KellerKowboy's Blog

Sen. Hillary Clinton has reportedly decided to accept an offer to become the next secretary of state.

The New York Times, citing two Clinton confidants, said that the former First Lady reached the decision after further discussions about her role with President-elect Barack Obama.

Now, let's see how long it takes for someone to suggest that her husband be appointed to replace her as Senator from New York???

As President-Elect Obama puts together his proposed cabinet, it’s painfully obvious that we’re in for something that looks, walks and acts just exactly like the Bill Clinton years in Washington….except with a strong left-wing flavor.  Clinton, of course, realized early on that it would be wise to move to the center in order to get anything done, and he did so; and, in the process, created a very strong voter base.

With the announcement that Tom Daschle is Obama’s choice as Health and Human Services chief, a big roar of approval went up from all of the universal health care aficionados in the country.  Politicians, meanwhile, are cringing because they know that the name Daschle spells instant partisan trouble.

Tom Daschle didn’t just get the name “Obstructionist in Chief” for being a “reach across the aisle” kind of guy.  During his years as majority leader – and even more so during his years as the minority leader – of the Senate Democrats, Daschle was directly instrumental in blocking every Republican initiative proposed.  And he didn’t care how he did it.  In Washington, Daschle is known as a “hatchet man”.

As we speak, phone calls are being made among Republican and Independent members of Congress, with not-so-gentle reminders of how this man operates and just how many scores they have to settle with him politically.

Whether or not he offers up any substantive healthcare policy for legislative debate, he’s going to see and hear those “paybacks” come rolling in.  It’s inevitable.  It’s how things are done in Washington and this nomination amounts to more of the same loggerheads style of Beltline politics that we were promised would “change”.  There’s certainly NO change imminent in this nomination.

Thus far, the President-to-be has trotted out one old Democrat after another to head his key cabinet positions and that’s not going to set well with his far left base.

With the exception of a couple White House advisors, everything old is new again.

1.      What’s the biggest financial draw on the 2008 federal budget?

Most of you said “Defense”, or the Pentagon (same difference) and you would be wrong.

As has been the case for decades, Social Security payments total MORE than defense spending in this country…and by a country mile.  Add Medicare to the mix – as was done in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” -- and the numbers are even more pronounced.

Up to that point in time, contributions made to underwrite the benefits afforded by Social Security were made to a handful of trust funds.  The money just sat there, waiting for all of us to reach retirement age and begin receiving the money that had been “set aside” for us by the government.

The Korean “police action”, Vietnam and the escalating costs of a growing country caused Johnson to take a step that has turned out to be one of those most financially damaging political stunts in American history.

Johnson’s Medicare program was added to the Social Security program and – as a method of paying for it – the President removed the trust fund provision and moved every dollar into the General Fund for “congressional revenue”.

Over the years, congress borrowed money for anything and everything.  And they borrowed that money from our Social Security insurance funds.  It didn’t take long before the entire bottom line had been used up, leaving nothing but IOUs in the kitty.  IOUs that the federal government had NO intention of paying back.  It would have taken a massive tax increase just to do so, and Johnson did everything in his power to make sure that increased tax responsibility didn’t fall on his administration.  Subsequent presidents of BOTH parties did exactly the same thing.

In the 43 years since moving Social Security dollars from trust funds to the general fund, the federal government has been on a spending spree that is very close to total bankruptcy of the entire country. 

Like it or not, President George W. Bush has made two serious efforts to correct this bankruptcy issue in the Social Security program.  Neither was even given serious consideration in congress and, worse yet, no alternative proposals have ever received any serious consideration, either!

In other words, our elected representatives (and I use that term loosely) have chosen to IGNORE the problem, rather than square up to it and resolve it.  Unfortunately, this is exactly how they deal with any and all major financial matters (other than spending!).

Lyndon Johnson started this bankruptcy ball rolling down hill and every administration since has failed to act, thus allowing this spending spree to whirl the country into financial oblivion.

And you think the next administration’s massive entitlement programs are prudent? 

I think not.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I suggested here that a President Obama would be extremely hard pressed to accomplish – or even consider – a good share of his campaign promises, simply because we couldn’t afford ANY of it.

On Saturday – just four days post-election – the news has filtered out that the President Elect and his team of advisors are taking “another look and reassessing their priorities”, based primarily on the fact the country is headed into a deep recession and the demands for “free money” are coming in left and right.  Everybody has their hand out for a “bailout” and the price tag is many billions MORE of our dollars.

Is this a bottomless pit, this money machine we call government?

Now we will be told that “it’s all Bush’s fault” that we have to raise taxes, instead of lower them….and we’ll have to wait on health care, tax cuts for 95% of the taxpayers, the loony “green” money pit, and so forth and so on….right down his list of campaign promises.

His 10 billion per month saving by ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home immediately is a total dream.  It will cost many millions (billions?) just to move the troops and equipment and any “saving” wouldn’t be realized for months, if at all.

Do you really believe that all of this “dire economic” news wasn’t well known a week ago?  Even a month ago!  If we could see it coming, why couldn’t they?  And here’s a bulletin for you; it’s going to get worse instead of better.

For all those folks hoping to get on the public dole, get in line.

And I wouldn’t schedule any cosmetic surgery any time soon, thinking the governments “free” healthcare plan will pick up the tab.  That just isn’t going to happen. 

In less than one week, the man’s entire political dream has “suddenly” turned into a nightmare.

Tax cuts?   Have you lost your mind?

Ever notice how the enemies of this country avoid the wrath of the red, white and blue?

Think about it.

What’s the best way to postpone what seems to be the inevitable?

“Let’s talk”.

I’m not suggesting that “talk” is a bad thing, per se.  Actually, lack of communication is one of the main reasons this world is as screwed up as it is.  However, when “let’s talk” is used as a tool, it becomes a very effective method of stalling; thereby warding off the opposition.

Look at how long Saddam Hussein got away with stalling the United Nations.  Twelve years of non-compliance with a UN resolution is about eleven years and eleven months too long!

Same thing for Iran, and others.  This is how Iran will build and deploy it’s nuclear power BEFORE anything will be done to stop it.  It’s how Saddam Hussein almost did the very same thing.

Even the current government of Iraq is getting in on the act; stretching out the troop withdrawal agreement “talks” currently in front of them, so they can deal with President Obama, rather than President Bush and probably get a much better deal.

Now, they’ve suddenly realized that if they don’t reach an agreement with President Bush before December 31st, and there’s no extension of the UN mandate beyond that date, the President will have no legal justification to have our troops deployed and order them all home! 

The goal for about half of the Middle Eastern coalition of countries is the defeat of Israel, and the only way anyone is going to get even close to doing that is by having a nuclear arsenal.  There isn’t a country in the region capable of defeating the Israelis with conventional weaponry.

Saddam was certainly working on it – he only had a couple of years to get rid of the evidence – and now the Iranians are inching closer and closer…..all the while defying the UN imposed sanctions and now asking President Elect Obama “let’s talk”.  It’s a perfect political ploy that might very well buy the needed time to finish producing a nuclear device (and I’m not talking about an electrical generator, either).

North Korea probably wants to “talk”, too.  Along with Hamas, Al Qaeda and a host of other participants in the war on terror.  What the Hell; it worked for the PLO when Yassir Arafat & Co., refused to reach a Middle East peace agreement, it worked for Saddam for many more years than it should have, and it continues to work for Iran and North Korea to this day.

At some point in time – sooner, rather than later – the United States MUST say “enough with the talks, already…let’s see some action”.  We certainly can’t wait for the United Nations to say that!  Hell would freeze over first.

It’s a shame that a nation of people has to suffer because dictatorial regimes put them in jeopardy, but when the fan and fecal material get together, they’re going to be the losers.

 So, whadda’ ya’ say?  

 Let’s talk…….

Flowery speeches and the anticipated “We’re all Americans; let’s forgive and forget” type speeches are now showering down on America as scripted as a Hollywood “B” movie.  They are meaningless.  I’ve heard them all before; many times. 

I’m not interested in words….I’m interested in action.  I’ve heard all the words from great orators like Kennedy and Reagan, and I’ve seen the aftermath when those rah-rah speeches were converted to action.  Not a pretty sight. 

The obligatory, reconciliation speeches can’t end soon enough for me.  I was a proud American before the election and I’m a proud American after….I just refuse to forget what’s taken place historically and let “bygones be bygones”.

I’ll support and respect the office but I refuse to support the politics of a man/women, black, white or green who has visions of socialism dancing in his/her head.

In the short term, those expected words will prop up the nation’s attitude, but in the long run, presidential and congressional actions (or inactions!) have sent this country into the dumper.

For me, that too was expected from a political party that has been “In charge” for the past two years and has convinced the majority of voters that they were somehow absent of fault for the lack of “America first” business in Washington.  The 110th Congress was a disgrace and total failure.

For BOTH parties, it has been, and continues to be, all about “party” and political ideology.  “Change” is what they’ve promised and socialism is most certainly change, so I’m guessing that catchy phrase – one of many catchy phrases that seem to latch on with the lemmings – will be back around, perhaps sooner than later.

One of the great things about this election is the fact that the Democrats have swept to power of enormous proportions in all three branches.  A huge majority in the House….a stronger majority in the Senate, and – of course – a sympathetic President in the White House.  They no longer have anyone to blame.  And, as of this writing, the only political “clout” the Republicans have is the filibuster in the United States Senate, where the magic number of 60 senators is still in serious doubt.

Added to that, the extremely high expectations – (the president just pushes a button and makes everything better, right?) and you better understand the predicament the Democrats now “enjoy”. 

How long Americans burst into tears every time they see a black President is likely to be short-lived, and the length of time Americans will buy the “it’s Bush’s fault” line is also much shorter now than Democrats believe. 

It took Americans less than a decade to forget 9-1-1 (No, not all of us….but a very large percentage), so I’m guessing it will not be long at all before the entire country wakes up to reality and discovers that the promised change isn’t such a hot idea.

For me, the man’s color has never been an issue.  In fact, I was a bit surprised that General Colin Powell and Secretary of State Condi Rice didn’t beat Obama to the punch four years ago.  I would have seriously considered voting for either or both.  As a ticket, I still see them as unbeatable, given the serious lack of quality candidates willing to offer their heads on a platter to lead the United States of America.

After this election, Powell has four years to bask in the glow of his pre-election endorsement of Obama and, during those four years, you can expect him to switch parties and “get on board” the Obama bandwagon.  He certainly has no future as a Republican and needs to do everything possible to clear his name in the “I was duped into the Iraq war” on-going fiasco.  Switching parties is his only option.

Dr. Rice, meanwhile, was wise enough to keep her nose out of the political theater …..despite the fact that she may have had privately hoped for a black to become President, she didn’t commit political suicide by doing so.  Sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut and Dr. Rice is clearly a far more intelligent person than General Powell in that respect.  If she had such personal feelings, she didn’t let them override her integrity.

A couple of other lesser announcements can be expected.  Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will decide it’s time to come out of the closet and declare himself a Democrat, edging that party ever closer to a filibuster-proof venue. 

Not really surprising.  He caucuses with the Democrats and votes a straight Democrat party line, about as liberal as he could possibly be.  The time is now right for Sanders to make that move, thus enhancing his committee assignment power in the Senate and endearing himself to President Obama and his socialist agenda.

At the same time, look for Joe Lieberman to jump from the Democrat’s camp to the Republican side of the aisle.  Every time we’ve seen Senator John McCain over the past six months, there was Senator Lieberman by his side.  With the drastic switch to socialism coming right up, Lieberman will want no part of his former party’s politics and find it wise to make his move soon.  He supports nothing that Obama supports and it’s my guess that Lieberman is highly suspicious of Obama’s political approach to Israel and her plight in the Middle East. 

Total removal of our military from Iraq takes down a curtain of protection that the Israeli’s currently enjoy and instantly opens up an unobstructed path from Iran to Jerusalem, via medium range missiles.  Senator Lieberman is not likely to embrace that political strategy.

It must also be noted here that with the removal of that curtain, the path of delivered ordinance goes both ways!

Our military presence in the Middle East has been a major factor in preventing such horrific acts on both sides.  Once our troops are gone, all bets are off.  I’m quite sure Senator Lieberman is aware of that fact.  Personally, I shudder at the thought.

So now we endure the flowery, rah-rah hooray for our side, speeches and wait for the promised “change” in Washington.

Some unfinished business:

We’ll never see another presidential election publicly funded……the results of that should be more than obvious.  President Elect Obama STILL has millions of unspent, privately funded, dollars in his political war-chest and the Republicans are dead broke.  They won’t be suckered in a second time.  And don’t kid yourself; there are Republican billionaires, too…..just like George Soros…..who will be more than willing to pony up a few shillings for “change” in the mid-terms and beyond.

Is there something in the Minnesota water that has the residents of that State “whako”?  I’d vote for almost anybody before I’d vote for a comedian from Saturday Night Live.  What Al Franken knows about governing you could lose in a thimble, but the Obama coattails were almost long enough to send the buffoon to Washington.

I’ve yet to hear a valid explanation of the Hispanic vote – which went heavily for Democrats.  ABC’s Leslie Stahl tried valiantly to explain it, but even she was at a loss for words.

It was “McCain-Kennedy” just two short years ago that attempted to give total amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal aliens sucking this country dry….and one would think that attempt alone would have been worth a LOT of Hispanic votes.  Didn’t happen…..and didn’t happen in any State.  Go figure.  I have this God-Awful feeling that the promise of “everything free” from the government swayed the lower income Hispanic vote…..especially in today’s economy.

And dare I ask?  How many illegals voted?  My guess is “many thousands”.

And Pennsylvania voters, who chose to ignore the compliments bestowed on them by Representative John Murtha must be smiling today.  First, Murtha said the folks in his district were racists and then – while apologizing for that comment – said that area used to be full of rednecks.  It seems that every time Murtha opens his mouth, foul stuff comes out.

Murtha, they tell us, was a highly decorated veteran.  But, so was Baron Von Richtofen, Erwin Rommel and Fidel Castro. Right now, Murtha ranks right up there with all of them.  We can only hope and pray that Speaker Pelosi (if she wins that job again) finally recognizes this idiot and puts him in charge of nothing.  I’ll not hold my breath waiting.

Democrats accused the Republican National Committee of “hiding and protecting” Governor Sarah Palin during the waning weeks of the current campaign.  What they failed to mention is the fact that “Hidin’ Biden” seemed to be their daily watchword over the same time frame.  They let him talk to “Joe Coalminer” and his political pals in Delaware, but didn’t let him anywhere near a microphone outside the “no collar” zone.  Who could blame them?

The Vice President elect could easily outdistance George W. Bush in verbal gaffes….and do so in record time.  If change is what they wanted, Biden certainly doesn’t fill that bill.  His 36 years in politics represents the very worst in what American’s despise about our system. 

Talk about entrenched in the good old boy network!  Biden qualifies as a charter member.   

One final thought this time around….

Republicans should have learned a valuable lesson.  The new wave of political campaigning is predicated on catch-phrases (read: failed policy, etc.), slanderous politics (read:  vicious attacks on Obama, Palin and McCain….not to mention George Bush) and outside funding (read:  millions (perhaps billions) in support from George Soros & Co.) and it all works extremely well. 

James Carville and Paul Begala, take a bow.  Karl Rove, take a bow.  The style of “politics” you all gave birth to, nurtured and now espouse WORKS.  We now proudly point to the most foul mouthed and despicable electorate we’ve ever seen.  And it will take at least 40 years (if ever) to undo the damage y’all have done.

If you asked 1,000 people that question, perhaps five of them would give an answer that fits among the many definitions.  Most would answer with one word – Communist – and that definition may or may not apply.

All Communists are Socialists but all Socialists are not Communists.  Confused?  Think of it this way; All males are human beings, but all human beings are not males.

The definition of “Socialism” that seems to apply to the current political discussion;

Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, worker’s control of the labor process and redistributive tax policies.  (Slightly modified from Wikipedia)

This, I’m sure, is the definition that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would offer up, if asked to describe his political philosophy.  Sanders is still listed as an “Independent – Socialist”, although he’s perfectly aligned with the left wing of the Democrat party.  Sanders just takes each issue further left and ranks as the most liberal Senator in Washington.  He caucuses with the Democrats and has never voted for anything ever offered by a Republican in the Senate, or from the White House, for that matter.  He commands approximately 60% of the vote in every Vermont election.  I could explain how he does that, but that’s a topic for another post.

Now, take the very recent comments regarding “redistribution of wealth” by Senator Obama, along with his previous statements concerning health care, the profits of big businesses, etc., and see if any of it coincides with the above definition of “Socialism”.

 I’ll let you decide.

October 26, 2008

In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.

This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life. The Church received the tradition opposing abortion from Judaism. In the Greco-Roman world, early Christians were identifiable by their rejection of the common practices of abortion and infanticide.

The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.

It was also the position of Protestant reformers without exception. It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the Church, including me as shepherd of this diocese.

Some ancient and medieval theologians did see a difference between early abortions and ones that occurred later in term because with the limited medical knowledge of the time they did not know then what we scientifically know now: that a fetus is a living human being from conception.

Nevertheless, they universally condemned all abortions.

Of course, we now know that a fetus is a living human being from the very start. Thus, abortions take innocent human lives no matter when they occur. Since there is no gradation in the Church’s teaching on abortion, there is no way the medically obsolete division of pregnancy into three trimesters by Roe v. Wade can have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Taking an innocent life in the womb is wrong at any stage of pregnancy.

The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as God-given rights. Life is listed first, and it is the principal function of the state to protect the lives of citizens. This understanding of the state’s primary obligation to protect human life is also fundamental to Catholic social doctrine to which the senator points. Without life all other rights are meaningless.

This Sunday, all the parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington will pray the Litany of St. Thomas More, martyr and patron saint of statesmen, politicians and lawyers. We will ask St. Thomas More to intercede so all statesmen and politicians may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life. We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life.

Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Wilmington

Columnist, Cal Thomas sums it up this way:

“We saw a similar argument come from Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she charged that the Catholic Church has been “bipolar” over the centuries when it comes to abortion. She was rebuked by her bishop and now Biden has experienced the same response from his bishop.

No one forces anyone into faith, but when one embraces it, one should be held accountable according to the tenets of that faith.

Biden and Pelosi are free to believe whatever they wish, of course. But they are not free to misstate doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The church hierarchy is in charge of doctrine. If one doesn’t agree with those doctrines, one is free to leave that church. Using religion to attract the votes of faithful Catholics while denying church teachings is an affront. Serious Catholics will judge those who do such things accordingly.”

A Hint As To Where Were Headed….

On Thursday, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank said he wants to cut defense spending by 25 percent as part of the new Democratic budget blueprint.

Frank, the head of the House Financial Services Committee, told a Massachusetts newspaper that slashing spending will force the U.S. out of Iraq as well as make the Pentagon have to pick and choose its weapons.

"We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review," he said.

Such a move, if taken, would continue the reduction in force taken by the Clinton administration under the guise of “reducing the size of government” and put this country in a perilous position.  With a veto-proof House and Senate, there’s not a damned thing anyone could do about it.

The next move would come as the individual states legislate to block the federal government from activating the guard and reserve forces, thus preventing their involvement in any military action outside their own state borders.  That move is, in fact, underway in several states right now.

How that squares with Senator Obama’s current plan of moving several battle regiments from Iraq to Afghanistan begs many questions.

And how will this latest revelation square with folks like former Marine, Jack Murtha, General Colin Powell and the list of former generals who have enlisted their support for the Obama candidacy?

A year or so back, all these folks were screaming “our troops are worn out; we’re too weak to fight two wars at once” and so forth and so on….  Well, how is cutting defense spending by another whopping twenty-five percent going to solve that problem?

The answer, of course, is that Frank is seeking to find the money to cure all of our social ills and the quickest and easiest way is to do that is to reduce America from one of the strongest countries in the world to one of the weak sisters among the many. 

Would Obama and Frank hamstring our military to the point we can no longer be the major defender of NATO?  Would we be forced to withdraw from NATO, as well as other treaty agreements because we simply don’t have the manpower or equipment?

It has been said that we “send 85 billion dollars a year in foreign aid to countries that don’t like us very much”.  We actually agreed to do that through the United Nations many years ago!  In fact, by that agreement, the U.S. doesn’t give enough!!  (Private contributions don’t count!) 

While Frank is “reviewing” the defense budget, I suggest strongly that we halt that foreign aid deal immediately and totally review where every dollar goes. Keeping ALL of it right here in America would do my heart much good.

Defending the United States is job “one”.  Weakening our capability to defend this country only invites disaster. 

The “Country of Texas” is sounding better and better every day.

No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, some things simply will not change.  The country will still be mired in an economic crisis and one party will still control the House and Senate.  That’s bad.

We’ve allowed the two major parties to manipulate and cajole us into believing slogans and following rock stars recommendations in an area where few of them can even remember the capital of their home state.

Millions of us will go to the polls on Election Day and vote for “hope” and “change”…..and a very short time later the 111th Congress will settle in to an immediate future of no hope and no change, not for the better, anyway.  One party is just as bad as the other and, as a Moderate Independent, I can’t see a dime’s worth of difference between them.  We are once again forced to hold our nose and vote.

The good news is; as soon as the vote-buying “economic stimulus packages” come to a halt – and they will, a short time after their effectiveness has been realized – those of us on the lower end of the financial ladder will find ourselves thrown under the bus.  That’s bad.

Private enterprise is now enjoying one bailout after another, as congress takes OUR great-grandchildren’s money and gives it to the next leach in line.  Currently, it’s the insurance industry begging for bucks.  All of that, of course, has to stop.  At some point, whoever’s in charge will simply have to say “That’s enough…we’re out of money”.  And, actually, we’ve been “out of money” for many years.  The first fact is good; the second bad.

If Senator Obama wins the presidential election, I suspect the first thing he will do is cancel any agreement President Bush has with the government of Iraq, regarding a pullout of American troops and order the troops “home”.  He will then proclaim “As I promised, the war in Iraq is OVER”, etc., etc.

That, according to Senator Obama’s campaign rhetoric, will be an instant 10 billion dollars per month saving to the American Taxpayers (that would be us).  That SOUNDS good.

But where will the “saving” come in?  Obama has also said he will convert those 10 billion dollars per month to cure the nation’s economic ills AND fund a wish-list of federal programs a mile long.  AND, he says he’ll send several battle regiments to Afghanistan to affect a quicker end to that engagement.  He won’t call it a “surge”, because – as we all know – the surge in Iraq played no significant role in ending that conflict.  If anything, Afghanistan is more of a quagmire than Iraq has ever been.  But, that doesn’t seem to resonate. 

He’s also going to “spread the wealth” by imposing higher taxes on the “rich”.   Good luck on that.

Those “several battle regiments” headed for Afghanistan will require funding and that funding has to be calculated into the so-called 10 billion dollar “savings”.  How much so, we simply don’t know because we’ve never been told.

At some point – when his advisors realize that printing more money and sending out stimulus packages and bailing out one private enterprise after another isn’t working, major cutbacks in federally funded programs will have to be curtailed – SHARPLY.  “We’ve done all we can to fix the eight years of failed Bush policy” will be the quote of the day from Washington, as the markets finally hit bottom and the “D” word hits the headlines.  That isn’t good, either.

The media, of course, won’t even mention the fact that a President Obama’s party was actually “in charge” for the final two of those eight years and they did nothing while the nation’s economy festered into demise.

It’s far too easy just to blame everything on President Bush and the Republicans.  That is a given.  It remains to be seen just how long the MSN strongly supports “hope” and “change” as the country slides deeper into ruin.

“We can’t change what we promised because Bush destroyed the country beyond repair”….and similar self-serving, political quotes that amount to the same thing…will be the watchword every single day.  The Democrats will be very careful to avoid having the “failed” tag hitched to their toe, the same way they hitched it to President Bush so very successfully over the final two years of his administration.

A John McCain presidency wouldn’t fair any better….certainly not with a democratically controlled House and Senate.  The 110th Congress did absolutely nothing and the 111th – with McCain as President – would result in more legislation enacted without the president’s signature….but, little else.  Everybody will be too busy giving fiery speeches blaming Bush and doing nothing to solve the nation’s problems.

The “good old days” are not now.  But the “good old boys” are still there….and they won’t stop until they’ve spent the country into oblivion, which – in my opinion – they’ve already done!

We’ve been duped by Republicans and Democrats alike…..Again…..and the worst is yet to come.  Slogans won’t pay the bills.

Hell, I remember when “Hope” was a comedian and “Change” was what jingled in your pocket.  Come 2009 both will be a distant memory.

That’s bad.

Tax The Rich?

You’ve Got To FIND Them First!

It sounds so easy.  Raise taxes on rich Americans to fund a myriad of federal programs designed to spread the wealth around. 

I’ve got news for you; somebody’s going to pay higher taxes, but it’s not likely to be the rich.  The Internal Revenue Service has resorted to a law suit against UBS (www.ubs.com) in what’s described as an effort to identify as many as 18,000 VERY wealthy Americans it believes may have Swiss bank accounts.  And, 18,000 MAY be a very conservative number.  The truth is, the U.S. government simply DOES NOT KNOW how many there are or how many untaxed dollars are currently stashed safely in Switzerland and elsewhere.

UBS is one of the world’s largest investment-type businesses that specializes in “taking care” of people’s money; many billions of dollars worth of taxable income that has been secreted out of the country and beneath the IRS radar.  Even if the IRS should prevail in such a legal action (and I doubt strongly they will), who’s going to force UBS to comply?

I’m not suggesting that UBS is acting in any improper or illegal fashion.  Some of their clients, however, are as guilty as sin.

According to a recent article in Forbes Magazine, a staggering 57% of the money earned by the rich in this country is shrewdly hidden from the IRS and it has only been through admissions by tax cheats themselves that any true estimate of the total amount can be made.  Obviously, the number of dollars were talking about is in the multi-billions.

The definition of “rich” is important here.  The politicos seem to have settled on an annual income of approximately $250,000, which makes most of us “dirt poor” by comparison.  And, there are many thousands who are considered “rich”, based on that quarter of a million per year threshold.  Unfortunately, the highest percentage of tax cheats – those who “under estimate” their tax liability (Liars, in other words) make right around that amount of money per year, so many of them will never pay their fair share, no matter who is president or what the tax writing gurus come up with in Washington.  If nothing else, simply raising the tax rate of these higher income folks will only serve to send more business to UBS and the Swiss banks, NOT the coffers of the IRS.

You and I have a difficult time cheating the IRS because our income is reported by our employers and they also make contributions, in kind, for many of our so-called benefits.  That makes it extremely difficult to find tax shelters that will make any noticeable improvement in our tax responsibility.  We certainly have deductions and exemptions….but, that’s chicken feed, compared to the big bucks going to Switzerland.

Soooooo, Mr. Know-It-All, what’s the answer?

I honestly don’t know.  A flat tax proposal should certainly be investigated for consideration, but,  I’m no expert on the subject.  One thing I do know is that the current system is pretty much a total failure and expecting to fund government programs by reaching deeper into the pockets of the rich under the current system is NOT the answer.

It has been suggested that political campaigns use paid bloggers to help spread the word – and there’s absolutely NO question that they do, and some far more so than others.  And they’ve been doing so quite successfully for at least three years.  (I actually know one of them personally and have very strong suspicions about several others, even at this local level.)

 You only have to review your SPAM Email box to find dozens of offers of employment that come right out and say “bloggers and writers needed.  No experience required”.  They generally pay 10 to 25 dollars per post/article and lesser amounts for comments, whether on their own posts or someone else’s.

The massive influx of “citizen politicos” was the brainchild of Dr. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, during his unsuccessful run for the D’s nomination in 2004.  Dean established his grassroots campaign with very little money but realized that if he stroked the left wing of his party, the money would soon be pouring in….and it did. 

As Governor of Vermont, Dean had long-been a centrist Democrat – a Bill Clinton Democrat, as it were, and he seldom embraced any far left ideas.  But, he learned very quickly that somebody out there was willing to put their money where their mouth is and, as long as he continued to lean farther left, the donations continued.  Of course, he didn’t care where the money was coming from….as long as it kept coming.

Along the way, Dean discovered that money was pouring in from what his party described as “small, Joe Citizen, type contributors”, along with the usual and customary maxed out contributions from Hollywood and other far left bastions of power. 

Dean created the “50 State Initiative” for his own campaign and has carried that program over at the national level, as head of the DNC.

If we are to believe the DNC, over 400,000 Americans who are struggling to pay their mortgage, somehow found – on average – eighty-six dollars to contribute to Senator Obama’s campaign.

I don’t believe this claim for one second….and haven’t for many months.  That money isn’t coming from you and me, it’s coming from outside sources and made to appear as contributions from us.  People (and organizations) such as George Soros – who has admitted to spending over 25 million dollars in an effort to defeat George Bush in 2004 – are doing an end-around on the political contributions regulations and going for broke on Obama this year. 

Soros & Co., fund nearly every liberal cause in this country, including payment to those who operate (24/7) the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.  These are the sources of talking points used by the locally paid bloggers and op-ed writers, who copy and paste their marching orders daily. 

They’re pretty easy to identify.  They never comment on anything that’s “local” – because most of them don’t “live here” and their postings are mirror images of the above mentioned headquarters.  They also lie like a rug about their backgrounds and credentials, primarily to prevent others from actually identifying them.  And, yes, when they can, they create more than one identity, then post to a blog under one name and immediately comment on it using the alter(s).

As the 2008 campaign winds down, we can expect a deluge of these paid bloggers to make the final “push”.  We’ll see dozens of newly created user names and each one will be pounding the talking points into the ground.  It happened two years ago and it will happen again very shortly.

Do the Republicans do the same thing?  I’m sure they do, but nowhere near the scale of the DNC.  If they did, we would be reading far more posts that promote Republican candidates and far more copy and paste style of blogging/writing.

Senator McCain opted for the publicly financed presidential campaign.  Senator Obama opted for a privately funded campaign.  It’s easy to see why.  Right now Obama has over 600 MILLION dollars worth of "donations". 

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

Monday, October 20, 2008

By Radley Balko

I grew up in a particularly conservative part of the already conservative state of Indiana. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 2000, generally because, though I'm not a conservative (I'm a libertarian), I'd always thought the GOP was the party of limited government. By 2002, I was less sure of that. And by 2004, I was so fed up with the party that I did what I thought I'd never do — vote for an unabashed leftist for president.

From the opening bell we learn exactly what Mr. Balko personally feels about Republicans and Democrats.  And, because the Republicans political platform didn’t match his, he “made them pay” by voting for the opposition. As if, somehow, that would make a difference.  It each case, it hasn’t.

Since then, "fed up" has soured to "given up." The Republican party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending — even on items not related to war or national security — has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.

So, rather than stay and fight the good fight politically, Mr. Balko simply switches sides – again, with pay back as his motive – and blathers nonsense about the size of government – especially the totally reworked Homeland Security Department, which didn’t even exist prior to 09/11/01.  That department was not only needed, it simply HAD to be big in order to protect and defend the entire nation.

Balko conveniently forgets that for the past two years Democrats have held the majority in both Houses of Congress and they too “failed” and failed miserably in a long series of well documented efforts to exercise their will over the president.  The president, as expected, fought back.  And, what seems to bother Mr. Balko more than anything else, the president won most of those political battles.  Right or wrong, that’s how our system is supposed to work.  Under the guise of “over-sight”, the Democrats tried to control the White House.  They failed.

This isn't to say that Barack Obama would be any better. Government would undoubtedly grow under his watch. And from my libertarian perspective, he has been increasingly disappointing even on the issues where he's supposed to be good. We may not go to war with Iran in an Obama administration, but we'd likely become entrenched in a prolonged nation-building adventure in the Sudan. Obama's vote on the FISA bill and telcom immunity also suggests that for all his criticisms of President Bush's use of executive power and assaults on civil liberties, Obama wouldn't be much better. On the drug war, Obama has promised to end the federal raids on medical marijuana clinics in states that have legalized the drug for treatment, but he wants to resurrect failed federal criminal justice block grant programs that have had some disastrous effects on civil liberties.

On this point we can certainly agree….at least to a point.  Mr. Balko disagrees with President Bush’s use of executive power.  Powers that our Constitution gave President Clinton, as well as President Bush, and powers that were equally “abused” (in the opinion of some) by both.  How Mr. Balko singles out President Bush, and ignores President Clinton, is another indication of where he really stands.

But though I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principals of limited government and free markets.

To not even consider the effects of 9/11 on just about everything in this country does a total disservice to each and every one of us.  Nothing was – or ever will be – the same after that attack on our homeland.  To think otherwise is pure folly.  Since 09/11/2001, the Bush administration has – thus far – prevented any number of similar attacks, but that doesn’t seem to resonate with Mr. Balko.  The Bush administration, in his eyes, is a “failure”.  Historians will see things otherwise.  That’s not to say that the Bush administration has been great, because it certainly hasn’t been.  But it certainly has not been a failure at “job one” – protecting this country.

On the issue of free markets and federal intervention – (can you say “bailout”?) – I certainly agree.  That action is clearly the first giant step toward Socialism in the modern political era.  If Senator Obama’s political ambitions become reality, and they should, given the Democrat’s control of all three branches of government, we will take a series of several giant steps in that direction, perhaps beyond the point of no return in the balance of my lifetime.

They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task — sending the nation to war. I could go on.

Again, Mr. Balko writes as though George Bush and the Republican party representatives in Congress were the only people present and voting and the ONLY politicos who are corrupt.  I suggest to you that the ONLY reason Nancy Pelosi refused to allow an impeachment action on the floor of the House is that many members of her own party were just as complicit in the run-up to the war in Iraq as were Republicans.  She wisely chose NOT to shoot herself in both feet! 

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole.

Yes, it is hyperbole.  Democrats COULD have voted to end the war in Iraq, along with any and all other matters they disagreed with, by voting to stop funding.  They didn’t; therefore, they failed.  Again, it wasn’t just Republicans holding the bag for responsibility, as Mr. Balko suggests.

This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

As stated above; Democrats had their chances to end the war almost instantly, along with votes to prevent the funding of any and all Bush Administration proposals, but they failed to do so.  How Mr. Balko sees this as a one-sided matter is to see just where his political allegiance settles.

That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation to every single representative of BOTH parties.  One side most certainly doesn’t have every corner of the market when it comes to lack of true representation – something we haven’t seen from either side of the aisle for many years.

If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch. Scrap the current leadership and, most importantly, purge the party of the "national greatness," neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It's hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He'll just be bad in different ways.

Can’t quite make up your mind there, Mr. Balko?  And, if you think for one second that Senator Obama’s political plans are anything LESS than European-style socialism, you’ve got another thought coming.

Like it or not, we are a two-party political system.  For the Republican party to take the drastic measures suggested by Mr. Balko, we would instantly become a one-party system.  And we’ve all seen (and may be about to see again) just how damaging a one-party system can really be.  If you think government is “big” now, just wait until next year at this time when all of the socialist-style handout programs are in place and the bill for those services comes due.

The truth is, unless you vote for a third-party candidate (which really isn't a bad idea), you don't have much of a choice this November. You can either endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-left ideology, or you can endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-right ideology.

Don’t look now, but you just contradicted yourself, Mr. Balko.  In one breath you tell us to “vote out” Republicans and in the next you tell us it’s a good idea to vote for a third-party candidate and then, in a last gasp attempt at completing the paragraph you tell us why we shouldn’t do “any of the above”.  Lame.

Sadly, if the GOP does lose, it's likely to be interpreted not as a repudiation of the GOP's excesses, but as an endorsement of the Democrats'. When the only two parties who have a chance at winning both have a track record of expanding the size and scope of government, every election is likely to be interpreted as a win for big government — only the brand changes.

Now you’re getting smarter.  If it takes removing ALL of the people from inside the beltway to convince them that this is supposed to be a representative form of government, then let’s do it!  It doesn’t matter which party they come from; kick them all to the curb until they know and understand that they’re OUR representatives, not professional politicians bent solely on reelection.

Voting yourself more freedom simply isn't an option, at least if you want your vote to be taken seriously (and I'm not denigrating any third parties here; I'm just reflecting reality).

Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled. A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and rugged individualism is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.

If you said we should “throttle” BOTH parties’ candidates, I’d certainly agree.  To single out just one party will do exactly as you suggest – give the winner a false sense of imperialism.  And that would happen EITHER way.

Of course, there's no guarantee that's how the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern.”

Thankfully, Mr. Balko’s opinion is so obviously one-sided that it wreaks of sore loser syndrome.  One day he will wake up to find that his criticism – directed at one side only – was totally misdirected.  His target should include them ALL.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine and publishes a weblog at www.TheAgitator.com.

CINO VS ROME – North Americans Inviting Pope’s Wrath

There’s a fairly common tendency among North American Catholics to think they have a say in how their church is run and this year’s election just may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, when it comes to the topic of abortion.  There are around 33 million Catholic voters in the United States alone; a huge voting block, to say the very least.

The Catholic Church has functioned for centuries and is based in Rome.  Its leader – the Pope – has the final “say” to all things religious, but one would never know it in North America, based on the political position of those who consider themselves Catholic but publicly and privately espouse a belief that is totally in opposition to the church’s teachings.  Thus, a fairly large group of “Catholic In Name Only”, or CINOs, have emerged, publicly challenging their church and its Pope, primarily on the issue of abortion.

More than one public figure has been severely chastised recently for totally misrepresenting the church’s long-standing position on abortion and there’s no question that there’s more to come.  Much more.

The Catholic Church certainly has its plate full with other issues, but it’s not likely that the Vatican will stand much more of the CINO’s outward rejection of Catholic teachings.  And before the dust has settled, the number of Catholics in North America is likely to be reduced by thousands.  How that comes about is pretty much up to them.  They can choose to leave the church or suffer her pains and penalties.

The Catholic Church is not about to let 20+ centuries of religious belief be altered by ANY group of people who happen to think their idea is better, even if it IS!  Efforts to wrap political thinking -- that “choice” is OK because on every other issue their thinking meshes with Catholicism -- just won’t wash.  That line of rhetoric might play well in Toledo, but I doubt strongly those same people would stand at St. Peter’s and dare make the same declarations.  The Vatican doesn’t really care if you’re American, Canadian or Ethiopian – their teaching and required adherence to canon law is the same for all.

The Vatican is not about to trade its position on abortion, no matter how “Catholic” those other political positions might be.  For Rome, it’s all or nothing….And it just may turn out that way for Catholics in the United States.

I see the church biding its time; in essence, giving the faithful an opportunity to correct their direction before taking action against them.  I also see the CINOs taking advantage of that opportunity and advancing their position even further. 

Any Catholic who feels he/she will change the church’s position on abortion is terribly mistaken.  And in just a few short months (weeks?) we will all learn just how mistaken that position might be.

Note:  My writing is not designed, nor intended, to be the subject matter for a chat room discussion.  I write on various topics to inspire thought among the readers, not hammer-throwing, childish, uneducated drivel.  If you agree with what I write, that’s fine.  If you disagree, that’s fine, too.  If you THINK about what I’ve written, that’s all that really matters to me.

Thank you for reading and thinking….

KK