as the best exposition of the road to freedom ever composed.  So unique and hope-filled was it that some felt it was inspired by a higher power who guided a unique group of motivated men to agree that, whatever their differences and preferences, freedom was the highest value -- and, come what may, they would have it and pass it on.  They succeeded -- for a time.

Then came progressivism, which today we call liberalism, represented first by Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican who became progressivism's first champion when he failed to win the nomination of his party), and was then lifted to the status of a dominant ideology in 1916 under Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat who warmly embraced its central tenets).

It was during those dark days that the Constitution became a "living document," gleefully interpreted as such by a line of liberal presidents, especially Wilson, FDR and Johnson, and the judges that they and others appointed. 

"Freedomism" and progressivism have one thing in common: They both see before them the consequences of an imperfect system of government.  Their distinct difference is this:

• The former seeks solutions through the states and the people, and it fundamentally believes that federal power to act has been properly and specifically limited by the language of the Constitution.  It seeks constant improvement, not perfection.
• The latter seeks solutions through government action, and it fundamentally believes the restrictive language in the Constitution needs to be interpreted in the light of modern needs, as determined by those who have executive and judicial responsibilities.  It seeks the perfect society.       

Some believe these differences to be legalistic and of no consequence to the average man.  Not true.  Walking away from the form of government established by the Founders, and its realistic objectives -- the trend for almost a century -- has had dire consequences with universal impact. 

Government is bigger and more intrusive; taxes are higher, debt is unbelievably large and, most important, freedom is less.  As the caring government has grown, poverty has persisted, education is inferior, national unity has disappeared and national defense is weaker. 

America in 2009, after a half-century of government intrusion, faces a fragmented society, an unstable economy, a Godless future and devaluation of the dollar, which could destroy the buying power of the accumulated savings of those it said it would assist. 

The Founders provided a Constitution grounded in cement, that could be changed only after a laborious process of state and national review was completed.  Their successors, who have avoided that process, turned it into legalistic mush subject to interpretation by the next imaginative politician, lawyer or judge with a "worthy" cause.   

Urban Legend #2 - The Federal Government Can Efficiently Manage A Nationalized Health Care System

 FDR and Truman opened the constitutional door for the creation of the Welfare State.  Lyndon Johnson drove a truck through it.

John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson took office in 1961 -- this was the beginning of the new Welfare State.  Federal revenue in 1960 was $92 billion; in 2008, $2.5 trillion -- twenty-seven times higher.  The cost of Human Resources (the Welfare State) in 1960 was $26 billion; in 2008, $1.8 trillion -- 69 times higher.    

There, in a nutshell, you have the primary reason for the choking level of national debt and the threat to the value of the dollar, and your savings. 

Your government did that to you.  It knowingly collected and spent your money in this way.  The debt is not a mistake.  It was created by elected officials who are doing more of the same today.  It was not primarily caused by the costs of wars and recessions; it was primarily caused by selfish politicians who bought your votes with federal gifts, and by voters who returned the same people to office, and are still doing so.

Every major program that currently sustains many Americans is in jeopardy because of excessive spending. 

Based on its own record, the federal government cannot manage a national health care system efficiently and, beyond that, it should remove itself and its corrosive influence from other social programs with all possible speed.

Urban Myth #3 - Conservative and Republican are Synonymous Terms

 Republicans are political activists who seek power because they share a common view of how the nation should be governed.  Some, not all, republicans are conservatives. 

Conservatives band together because they share a world view about man, who he is, where he came from and how he should be treated by government and everybody else.

Most, not all, conservatives are, politically, republicans because that party, of the two major parties, comes closest to sharing their views.  Many conservatives are moderates; some are democrats.

According to a recent Gallup poll (Oct. 27, 2009), Americans view themselves as follows: conservative - forty percent; moderate - thirty-eight percent; liberal - twenty percent  (Washington and the communications industries are dominated by the minority group --  liberals).     

As a general statement, conservatives are constitutional originalists -- they respect the creation of the Founders.  Some, not all, Republicans share that view.

Republicans seldom criticize a Republican president -- mavericks like John McCain, are the exception.  Conservatives criticize any president, dependent on his actions.  It was conservatives, for example, who turned the tide on President Bush's attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

"Ideas Have Consequences," said Richard Weaver in 1948, and his comment has the same eternal verity as the language of the Constitution. 

You will and you have acted as you've believed.  Verify carefully the truths you embrace and the labels you use, for they will define you over time.

111 comments »

Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset

Since the election of 2000, and especially since the beginning of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, President Bush was -- and is -- blamed by some for all the problems the nation has faced.  This attitude, obviously incorrect on its face, poisons political debate.  It continues today, as unproductive as ever, and will be examined below under two headings.   

Iraq

Bush is a liar.  This charge dates back to the beginning of the war in Iraq.  No weapons of mass destruction were found; Bush and prominent members of the Democratic Party said, before the war, that Iraq had them.   

This gulf between apparent reality and claim was pounced upon by Bush's political opponents as a chance to make meaningful points -- they called him a liar.  The insult gained acceptance among the most outspoken liberals.  He was branded. 

The case that this charge is entirely political in nature is easy to make:

• Bill Clinton and his administration believed that Saddam Hussein had to be taken down for national security reasons.  In 1997, U.S. military forces were inoculated against anthrax as a preparatory move to possible war with Iraq -- chemical and biological weapons in Iraq was taken as a given. 
• In 1998, Secretary Albright said: "Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community." 
• Clinton confirmed Albright's concerns: "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapons and has the missiles to deliver them. ... And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use his arsenal." 
• By this time, nuclear bombs made by Hussein were also considered to be a near term danger. 
• In August 1998, Clinton signed a law (passed unanimously in the Senate and by 407-6 in the House) that authorized the president to "take appropriate action ... to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."  By the time Bush took office, the situation was worse, not better. 
• This was the attitude in place when Bush became president; his own security people confirmed it; he believed in it; the United Nations and the intelligence systems of all prominent nations agreed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons -- he was close to acquiring the ability to produce nuclear weapons -- he had the will and capacity to smuggle weapons to all parts of the world, including the United States. 
• Bush acted based upon the best information available.
• The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves nothing.  Six months prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam knew the U.S. was preparing for war.  He had ample time to ship material to safe locations in, say, Syria.  Israel claims he did so.  Maybe he had them; maybe he didn't.  But everybody thought he did. 
• Lying is the willful misrepresentation of facts.  Bush's reports to the Congress and to the people were accurate representations of the truth as he (and many others) knew it.  To call him a liar is blatantly incorrect, unfair and political.
• The final truth of this is the way Clinton, the Congress and Secretary Colin Powell have been handled by the same people who damn Bush.  Clinton's correct analysis of the situation and the approval of it by Democrats in Congress are forgotten, because they embarrassingly contradict the charge made against Bush.  Secretary Powell announced to the world, in a United Nations appearance, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but he is never called a liar. 
• These people who shared the same "truth" as Bush and who said the same words, are not called liars.  That insult is reserved for the Republicans some seek to demonize -- Bush and Cheney.  

Should Iraq have been invaded? If so, at that time, or a later time?  These are legitimate questions worthy of debate.  But sensible discussion is stopped in its tracks by the smug, know-it-all and simplistic statement, "Bush is a liar." To which there is only one sensible response: "Grow up!"  

The recession

Bush did it! 

This is the message from the Obama administration; it is making the same claims today. 

Change? 

Certainly, this approach to the economic problem is a marked change from how Bush handled the economic crisis of 2001. 

He walked into a recession, and didn't blame Clinton -- he went to work; a few months later, Enron and other corporate scandals broke out and added to the economic problem.  He didn't blame Clinton -- he went to work.  Then came 9-11, an attack from a network of terrorists that grew to maturity under Clinton.  Bush didn't blame his predecessor -- he went to work.

Truth is that presidents seldom cause recessions during their own administrations, but their policies can stimulate them in years ahead.  The United States has been heading for economic problems since the 1960s at which time Washington's politicians decided that spending could exceed revenue, as they wished.  We are paying for that attitude today. 

The establishment of Fannie Mae in 1968 and Freddie Mac in 1970 as government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), and the passage in 1977 of the Community Reinvestment Act are useful places to begin when looking for causes of the 2009 recession, which was led by a crash in the housing market and the subsequent financial pressures on banks, which was followed by a slowdown in the general economy. 

The civil rights movement resulted in a lot that was good and some that was bad.  One of the bad things was the tendency to convert dreams into rights.  In this case, homes are the issue.  The dream of owning one's own home was converted by the Utopians into a right to own one's own house.

Rights never stand alone.  They are followed by obligations.  If Susie has a right to a house, anything that erases or weakens it must be removed. 

What was the most prominent thing in Susie's way? -- bank lending practices.  They had to be evil, because they interfered with Susie's rights.    

In those days banks seldom opened branches in neighborhoods that had a high crime rate; they didn't lend money to people who couldn't demonstrate the ability and character to repay.  The two "Cs" were the foundation of lending policy: Capacity and Character. 

Unfair, said the government; discrimination, said the government.

And they had statistics to prove that the poor had a harder time getting loans than the non-poor.  Wow!  This had to change.  And the federal government, of course, had to do the changing.  

You own a bank and won't put a branch bank on Murder Avenue?  You're a racist and government will find a way to brand you and punish you.  You insist on a down payment with the mortgage?  You're a racist.  You require detailed information about a potential borrower's income and assets.  You're a racist.  You worry about ability to repay?  No excuse -- sell the mortgage to one of the GSE and let them worry.

A note about GSE: They are supposed to be private operations but the wink-wink attitude in the investment business is that the government won't let them fail -- they are federal operations in a sheep's clothing.  For that reason investment instruments made up of sub-par mortgages became popular with experienced investment people.     

In such a climate is it any wonder that the sale of houses boomed, and the supply of sub-par mortgages crept into the portfolios of banks and others. 

Perhaps to draw attention away from the real causes of the recession much is made of predatory bankers, and borrowers so thick-headed that they were hoodwinked into buying champagne houses with beer pocketbooks.  Some of this happened.  But its impact was miniscule compared to the power of the federal steamroller that forced unwise lending practices into a naturally conservative industry.[a]    

Until? 

The bubble burst.  The price of housing fell, in many cases below the size of the mortgage.  Borrowers walked away from the property; foreclosures multiplied with rabbit-like speed.     

Bush did it?  Balderdash!  So did your Aunt Minnie.

Bush had his problems, with conservatives as well as liberals.  But it's time to put him to bed and face the problems at hand -- look for solutions instead of villains. 

One thing Obama can learn from Bush -- stop talking, grow up and go to work.

[a] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still in business doing the same old thing; there is no movement to outlaw or modify the CRA.  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, major protectors of the current system, are still in high positions of power.  The Obama administration is trying to refuel the housing market with the tools that destroyed it.

45 comments »

Obama and Communism

According to Karl Marx, the patron saint of communism, socialism is a temporary bus stop on the road to communism.  It concentrates on the distribution of wealth and it is constantly decorated with such phrases as "social justice," which has a nice ring to it and appeals to the natural instinct of those who have little, to resent those who have much. 

But by the time the bus ride ends, the letters before "ism" change from "social" to "commun," and an entirely new system of government is in place, totalitarian in form -- one party owns the means of production and controls the distribution of wealth.     

The United States is a republican democracy that operates under an over-riding law called the Constitution.  Supreme power resides in us, and it is exercised through representatives who are elected by us.  The chief executive is not a king or an appointee or a dictator -- he/she too is elected. 

The republican form is superior to and more stable than a pure democracy because a few layers of protection guard it against its worst fault -- mob rule.

The fundamental weakness of socialism is that it eventually runs out of rich people.  When that crossroads is reached (as in Europe today) a nation has two ways to go: It can find a savior (like Hitler) who seems to have all the answers -- he will lead them the rest of the way to communism; or it can turn back (as some European nations are trying to do) and re-establish freedom, which developed the wealth they destroyed during their dalliance with socialism.

The fundamental weakness of communism is that it invariably destroys religion as well as it destroys the creativity of its people.  Those who prosper serve the state's purpose in some way (science, the arts, etc.); others, rendered soulless by the destruction of religion, are moved about like checkers on a board according to the needs of the state.  The net effect is a backward, impoverished nation and a population that lives without hope. 

Communist nations are by definition aggressive because only through conquest can they respond to the need for national pride and demonstrate to their own and to the world the effectiveness of their leadership, and their form of government.     

And what does this have to do with President Obama?  The answer is easy: His past associations and his current behavior raise a simple question: Is he a socialist, a communist, or a republican democrat?

Obama's background with Rev. Jeremiah Wright for twenty years need not be repeated here, except to say that few Americans would sit still for two decades listening to a Marxist deliver his viciously anti-American sermons and fewer still would call such a man a friend, and permit him to marry them or to baptize their children. 

Obama did.  He refers to him fondly as if he were an eccentric uncle with whom he disagrees.  It might be true.  Do you believe him?  

Bill Ayers was an early Obama political supporter; he served with Obama on the same board of directors for an extended period.  Ayers is co-founder of an anti-American group known as the Weathermen -- they bombed a New York police headquarters in 1970; the Capital building in Washington in 1971; the Pentagon in 1972. 

Would you spend any time with a man like that?  Would you accept his support for your career?  Obama did.  He says the relationship was casual and of no consequence.  It may be true.  Do you believe him?

Saul Alinsky was a Marxist organizer, the patron saint of radicals and revolutionaries.  He began one of his books with a tribute to Satan -- ""the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment, and did it so effectively that he ... ended up with his own kingdom -- Lucifer." 

Obama was a boy when Alinsky died, but he was taught Alinksy's methods by people who had attended a school that Alinsky founded. 

Alinsky's son described the 2008 Democratic Convention as a model of Alinsky's approach; he applauded Obama for learning his lessons well. 

I've never heard anyone question Obama about his opinion of Alinsky's views and tactics.  Perhaps he disagrees with them.  Do you think so?        

There is no need to repeat here the slimy behavior of ACORN representatives, or the many scandals that surround their voter registration drives.  Advocates of Alinsky's rules and regulations, they operate nationally and have been receiving supporting funds from the federal government (which have been put on hold because of disgraceful revelations).    

Obama's relationship with ACORN is decades old.  He worked with them on a voter registration drive; he trained their new people in Chicago; during his run for the Chicago Senate, he listed ACORN as his top supporter; he represented them in court. 

Obama treats his past relationship with this radical operation as casual.  Perhaps it was.  Do you believe it? 

The media is increasingly reports on some of Obama's czars.  Investigation almost invariably detects socialist or communist views.  One czar has resigned; it appears others will follow because the fresh air has defined them. 

Obama acts as if he's above such appointments.  He's uninvolved.  Somebody else is at fault.  Do you believe that?

The federal government has taken over the home mortgage business; it is deeply involved financially and administratively in the automobile and banking businesses.  It is attempting once more to impose -- or take steps toward -- nationalized health insurance; cap and trade legislation will soon appear on the congressional docket.  If successful, the federal government will be hip deep into the energy business.

What's going on?  Who is this guy?  Is he a socialist, a communist or a democratic republican?

204 comments »

I'm Sick Of It. How About You?

The world has gone mad.  What used to be bad is now good.  Words no longer have a reliable meaning.  Thieves and cheats are our respected leaders.  I'm sick of it.  A few examples of these things follow, as they occur to me. 

If you want to look for a new position, can you do so openly, ignoring the responsibilities of your present job, while continuing to get your full paycheck from a boss who doesn't complain, and who will welcome you back if your job search fails?  I doubt it.  But politicians do it all the time.  How come?  Who said they were entitled to treatment that nobody else gets?   Why do we let them get away with it?  It makes me sick. 

President Obama said, during his speech to the Congress, that illegal aliens would not be covered under his government plan for health care.  Constitutional lawyers know this isn't true.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that nobody can be excluded from a government plan.  Obama is a constitutional lawyer -- he taught the stuff.  He knows that what he said is untrue; he knows that even if his plan had specific wording that excluded illegals, it would be challenged and found unconstitutional.  Why won't he accurately describe what it is he has in store for us?  His hypocrisy sickens me.

Candidate Obama pledged he would not raise by one cent the taxes on the middle class.  A tax is any action on the part of government that removes money from your pocket, no matter what label is attached to the action -- a fee, a regulation, etc.  His health plan will tax insurance companies; to compensate, the companies will raise premiums.  Voila! You have less money.  That's a tax.  Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are already discussing the possibility of a value added tax (VAT) -- goods and services are taxed at the provider level.  This is a national sales tax in disguise; it will hurt everybody, especially low income young people and fixed income retirees.  Who do they think they're kidding?  Why don't they speak plainly and stop using words to confuse, instead of to inform?  I'm sick of these people.

Marriage is a simple word.  Its historical meaning is clear: It's the legal union of a man and a woman who publicly pledge to be responsible to and for each other.  It has been promoted as such by the state because it is in its interest to protect an institution that most efficiently perpetuates the species and rears children in the most reliable way to be good, law-abiding citizens.  To call the union of homosexuals"marriage" is a simple abuse of language.  The movement to do so is nothing more than a reaction to the power of the homosexual movement, which seeks to establish equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual unions.  If the state wishes to establish incentives for homosexual unions, as it has for marriage, and the people agree, so be it.  But let's leave marriage out of it; let's leave language alone.  It's bad enough that we call hip-hop music.  Why make things worse?  I'm sick of people who pin dignified historical symbols on modern trends in an effort to gain respectability and support.      

Rep. Charlie Rangel (NY) is a powerful member of the House leadership team.  He is a certified tax cheat involving big bucks.  Because he's important, he's being protected by his peers.  How come laws that apply to us don't apply to lawmakers?  Cheating is not a partisan affair - it exists on both sides of the aisle.  Why do we tolerate cheaters?  I'm sick of it.  Put them all in the pokey.

The public education system has been a travesty for decades.  To fix it, union power must be broken and competition must be created.  This won't be done because Democrats will not oppose unions, nor will they permit vouchers or charter schools to a degree that challenges union monopoly.  Unions have their place; they have done good work; there is still a place for them.  But when their welfare starts to become more important than something like quality education, they must back off.  They won't; nobody will make them.  And that makes me sick. 

The American election system is one of our most prized institutions.  With it, we create the voice of the people that, through our elected officials, guides the formation of our laws.  To corrupt the system is to corrupt democracy itself.  Recent reports suggest that ACORN, an organization allegedly providing services to the poor, has corrupted many elections throughout the nation.  Its existence and activities have not been unknown by some of the most influential leaders in Washington.  Why are they protected?  I'm sick of politicians who look the other way when our institutions are trashed.    

Many presidents have had assistants.  Today we call them czars, and they are getting lots of attention because there are so many of them, as if President Obama is setting up a whole new layer of government that is responsible to nobody but him.  One of them is a self-proclaimed communist (resigned); another believes animals should have attorneys; another wants to control content on the radio.  On and on it goes.  Where do these guys come from?  Can't Obama find normal Americans to fill posts in the American government?  I'm sick of seeing tax dodgers and eccentrics lifted to high positions in government.

Lists like this could go on and on.  No doubt you could build one of your own, which makes the point - the world has gone mad.     

19 comments »

A Hatful of Problems-No Solutions In Sight

The United States is surrounded with problems and there is a growing feeling that the federal government has no idea of what to do about them. 

This isn't the first time we've had a busy presidency.  Johnson and Nixon were as busy as any two presidents in history.  They didn't always perform as we would have liked, but most of us felt, rightly or wrongly, that they knew what they were doing -- both were re-elected by huge majorities.

Reagan was faced with the Iranian crisis, the Cold War, Central America turmoil, an out-of-control federal budget, a sick economy and the threat of national bankruptcy.  His decisions weren't always correct, but most of us felt he knew what he was doing -- he was re-elected by a huge majority.

George Bush, much like President Obama, was greeted with a recession that, among other things, resulted in a reduction in federal income (the most severe in modern presidential history), inclining federal deficits, a corporate scandal that shocked Wall Street, the devastating attack of 9-11 and the wars that followed. 

Bush didn't always do the right thing, but most of us believed he was in charge -- in 2004 he was re-elected with twelve million more votes than he got four years before.     

Today we once again have an administration faced with a variety of problems.  So far, they are not new ones.  There was plenty of time before, during and after the election to study them, and to devise, at the least, the appearance of confidence in dealing with them.  Perhaps over time, rightly or wrongly, we will come to believe the administration is in charge -- it has developed plans that will lead to solutions. 

That is not presently the case, for example:    

IRAQ

America, rightly or wrongly, invested considerable capital and American blood to bring Iraq to the state the new administration inherited in January 2009.  The threat of civil war was gone; there was safety on most streets; a reasonably stable government was in place; people voted from all sections of the country and the remaining issues to be negotiated by the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites had been reduced to a few. 

But the threat of Al-Qaeda and other mischief makers was still sufficient to maintain an American presence.  To hold gains -- to achieve promised benefits -- careful management was still needed.   

If the remaining days of the project went as planned, the United States would end up with another reliable friend in the Middle East (Israel is the other).  As a bonus, Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world and could serve as an invaluable ally against Iranian aggression. 

It was the job of the incoming administration to manage this project to a successful conclusion.  What has been done?

Discussion from Washington has seldom, if ever, mentioned the word "victory," or pointed to benefits that would flow from it.  Instead we get: Expressions of concerns over the civil rights of murderers who were captured on the battle field; arguments about when to free prisoners from the relatively luxurious accommodations of Guantanamo because Europeans disapprove of it; demands to prosecute C.I.A. personnel; plans to get out of Iraq as soon as possible irrespective of consequences; apologies for the actions of Americans during the war, etc. 

One gets the feeling that the management of the existing situation in Iraq is not in good hands; one suspects that making political points on this issue is more important than victory.

TERRORISM

"Terrorism" is an unfashionable word with the current administration.  Those who kill and bomb us are once again viewed as criminals (as they were under Clinton) who should be caught and processed through the American court system.

Is America at war?  Or is America dealing with a crime wave?  Which is it?

Being able to ask such questions at this stage of conflict with the bad guys is not comforting.

AFGHANISTAN

The war in Afghanistan was labeled by Democrats as the necessary war -- the legitimate war (as opposed to the Bush war in Iraq).  What is being done to win it?

Policy in Afghanistan has been largely unchanged.  The surge planned by Gen. Petraeus has yet to materialize. 

The government is not as stable as before.  Neighboring Pakistan is still a wobbly ally; the Taliban is stronger than ever; American commanders report the war will be lost absent the addition of about forty thousand new troops; the administration (which announced in March it had devised changed policy) has not responded to the request for troops, on the grounds that policy must again be reviewed.  More than likely, the decision is being avoided because of political pressure from the far left. 

The field commander may resign if administration support is not forthcoming.   

The handling of this war has been erratic and unproductive.  National confidence in the competence of the administration has waned.

NORTH KOREA

North Korea, holder of nuclear weapons, has been firing test missiles like firecrackers,   since Obama was elected, thumbing its nose at warnings to behave.  The sureness of how to handle this problem, articulated so frequently by Democrats for years, is no longer observable.  

Zero progress has been made on this front.

RUSSIA

The U.S. announced under the previous administration, over the objection of Russia, its intention to establish missile defenses in Eastern Europe as a deterrent against the war-making capacities of the rogue nation, Iran.

Under the current administration, the missile defense plan has been scrapped with no apparent quid pro quo from Russia.    

This is viewed by the world as a sign of American weakness. 

IRAN/ISRAEL

Iran has just fired its latest barrage of test missiles with the range to reach American troops in Iraq, many European cities and Israel. 

Iran threatens to destroy Israel; it refuses the United Nation's request to investigate its nuclear development program, which is being supported by Russia. 

Thus far, the administration's reaction to Iran has been to repeat warnings that are ignored, to schedule talks and to criticize Israel for not being more cooperative in its peace negotiations with Palestinians.

No mention is made of the fact that Iran supports the aggressive tactics of Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Hamas (Palestine) that for years have kept Israel under attack.  One is not sure that the administration knows what to do about this situation. 

Tiny Israel will probably be forced to demonstrate to America and the world how leaders make necessary decisions.  If no help is in sight, it will probably cripple Iran's nuclear capacity within eighteen months. 

What will happen next?  God only knows.

HEALTH CARE

President Obama announced on several occasions he favors socialized medicine in the Canadian/European model.  Other Democratic leaders agree.  They never demonstrate why they believe it will be a better system for the patient -- focus seems to be on cost, not quality. 

First, Obama insisted on a government plan in competition with private plans; next, he felt a government plan would be nice, but not imperative; now, Democrats are debating over a cooperative plan (a government plan in sheep's clothing).     

Since Democrats have been trying to socialize American medicine for more than a century, most notably under Clinton, one would think they would, by this time, know how to get it, especially when they own a veto-proof Congress, which is the case today.  But they don't know how. 

Why?  Because it's very difficult to be sneaky and believable at the same time; because they won't level with us; because they know they can't pass socialized health care under that name (some Democrats would not support it); because to get it they must devise a way to fool us -- some complicated way to get enough of it established in law so that it will inevitably evolve into socialized form.   

Obama has repeatedly claimed there is at least $500 billion of fraud in the Medicare system that will pay for the system change.  Question: If so, why wait for legislation to pass.  Go get it!  

If the handling of this problem wasn't so serious, it would be funny.  But indeed it is serious. 

America as we know it will be lost if the administration gets what it wants.  To see our future, look at toothless societies in Europe, which can no longer defend themselves --   social programs have eaten up their revenue.  Or look at European patients who can't get care because it is rationed, or because waiting lines are too long -- or because of the doctor shortage.

ENERGY

If the administration's health care initiative does not destroy America, its cap and trade energy program will. 

Sold as a solution to America's need for energy independence, the entire idea is a huge fraud, based upon wobbly evidence that the globe is dangerously warming and mankind is responsible for it, largely because of its dependence on fossil fuels.

One does not turn an economy upside down based upon the speculations of a former vice president supported by carefully selected "experts."  Temperatures have been cooling for a decade; many climatologists debunk the alarmist claims that support cap and trade. 

History will record U.S. stupidity over the energy question since the 1970s.  The solution is simple to state, if difficult to achieve. 

The first priority is to get away from dependence on foreign energy by producing our own -- oil, gas, coal, nuclear and anything else that will turn on a light bulb, or energize an engine.    

The second step is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for environmental reasons, and irrespective of climate change arguments. 

These obvious steps are not taken for a reason, for example: Cap and trade results in a huge flow of revenue to the federal government that will begin whenever it says so, and will continue ad infinitum.  In fact, the administration's energy program is a huge tax increase.

One does not get the feeling that the administration is on top of the energy problem. 

One solution to this mess?  Vote every office holder out when the next election comes, and continue to do so for so long as sensible challengers appear until those in charge begin to govern for us, not for themselves. 

31 comments »

Health Care-How Poilitics Destroys Common Sense

Facts are stubborn things. -- John Adams

The Politics

Wow!  Health care cost and quality is a national emergency; legislation must be passed to fix this.   

When?  Right now! 

Says who? -- Says Obama, president of the United States, and other Democratic leaders in Congress. 

What happens if it isn't done on schedule?  The consequences short term, he says, will be misery; long term will be economic disaster. 

How is this disaster to be avoided?  By implementing nationalized health insurance or, failing that, a substitute that will lead to it.  Shorthand for this approach is Obamacare.

How about those who disagree?  They are un-American Neanderthals who enjoy watching sick people suffer; public protesters are wild-eyed Nazis and racists waiting for their chance to blow up Washington, after which -- with white hoods in place -- they will lynch Obama.

What is the real political truth?  Many rational citizens want nothing to do with socialized medicine and they are saying so, sometimes dramatically.  Democrats have been trying to socialize medicine for more than a century; they believe this is the time they can either do it, or establish footholds that will lead to it; they want to do it right now because they fear after the 2010 election they will no longer have the votes in the Senate to pull it off.    

Common Sense

There is nothing new about the health care problem.  It was intrinsic to the way that health-related programs were established in the first place in the 1960s, waiting to blossom before the eyes of those who wanted to see.

There are three phases to it, Medicaid, Medicare and emergency room care.

Medicaid

Medicaid is socialistic medicine for people and families with low income and few assets, and also for children, and for people with various disabilities.  It is financed by federal and state government; the federal share is never less than half -- it averages almost sixty percent.  Most nursing home patients are on Medicaid; almost forty percent of all births are financed by it; AIDS is covered as a disability.  On average, the program takes about twenty percent of state budgets.  Nobody knows how many illegal aliens are enrolled in Medicaid; about forty-five to fifty million people receive Medicaid services each year at a total cost approaching $400 billion.

Once a social program is introduced, it is almost politically impossible to pull it back.  So, from a practical standpoint, Medicaid is here to stay. 

It is a problem because federal government decided to enter the health care business.  When Obama moans about the cost of Medicaid, he is complaining about a system that was created by Washington and imposed on states.  Socialism, as Europe and Canada have discovered, is expensive.        

The ultimate solution to such a program is to make it more efficient, while maintaining appropriate care (no rationing).  Some of its costs are rooted in attitudes established in Washington, for example: Failure to protect and promote the special status of traditional marriage and family has led to behaviors that bring unnecessary costs to the program; failure to exploit home care options to the fullest has unduly increased the population of nursing homes; failure to provide tax and other incentives to families who care for aging family members has done the same; failure to separate avoidable illnesses from others, and to treat them differently is unwise policy that encourages repeat behavior; failure to organize drug availability in the most efficient and effective way adds to prescription costs; failure to examine private sector solutions to the general problem is shortsighted. 

The federal budget for all "health" costs (excluding Medicare) was $2 billion in 1965; 1975, $13 billion; 1985, $34 billion; 1995, $115 billion; 2005, $251 billion; 2008, $280 billion. 

Welcome to the world of socialized medicine.  You don't have to look at Canada or Europe to see what it does to a nation's finances.  Just look at Medicaid and its "cost controls."  And after doing so, explain to yourself why in the world you would expect the federal government to efficiently and affordably run a nationalized insurance system, or any part of it.  

Common sense?  One program of socialized medicine is enough.  Never let it happen again. 

Medicare costs - government

Medicare is saved from the label of "socialistic" by the fact that most recipients of its benefits have paid for at least part of them with payroll taxes.

There is nothing new about the Medicar5e cost problem, and most everybody has known about it for years.  What's the big surprise?  In 1972, for example, payments exceeded revenue input, explicitly announcing that the system was improperly financed.

What is the flaw?  Medicare income is based upon payroll taxes (the cruelest tax of all).  What's wrong with that?  The structure assumed a relatively constant worker-retiree ratio.  Turns out that wasn't the case; that weakness was apparent in the 1970s.

In the 1950s, the worker-retiree ratio was 18-1; then the drop began until in 2005 it was 3-1; soon it will be 2-1.  Obviously, the financing structure must be changed -- the tax on payroll doesn't work.

In 1967, Medicare cost to the federal government was $3 billion; in 1977, $19 billion; in 1987, $75 billion; in 1997, $190 billion; in 2007, $375 billion.  This is another example of the great "cost control" of the federal government.  

Welcome to the world of medicine for retirees under a system devised by the federal government, which features more forms to fill out than there are doctors, nurses and hospitals combined -- a system that has no cost accountability between the patient and the service provider (except for premiums and minimum fees). 

Unsurprisingly, it has caused a crisis in the federal budget.

Common sense:  The crisis will not go away until the financing structure, and the entire system of accountability is changed.  No such ideas are recognized in Obamacare. 

Medicare costs - personal

On the consumer side, there are also cost problems, centered mostly on higher drug prices and regular increases in premium costs. 

The factors most responsible for high drug prices relate to the need for drug companies to survive, and to U.S. trade policy.

• To bring new drugs to the market requires huge ongoing research and development (R&D) programs financed by drug companies, the costs of which must be recovered from somebody.  Costs are amortized over the life of the drugs, and are reflected in selling prices wherever possible.
• The biggest foreign markets for U.S. drugs are countries with socialized medicine, which refuse to pay their share of the development costs.
• U.S. trade policy does nothing about this to protect U.S. drug companies.
• The result?  The U.S. consumer picks up most of the tab for R&D costs in the form of higher prices than, say, Canada.

Typically, having bailed out on the drug company problem, the federal government blames everybody but itself for high prices.  Drug companies are demonized and the government threatens to establish policies to force them to reduce prices. 

If it succeeds, R&D will be cut back and over time the wonderfully inventive drug- creation establishment in the U.S. will weaken and gradually wither away.  In theory, this will cost millions of lives globally, especially in third-world countries.

Premiums for Medicare and supplemental programs are directly related to the nature and the efficiency of the system.

Common sense: Costs will not come down until consumers of health services under Medicare become responsible for their own health (except for long-term and catastrophic care).  Barriers to interstate shopping by consumers for the most appropriate insurance coverage must be eliminated; the need to practice expensive defensive medicine caused by exposure to uncontrolled lawsuits must be corrected.  No such proposals appear in Obamacare.  

Emergency room care

The Obama administration has been claiming that forty million people are uninsured, and they get their medical care in emergency rooms, the uncollected cost of which works back into the system in the form of higher taxes or premiums. 

This is a false number floated for dramatic effect -- almost half are illegal aliens; many more are between jobs; others can afford coverage but don't want to pay for it.  Sifted down, something less than ten million people are chronically uninsured. 

Point one: One does not junk an existing system that (except for cost) is working, for a new one that has been tried, without success, in other parts of the world.

Point two: The biggest part of this problem is related to immigration policy.  Illegal aliens pour into emergency rooms.  If this isn't fixed, the problem won't be fixed.  For starters, patients who can't provide legal papers should be reported to the immigration service for action after they receive treatment. 

Point three: The uninsured, who can afford insurance and don't pay for services rendered, should be reported to an appropriate state agency for handling.  The problem should not happen twice.

Point four: "Between-job" people, and those who are chronically uninsured, should fall under some appropriate federal/state program.  This small but important aspect of the global problem should not be difficult to resolve.

Point five: One of the most under-reported aspects of this problem relates to the collection procedures of hospitals who deal with emergency room patients, many of whom have limited resources.  How efficient are collection procedures?  Who does the work?    

Common sense: Begin with immigration reform; then go on from there.

General

Before there was such a thing as a President Obama, there was a health care problem in the United States.  There's nothing new about it; it doesn't have to be fixed all at once in one sweeping bill that unwinds the best care system in the world.

The problems with the system were caused mostly by the federal government that inaugurated poorly structured social programs that had within them the seeds of their own destruction. 

There is a legitimate and limited role for government to play in a national health care system: long-term care/disaster protection; coverage for exotic diseases and procedures that unduly increase the costs and premiums in the private sector. 

The solution to the problem at the federal level will not be deficit neutral.  To say so, is to mislead the public. 

Federal deficits will go up as the old financing system switches to the new (if a new one is implemented); over time (probably more than fifteen years), costs and associated deficits will go down.    

Personal premium costs could go down rather rapidly as better consumer choices and increased competition take hold.  High Medicaid costs will diminish as fast as the government takes steps to attack fundamental causes.  The liklihood of this is minimal.     

Drug prices will come down and quality will be preserved if the federal government changes trade policy, insisting that R&D costs be a legitimate component of price in foreign markets. 

Drug prices will drop and quality will diminish if the federal government establishes price controls, directly or indirectly.    

The government's proffered solution to the problems caused by it should be rejected out of hand, based upon past history in and out of the United States.

Change is needed; piece by piece it must be put into motion.  Speed is the enemy of success.

Never forget!  Socialism may sound sweet to some but, in the end, it's expensive and cruel.

8 comments »

Van Jones-How Did This Happen To Obama

President Obama has supplemented the normal Executive organization with dozens of "czars" who oversee the work of other department heads, or who become Obama's eyes and ears within existing departments.  Van Jones, one of those czars, was charged with the development of green jobs.  A firm believer in the Goriology theory of global warming (mankind is responsible), Obama apparently chose Jones (who wrote a book on the green economy) to add muscle to the government's efforts in that direction.

Surprise!  Recent news reports indicate that Jones has resigned.  Why?  The reason is simple.  His background became public and, therefore, embarrassing to Obama. 

Van Jones has been an activist and organizer since he left college.  He was arrested twice during riots or protests.  After one stint in the pokey he revealed he had encountered other black activists who were communists, and he liked their style so much he worked with them for years in San Francisco. During this period he proudly announced that he was a communist (by definition, committed to the overthrow of the government).  Most recently his signature was found on a document that suggested President Bush might have been complicit in the 9-11 attacks.

When the information about Jones hit television, everybody knew his days were numbered.  So his resignation was no surprise.  But the uneasy question remains:  How did this nutcase ever get so close to the ultimate source of power in the United States?

More will come out on this next week, but chances are it won't get the coverage it deserves because the president's speech on healthcare will dominate the news.  So it may be useful here to speculate on how this communist got so close to the White House.

He wasn't vetted properly?  Possible, but doubtful.  His appointment was announced with kudos, indicating that he and his activities were well known.

He wasn't vetted thoroughly?  Possibly but unlikely.  Since Obama got burned on three cabinet choices earlier, the complaint has been that the vetting process is too slow - many positions are still unfilled because of this.

He was vetted properly, and he was found to be acceptable?  Bingo!  This is the most likely possibility.

But why in the world would the president find a communist to be an acceptable addition to his inner circle?

For the answer to that we must once again take a stroll down memory lane, that embarrassing roadway that leads back to Obama's beginnings - the lane that has yet to be fully investigated by the major media.

It all begins with Dr. James A. Cone, professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary (NYC).  His book, "Black Theology and Black Power" has bible-like status for black theologians.  It isn't a stretch to say that Cone is the St. Paul of black theology.  He has some interesting views on theology:

o       God is not for all people; He is for blacks.

o       Jesus was black.

o       Black theology calls for the complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means possible.

o       White Christianity is the racist anti-Christ

o       The cross and the lynching tree are symbolic of the same thing - the oppression of the weak by the strong.

o       The white church is uniformly racist.

o       The false Christianity of white racists must be replaced by authentic Christianity identified with blacks.

o       The black experience is the fundamental beginning point for ascertaining theological truth; black theology recognizes no authority greater than black experience. (Scripture is not an authentic source for authority).

o       God works for the deliverance of oppressed blacks.

o       Jesus is God; he came into being to deliver blacks from oppression.

Cone's views on society are equally interesting:

o       White America must be silent and listen to black people.

o       White men are responsible for black oppression.

o       Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called while people the "devil."

o       Advice from whites about black oppressions, are clever devices that will lead to further oppression.

o       America's racist society must be dismantled.

o       There is a close relationship between black theology and black power; the only hope for the church is through black power.

o       Violence will be necessary to emancipate blacks, the amount dependent on the level of resistance, which by definition is violence against blacks.

So what's the relationship between Cone's beliefs and Obama, and the subject at hand?

Answer: Cone is proud to say that his brand of black theology has been institutionalized in the Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago.

So what?  Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been (until recently) the pastor of that church.  So what?  Obama and his family attended that church for twenty years (until the relationship with Wright became politically hot); the pastor married Obama and Michelle; he baptized their children; he was considered by Obama to be a fried and adviser and because Wright is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "Audacity of Hope." 

Unless Obama wore ear plugs in church, and ignored all of the advice given by Wright, it is reasonable to assume he believes in black theology.  And another association in Chicago suggests he is also at home with social radicals; he finds it natural to associate with men like Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayers, a leader of the "Weather Underground Movement" in the 1970s, was a fugitive for ten years.  His group kept busy bombing the Pentagon and a string of other government buildings.  He and his wife avoided jail time on a technicality. Today he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. 

Ayers in the 1990s hosted a party for Obama during his first run for the Illinois senate; Obama served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago (they met four times a year, and at occasional parties); they interacted on educational matters for five years.  There is no record to indicate that Obama found Ayers' company distasteful.

Back to Van Jones -- he was a community activist.  It is clear by his actions that he was an advocate of black liberation theology and black power.  This is a resume that was familiar to Obama, one he found easy to approve.

Why did he hire him?  He was one of his own. 

Does it make you wonder?  Just exactly what do we have in the White House?

35 comments »

Ted Kennedy, The Senator, The Man and His Church

The Senator

As a professional, he deserved the accolades that came his way as he lay silent in his casket just a few days ago.

Ted Kennedy was a senator for almost a half century.  He became justifiably known as the lion of the left, the unwavering supporter of federal economic programs aimed at easing the way for the aged, the sick, the poor and the immigrant; the steady advocate for high progressive tax rates and even higher spending; the dependable protector of personal rights dealing with abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research; the dependable opponent of the free market, profit-based economy; the fierce defender of the Supreme Court against the invasion of justices who disagreed with his social views; the opponent of all wars entered into by, or continued by Republican presidents; the caster of the most dependable partisan vote in the Senate and one of its most effective members.

For these principles that guided his professional life, Kennedy is justifiably loved and respected by about half of the American electorate.  The other half disagreed with his principles and his views, but share the admiration of his supporters for his diligence and for the passion he brought to his work.

As a professional, he deserved the accolades that came his way as he lay silent in his casket just a few days ago.

The man

This is not the time to review the private life of Kennedy.  His faults and escapades have been widely reported elsewhere.  It is sufficient to say that he was a voluptuary for most of his adult life (until, at 60, his marriage to Vicki), whose days and nights were filled with fast women and hard liquor.

He was a voluptuary for most of his adult life.

He was as well an attentive family man and the active head of the widespread Kennedy clan.  The continued mystique attached to the family name is largely the creation of him and his public relations organization.

Kennedy's relations with fellow senators were, for the most part, congenial and good natured.  He was known as a man of his word, even by his opponents.    

Kennedy's family, friends and colleagues will remember him fondly.  The price for his follies is a subject reserved for him, his first wife and his God.

His Church

Kennedy was born a Catholic.  He never publicly disowned his religion; the Church never excommunicated him.  In that limited sense, therefore, Kennedy was a Catholic when he died, eligible for Catholic rituals. 

The scandalous role of the Church in the Kennedy funeral, in Boston and in Washington D.C. is just one more example of why too many Catholics are dropping away.

Accordingly, it was entirely proper that he be given a funeral mass, and -- given his reputation, and space requirements for the crowd that wanted to share his final days on earth -- it was appropriate to move the religious ceremony from the limited facilities available in Hyannis to the spacious ones available in the Mission Church in Boston.   And so it was done.

Until that point, the Kennedy funeral was properly handled by the Church.  However, from the time the casket entered the church in Boston until the minute it was lowered into the ground, the Church -- once again -- stumbled badly.

A digression: The Catholic Church, it may be said, is two things: 1) The faith, the theology (as approved by the magisterium) and the congregants, all of which are still faithfully represented by Pope Benedict in Rome and, 2) the bishops who manage Church affairs and assets. 

The first aspect of the Church, as defined above, is being weakened partly because of the anti-religion sentiment that pervades the world, but also because the second aspect of the Church in America is so dismally weak and contradictory. 

At a time when unified leadership and good example are of urgent importance, America's bishops regularly send out conflicting messages, for example: the recent homosexual sex scandal and how it was handled by bishops; the recent appearances of President Obama at Georgetown and Notre Dame and how the Church and its representatives handled them.

Now comes the Kennedy funeral. 

The scandalous role of the Church in the Kennedy funeral, in Boston and in Washington D.C. is just one more example of why too many Catholics are dropping away; of why seminaries are relatively empty; of why conversions have dropped; of why theologians are in disarray; of why more and more Catholics ignore the Church's moral teaching, which is ignored by rich and powerful members without penalty --which is sometimes rewarded with praise or with honors by bishops for reasons about which one can only speculate. 

Senator Kennedy, one of the leading advocates in the Senate for abortion rights, also  supported embryonic stem cell research despite the fact that adult stem cell research, which presents no moral questions, has been so successful; he supported gay marriage and indirectly supported the introduction of homosexual sex instruction into public schools; he, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has for years been trying to ban from the federal bench those nominees who disagree with his position on  abortion rights -- in effect, he has tried to keep Catholics, and other pro-life nominees, out of the federal judiciary system. 

It is fair to speculate that few people have done more to undermine Catholic doctrine on such matters.

Kennedy has been applauded for these positions by the many who share them.  That is perfectly appropriate.  But when the Church whose doctrines he abused joins the parade, something is amiss.  And there is no excuse for it, especially since the Pope himself set the proper tone.

Before he died, Kennedy gave to President Obama for hand delivery to the Pope a personal note.  Obama obliged when he visited the Vatican.  The note had the ring of a campaign brochure.  A politician to his last breath, Kennedy clocked off his many contributions during his political lifetime, carefully omitting such subjects as those noted above, and he asked for the Pope's blessing.  The note did not contain even a hint of remorse over his persistent violations of Church teaching and the harm that ensued. 

Pope Benedict did not respond personally.  Through a delegate, he wished Kennedy well and extended his blessing -- a perfectly appropriate, kind, professional, removed and impersonal response.

Church representatives in Boston and Washington could have done the same.  The facilities of the Mission Church could have been made available, as they were.  Bishops could have been conveniently too busy to attend, or those with unusual courage could have released reasons for non-attendance, an act that would have been warmly welcomed by practicing Catholics.    

But that wasn't the case.  Cardinal O'Malley greeted the casket in the center aisle of the Mission Church; the Mass was a lavish affair with many co-celebrants, demonstrating in form the approval of the Church of its departing member; an approving homily was rendered by Kennedy's parish priest.  And, finally, the illustrious Cardinal McCarrick greeted the casket at the Arlington National Cemetery and sent Kennedy on his way with warm statements of personal friendship and approval.      

And so another bad day for the Catholic Church ended.  How many Catholics did the bishops turn away this time?

A great politician, deserving of sectarian honors, was buried last week. As a man, he was failure and triumph pressed together into one flawed personality.  As a Catholic, he was a disaster who deserved prayer and the hope for forgiveness, but not the tribute that is the due of a loyal son of the Catholic Church.   

19 comments »

Obama! I get Scared. Don't you?

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed.  So said Pravda, Russia's leading newspaper.

When conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham say something like that I listen, but reserve judgment because I'm aware of where they're coming from.

Same thing when liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Paul Krugman deny it.  After all, they deny most everything they do and require us instead to concentrate on their noble motives -- help the children, cure the ill, house the homeless, you get the drift.

But when Pravda says we're headed straight for communism, I pay attention.  And I get scared.  Don't you?

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy and others have openly said for years they favor nationalized health insurance; it has been on the liberal agenda for decades. 

A direct attempt to reach that objective was mounted by Democrats during the first year of the Clinton presidency.  Now another attempt is being made because the timing is right.  Similar to the years of President Johnson, when he promoted the legislation that established the Welfare State, they control both houses of Congress and the White House and they seek to nationalize healthcare, this time indirectly -- this time avoiding the open approach and rushing legislation that, step-by-step, will eventually turn the current system of healthcare upside down. 

The House bill, over 1,000 pages long, will be voted on in September; it contains a provision for a federal plan that will be offered in competition with all other private plans. 

Realizing in advance that under such a scheme, government will write the rules of competition, that the ultimate objective of the party is to federalize healthcare and that a new entitlement program once established will be almost impossible to reverse, it becomes apparent that the days of employer-based coverage and private coverage with private sector companies are numbered if this bill passes..  Inevitably, the government would privatize one-sixth of the national economy; it would have access to our private lives to a bottomless extent, and it would ultimately have control over the life span over those who are considered to be non-productive or expendable. 

Opponents of the Democratic approach, who favor many other ways to improve the system, are being smirched with all kinds of labels -- Nazis, bullies, terrorists, anti-Christian, etc. -- despite the fact that most citizens oppose the Democratic plan. 

Behind all this noise about how to federalize healthcare there lays one unanswered question: Why?  Why would anyone want to socialize medicine in the United States given the horrible record in other countries of those who have done so? 

A sensible answer to that question (power), the way the program is being rammed through Congress and the bullying tactics being employed to promote it makes me scared.  How about you?

I have written two books on national debt.  If you go to Amazon.com and search for "national debt" you will get more than 29,000 hits.  My latest book on the subject has been on the market for about 18 months.  For most of that period, it was ranked #1; it is still ranked #2; almost all colleges use it.  These comments are made to make a single point: I am not an amateur when talking about national debt.

I wrote the last book on that subject before the recent recession.  In it I stated that if entitlement programs were not restructured, America would be unable to do two things simultaneously: Maintain an adequate defense budget, and balance the federal budget.

Since then, Bush expanded Medicare; Bush/Obama authorized about $800 billion to support wobbly banks; another $800 billion went into a stimulus program that isn't even aimed at the job-creating private sector; a cap and trade plan is on the horizon because of the acceptance by (mostly) Democrats of the Gore theory of global warning that could, if implemented, at least damage (maybe ruin) the national economy; the current healthcare proposal is estimated to cost almost $2 trillion over 10 years, and Obama himself has recently estimated that federal deficits for the next decade could average a trillion a year.

I could be wrong, but it's my opinion that the United States cannot afford Obama 2009 style.  He could literally ruin this country before the year is over.  If he passes all he proposes, this country is headed for the ash heap.  This scares me.  How about you?

Do you know that Obama has 32 new czars to help him run his administration at salaries that run from $100,000 to $197,000 per year, in addition to the usual cabinet members, and their departments? 

About half of these appointees report to Obama; none of them had to be cleared by Congress.  And if you remember Obama's association with Rev. Wright and the bomb-tossers in Chicago, it should interest you to know that he has czars to coordinate with community groups like the scandal-ridden ACORN (with whom Obama once worked) and thug unions like SEIU, both of which have recently been active trying to break up recent town hall meetings.  Some refer to them as Obama's army.  This scares me.  How about you? 

We defeated the Soviet Union because it was an evil system.  Now, according to Pravda, we're trying to become what we hated a few years ago.  This scares me.  How about you? 

As Yogi Berra says: Go figure!      

20 comments »