Sunday, November 02, 2008


I received the following in an e-mail from a friend. It chronicles the event and action that caused the financial crisis we are experiencing at the present time. Note, that what the Democrat controlled Congress has done to date with the bailout has not addressed the cause of the problem. Banks are still required to make risky loans.

There is a whole lot of finger pointing going on in the world of politics this week. For those who just enjoy history or want to understand how or why we got to this point in financial chaos:

1938: Roosevelt got through a Democratically controlled Congress Fannie Mae.

1970: Freddie Mac was created by Democrats in Congress 57-43 Senate and 234-192 House.

1977: the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the Democratic Congress (61-39 Senate and 292-143 House) and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. It encouraged banks and mortgage lenders to loan money for housing to people who would not otherwise qualify (with Freddie and Fannie backing same by taking the paper).

1995: President Clinton signed the executive order mandating lenders expand their lending for mortgages to sub-prime borrowers (that means people who would not qualify under any criteria in a sane world). Failure to do so would result in the lending institution not having access to federal funds or the quasi governmental Fannie and Freddie.

1999: Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through Congress deregulation laws (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) removing Depression era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. (a really stupid move) The vote in the Senate was 98-1-1. McCain was the one who did not vote, another republican was the lone no vote. Biden and Harry Reid, who are now saying it's all Bush's fault, voted for the bill. Even Obama this week places the blamed on Gramm, but fails to mention that his running mate voted for it, and Clinton signed it into law.

2003: President Bush tried to get congress to amend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rules to disallow loans to people who would not qualify under normal lending institution rules for making loans. In other words, rescind the Clinton Executive order which had by now become the rules of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Democrats in the Senate (48) used the threat of filibuster to kill the bill (got to have that magic 60 in the Senate to stop a filibuster).

2006: Greenspan testified before congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both a house of cards and needed a lot more oversight and controls in case this country found itself in a recession in the future. That duty falls to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Democrat Chris Dodd is Chairman. He wasn't thrilled with Greenspan's advice, because he was the number one campaign money receiver from Fannie and Freddie over the years. Obama was number 2, and he raked in his amount in just the past two years.

Every single piece of legislation the Republicans have put up to regulate the financial industry since 2000 has been killed in the Senate by Democrats.

95% of the homeowners are paying their monthly mortgage payments. It's those 5% that are facing foreclosure that will cost the taxpayers a trillion or so if the bailout goes through.The nice thing about "History" is that it is based on verifiable facts.

Friday, October 31, 2008


A friend asked me why some educated, black, and poor people are for Obama, when most of those in her area are for McCain. I thought this was an interesting question so the following is my answer.

First, look at the “well-educated” citizen who supports Obama. I believe the American educational establishment as a whole is very liberal. You see it at all levels.
The education system for K through 12th grade is unionized. This is part of the problem in terms of the quality of education today. Kids are taught the answers to the test, but not taught to think for themselves. Not all teachers are this way, but a majority are. Unions make it almost impossible to get rid of poor teachers. The head of a business can fire a non-performer, but the principal of a school cannot fire a poor teacher.

A quick look at college life at most of our universities reveals a very liberal lifestyle. Casual sex, drinking, and drug use are commonplace. The more you participate in this style of life or have associates who participate, the more likely you are to be tolerant of those with lower morals. Most college courses are taught by liberals, and conservative students must provide liberal answers in order to get good grades. Look at Obama’s associates from the University of Chicago and Columbia University. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are known domestic terrorists and are professors at the University of Chicago. Rashid Khalidi is a professor at Columbia University in New York. He has been a spokesman for the PLO, which is known as a terrorist group. This is the same University that invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak.

Second, African-Americans may be very excited at the thought of one of theirs being President of the USA. But some African-Americans have not learned that a person should be judged by deeds rather than skin color; we have Black Theology churches which teach discrimination towards whites and Jews. There are also Black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who foster discrimination towards whites. And there are those who just believe that one of their own race will ‘do more’ for them.

Third are the poor (and those who feel they are poor, or should have more.) They are looking for help to rise to a higher economic level. They are very vulnerable to suggestions of greater help, and frequently do not look at the true cost of this help, especially when it is in the form of cash. Does this create self-sufficiency, or does it just create a greater dependence on the government? Take, for example, Obama’s pledge to give a tax break to everyone earning under $250,000. The bottom 40% of people do not pay taxes anyway, and would receive a check from the government under his plan. This is welfare and socialism. Handouts like this in other countries have been proven to reduce people’s desire to work. Businesses and high-wage earners will be required to pay the bill. This will cause many businesses to cut their work force, causing more people to be unemployed. Many poor people just do not see or understand this cause and effect.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008


The Democratic Party has penalized Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries earlier than the Party wanted. The Democrats had planned not to seat the delegates from these states at their convention, but were forced by Hillary Clinton to give each of the delegates half a vote and stipulated how many delegates would be given to each candidate.

Many states including Florida and Michigan wanted their primaries early so their citizens would have a greater say in who the candidates for President would be. The current system of always allowing the same states to go first seems to be unfair. If a candidate wins enough of the early primaries to win the nomination of the party, many people in the states that have late primaries feel their vote does not count.

I feel that it is wrong for the Democratic and Republican parties to dictate to the States when their primaries or caucuses must be held. Is the Democratic Party more powerful than a state? If I was the Governor of Michigan or Florida I would have told the Democratic Party that not seating the full delegation from my state was not an option. Further, I would have told them that any Party not seating our full delegation with full voting rights would have their delegate for President removed from the ballot in November.

There is another flaw in the Primary process and that is the caucus. In caucus states the desires of the people are not necessarily represented, since only a few of the qualified voters are selecting who will win the state. Then there are states like Texas which have both a general primary and a caucus. As I understand it, in the general primary all eligible voters can vote. Then later the same day all those who voted in the general primary can attend a caucus and vote a second time. Candidates receive delegates from both the general primary and the caucus. This method is very flawed. First, most voters are not able to attend the caucus. The candidate receiving the majority of votes in the general primary may not get the majority of delegates in the caucus. Therefore, I feel that caucuses do not represent the will of the people. Caucuses are a state issue. All states should do away with caucuses in any form!

Let’s get back to how and when primaries should be held. In my mind there are two options.

We could have primary elections on the same day in all states. This would allow all states and all voters to feel that their vote counts. The primary period would be shorter. However, candidates would likely visit fewer states and would have to rely on television even more.

I like a second option better. The primaries would be held on 10 dates each 2 weeks apart. The states would be divided into 10 groups, each group representing approximately the same number of delegates. Group One would vote on the first date. The second group would vote two weeks later, etc. Four years later at the next Presidential primary, group two moves to the first date, the other groups move up one place, and group one moves to the tenth date. This allows the candidates time to visit every state and focus on each state.

Friday, May 23, 2008


The answer to the question “Why are gas prices so high?” can be traced back to the 1970’s and the extreme Left and Liberals!

I can remember the period very clearly. The price of a gallon of gas was around $1.08 per the EIA (Energy Information Administration) ( The left was saying how terrible we Americans were because America used more gas than any country in the world. We were polluting the air. They wanted the government (Federal and State) to raise taxes on gasoline so a gallon would cost at least $3.00. Keep in mind that was $3.00 in 1972. They felt that at $3.00 per gallon, car manufactures and the American people would be forced to drive less and the use smaller engines (4 cylinder vs. 8 cylinder). One should also note, in 1950 the United States produced 52% of the world’s crude oil; by 1997 that figure had dropped to 10% per EIA (

Over the past 36 years the Liberal Left (Democrats) has pushed through many laws that restrict our ability to drill for oil in the United States and off our shores. They have also restricted our ability to refine oil in the U.S. These actions make us more and more dependent on foreign oil.

Over the past week the Democrat-controlled Congress has proposed a law which would allow the government to sue the oil producing countries, OPEC, for not producing more oil. What a joke! Maybe more appropriately, what a bunch of idiots! First off I do not believe any international court would rule in our favor. Second, the OPEC countries would not pay even if we did get a judgment rendered in our favor. And lastly, this would cost us friends in the Mideast and as any business major can tell you, lawsuits just add to the cost of the product.

Recently I heard that the world has consumed approximately 50% of the oil available in the world. So why should the Saudis or OPEC or any oil-producing country increase their production just to lower the price for us?

The answer to our supply issue is to increase drilling and processing here at home. Offshore drilling, drilling in Alaska and North Dakota, and oil extraction from shale can provide significant amounts of oil and help keep the price down.

This week I have read several articles in the Washington Times that address this subject very well. “To Give America Freedom”, by Frank Gaffney, 5-20-2008 can be found at There was also an article on 5-21-2008 by H. Sterling Burnett, call “Losing The Energy Race” in the Washington Times which I was unable to find on their webpage. However the same article was posted at under the title “We Don't Have To Take $4 Gas Prices — We Can Drill”. This can be found at .

Tuesday, April 15, 2008


I have observed a decline in understanding Honor. Hollywood and many politicians make fun of the Boy Scouts of America because of their clear definition of Right and Wrong. Many movies make heroes of characters who get the criminal but break our laws and violate the rules of law enforcement on a regular basis. Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans consider it OK to cheat or lie in order to advance their careers. This is not honorable. Receiving awards or achieving milestones or success in our careers or other pursuits does not make one honorable. Many sports figures become heroes to us and our children, but frequently get into trouble with the law, use drugs or alcohol, gamble, etc. These men and women are not honorable and should not be considered heroes. Politicians who lie about their achievements or their opponents are not honorable and do not deserve our support.

Senator Clinton’s comments about being under fire in Bosnia and her experience as First Lady were incorrect. We need to ask if these are just one time mistakes or a pattern of behavior? I feel they are part of a pattern of behavior that has been typical of Hillary and Bill Clinton for many years. Basically the Clintons will say and do anything to achieve their goals. I believe Senator Clinton is not morally straight and not a honorable person!!

One’s honor can be affected by association. Can Senator Obama have a spiritual advisor and mentor for twenty years, who is clearly a racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American and not be affected or share the views of his mentor? Could Obama not realize for twenty years that the Rev. Wright was racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American. I say No!! Obama saying he did not know of the Rev. Wright’s sermons which were videotaped is very hard to believe. His refusal to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright indicates Obama’s true beliefs are not far from the Rev. Wright’s. Add to this Michele Obama’s thesis and her comment that this is the first time she been proud of America only supports my conclusion about Obama. Can Obama be as strong a Christian as he would like us to believe? Does his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin or to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance say what he thinks of America? You bet!! This is not an honorable American.

I do not believe Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are morally straight.

Monday, April 14, 2008


Everyone knows I a conservative / Republican. But over the years I have voted for a few Democrats at various levels of government. This year and for the foreseeable future I will not consider voting for a Democrat. To explain why, I will look at what the Democratic Party and its leadership stand for.

The following represents positions a liberal believes in and supports according to Conservapedia:

1. Large / Larger Government
2. Taxpayer – funded abortion
3. Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care (Socialized Medicine)
4. Same-sex marriage or unions
5. Censorship of prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
6. A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
7. Opposition to a strong American foreign policy
8. Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
9. Opposition to full private property rights
10. Promoting liberal deceit if it advances their goals

I would add a couple of items of my own to this list:

1. A lack of support for operation Iraqi Freedom and our military; Cut and run
2. Open borders

It is no secret, that the Democratic Party is presently controlled by the extreme left. This means that they support the above positions all of the time.

Every Democrat we vote for adds to the power of the party leadership. The only way to get change in the Democratic Party is to not vote for any Democrat candidate regardless of his stated position on any of these issues until the party leadership changes significantly.

Voting for Obama just adds one more extreme liberal to the party leadership. He has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. That does not change anything and only adds to the problem.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008


I have noticed a lot of the media commenting on how Sen. Barack Obama is viewed as the only candidate who can bring bipartisanship to our country. This is a very naïve notion. If either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is elected President, the divide will continue because they both represent only the extreme left. The media has presented two divides. One is a false divide maintained by politicians to further maintain their personal causes or to create a divide in the voting public. The other is between the extreme left, or liberal, and the extreme right, or conservative.

The false divide is ethnic division between Caucasians and African Americans. For the vast majority of Americans this divide does not exist. In Congress, I do not see any division along racial lines. The Clintons tried to bring this into play only to get the white vote for Hillary. Other public figures like Rev. Jessie Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton fan the embers of this old divide to further their agendas for the benefit of African Americans. All of this has nothing to do with the current divide in Congress, or between Congress and President Bush.

That leaves us with the division between the extreme liberals and the conservatives. A close look at this divide starts with a review of the Republican and Democratic parties. The public voted Bush into office based on the belief that he was a strong conservative and was the best choice for the War on Terror. The current extreme left Democratic party leadership has a strong hatred for any true conservative, especially one who is religious. This hatred is a key factor in the divide between Democrats and Republicans, and, in my opinion, has aided our enemy in the War on Terror.

Let’s take a look at Sen. McCain’s, Sen. Clinton’s, and Sen. Obama’s Conservative and Liberal rankings as tabulated by the ACU ( American Conservative Union). The following rankings are through 2006.

Candidate --------------Conservative Ranking -------Liberal Ranking
Sen. John McCain --------------82.3 -----------------------17.7
Sen. Hillary Clinton --------------9.0 -----------------------91.0
Sen. Barack Obama --------------8.0 -----------------------92.0

The National Journal ranked Sen. Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007. Sen. Clinton’s ranking did not change in 2007. Sen. McCain’s voting record was more Liberal in 2007 but his lifetime ranking did not change.

Based on these facts it is hard to see how Sen. Obama could possibly bridge the gap or bring bipartisanship to Congress. In fact, these rankings indicate that Sen. McCain would be much more likely to be able to reach compromises between Liberals and Conservatives and to get something accomplished.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006


On July 28, 2006 I read an article titled “Ramsey Clark Plans ‘Emergency March’ to Stop Israel” by Alison Espach of This article really irritated me and caused my heart arrhythmia to act up.

This article indicated that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, various anti-war groups, and Muslim groups have announced their plans for a march on the White House on August 12th to protest U.S. funding of the “Israeli war machine”. Clark claims that providing funding to Israel is grounds for impeaching President Bush. I have searched the Internet for anything that would indicate that the United States has provided any special funding to Israel beyond the normal foreign aid provided each year. I also found out that Israel has not requested any special funding. Once again, the far left has no grounds for their statements.

The National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are all a part of this effort. Brian Becker, the national coordinator for ANSWER feels that the Lebanese and Palestinian people need to know that the President is spending tax dollars for the wars in Iraq and in Lebanon without the consent of the American people. Boy, is this way out there, but there is still more!

The article also indicated the ANSWER does not consider Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. The United Nations does not list them as terrorist organizations either. However, as pointed out by Dr. Ariel Chen, Australia, Canada, Israel, the United States, and the European Union do list Hamas as a terrorist group. Hezbollah is identified as a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. ANSWER justifies Hamas and Hezbollah as non-terrorist groups because they are political parties that include at least 30 to 40 percent of the people. Dr. Ariel Cohen had a good response to this. He stated “So did the Nazi party”. I say a group, whether political or not, should be judged on its actions. Just because a group has established itself as a political entity does not give it the right to carry out terrorist acts. We could also look at this from the other side, and say that because they represent a political group in a country, then that entire country is guilty of the terrorist acts and must be held responsible.

In my opinion the National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are totally out of touch with reality. They completely ignore the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah were the aggressors and caused the current war activity between these organizations and Israel. These terrorist groups have openly stated that their objective is to eliminate or wipe out Israel. They are against any government that is not based on radical Islam. Dr. Cohen is right-on with his comparison of these terrorist groups to the Nazi party.

In my mind the “War on Terror will not be over until Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other terrorist organizations are eradicated from the world. Terrorist organizations or group cannot be tolerated by the world regardless of the country or political group. Terrorism needs to be an unacceptable way to effect change. All members of these organizations, whether in political parties or not, are terrorist and are the enemy in the “War on Terror”. We need to remember that any nation that supports these terrorist groups is also an enemy of the United States of America. We should consider the National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition as enemies because of their support for terrorist organizations. They are allies of terrorist organizations. Americans that support these groups should be charged and prosecuted for treason.

Thursday, April 27, 2006


Thirty-five years ago Kerry appeared before a Senate committee to call for the end to the war in Vietnam. On April 22, 2006 he defended that decision in a speech in Boston’s Faneuil Hall Marketplace. An article in the Washington Post on April 23, titled “Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says”, goes into detail about his speech.

Kerry stated that casting dissent in wartime is a patriotic act. He said “I believed then, just as I do now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties.”

This is true to a certain point. If someone is against war for whatever reason or religious principle, it is understandable. But if one’s actions aid our enemies it is no longer patriotic. If one has manufactured lies about the conduct of our troops, such as Kerry did thirty-five years ago, and has repeated them, as he has, during the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, that person is not patriotic. In fact, Kerry represents to the highest degree possible, the worst in American politics. He will spin the facts to support his position and he will manufacture false evidence. Kerry, along with much of the Democratic Party’s far-left leadership, specializes in this; they are doing everything in their power to undermine the administration’s effort to win the War on Terror.

The Democratic Party’s (and Kerry’s) idea of setting a timeline for pulling our troops out of Iraq only aids the enemy and does nothing to win the war. A premature pullout from Iraq would give the terrorists the victory and would lead to more terrorist attacks. I can only conclude from the repeated pushing of this idea that the current Democratic Party leadership, especially Senator Kerry, do not want to win the war and they have not accepted the fact that we are in a world war against terror. Or maybe they want us to lose the war so they can blame the loss on President Bush and the Republicans.

Kerry says “we are imprisoned in a failed policy” and that the administration has not learned the lessons of history. It is the far left and Kerry who have not learned the lessons of history! If we look back at Vietnam, we won the battles but lost the war. WHY? And why did the American public turn against the war? The bottom line is that you cannot win a war fighting a defensive battle. You must at some point go on the offensive. Fighting only a defensive war just prolongs the agony. Starting with our pullout from Vietnam, the enemies of the United States learned that if they can drag out a conflict long enough and use the American liberal media, they can win.

Is the liberal media totally to blame for all of the negative press about Operation Iraqi Freedom? NO!! It is the Democratic Party leaders like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean who fan the embers of the liberal media in the hope that the general public will grow against the war, and that the embers will grow into a fire that will put them back in power. The Democratic Party leadership has but one goal and that is to gain control of the Senate and win the Presidency in 2008. They do not care who they hurt in the process.

In my book the liberal media and the Democratic Party share the blame. They are the greatest allies the terrorist organizations have. The terrorists could lose every battle in Iraq and win the war with just help from the liberal media and the current Democratic Party leadership!

This type of political game is nothing new for Kerry. He learned it from the Kennedys when he first decided to get into politics. I find him the most despicable figure in politics. Right and wrong are clear, but Kerry, the extreme liberal, wants everyone to believe things are shades of gray rather than black and white. He can always be counted on to vote against a strong military and the things that would help the military remain strong. He will always exaggerate problems with the military and will go as far as lying about them. He has totally lost sight of right and wrong. Kerry started his speech referring to American ideals, but he does not practice what he preaches. What happened to truth and honesty? Is lying to gain votes and power justified? Does Kerry have any honor? NO!

Tuesday, April 25, 2006


I have heard a lot about Global Warming in the news during the past year, driven primarily by the bad 2005 hurricane season and El Nino. Most of the television coverage centered about Earth Day (April 22, 2006) events, which drew the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Howard Dean. It is obvious that they hope to make this an issue the far left can rally around. Al Gore and John Kerry have long supported the doom and gloom of global warming, and hope to gain votes by raising the issue to a higher level. Al Gore is starring in a movie titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, which will be released around Memorial Day. Howard Dean would like to muzzle America’s churches and religious group such as Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) because they counter the extreme left’s desire to support the Kyoto Accord and ignore the impact on the poor of the world and on our economy. Celebrities like Julia Roberts and George Clooney, as “climate experts” have gotten into the act as well. Fortunately, President Bush and the administration are pushing private industry to work on this issue.

I enjoy nature, wildlife, the outdoors, and the American way of life, so I decided to look into the subject. I wanted to understand if global warming is a real issue, if it is an issue what can be done about it, and is it an issue that requires the drastic action some scientists and politicians are pushing. Was President Bush right in not signing the Kyoto agreement? I reviewed more than 20 articles and Web sites and was surprised at the amount of data available. Most of what I found causes me to disagree with the very vocal far left.

The Kyoto Accord legally binds participating developed countries to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions to 5 % below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The United States and Australia are among those who did not sign this agreement. (The countries not signing did agree to non-binding talks on a climate-change agreement that will eventually replace ‘Kyoto’.)

The first question that came to my mind was, How much has the temperature of the earth changed in recent years? The answer is, less than .5 degree increase since 1940. Is this a lot, considering how the industrial complex of the world has grown? Has man’s environment improved, and have we done a responsible job? Should we go back to living like the American Indians prior to the arrival of the first colonists? Is the hype associated with global warming justified, or is it just the result of irresponsible alarmists? From my limited research it appears that the latter is true.

Two of the articles I read were written by Marc Morano: “Media Darling on ‘Global Warming’ Assailed by Colleagues” and “Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry”. A third article was written by Randy Hall: “Global Warming Alarmists Seek ‘Circle of Death,’ Group Says”. These articles point out that much of the hype about global warming centers around a NASA scientist named James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Dr. Hansen has spoken out in the news media about global warming, and because of his position at NASA the news media, including the New York Times and “60 Minutes”, proclaimed him a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the subject. Now it appears that his colleagues at NASA do not agree with him. NASA encourages their scientists speak publicly, but there is a protocol to be followed which Dr. Hansen chooses to ignore. Data releases, and the data itself, have to be approved by NASA Headquarters before going to the media. Hansen refuses to do so. In an interview he gave on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, he declared that 2005 had tied 1998 as the warmest year on record, but an internal NASA memo provides he failed to clear his data. In addition, none of his peers agreed with his interpretation of the data. George Deutsch, former NASA public relations employee, was warned by other employees (not political appointees) at NASA that Hansen is an alarmist and exaggerates. Deutsch does not appear to be the best source for information -- he had to resign his position due to a resume problem (he was one course short of having the degree claimed on his resume) -- but he provided CNS News with documentation that backs up his accusations.

CBS News “60 Minutes” in their March 19, 2006 show profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship by the Bush administration, but did not mention his link to Gore, Kerry, and Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen has contributed to the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and has accepted a $250,000 Heinz Award granted by the foundation run by Teresa. On that same day, Hansen endorsed Senator Kerry’s presidential candidacy! Is Hansen’s position based on politics more than facts? YES!! Also, “60 Minutes” has a history of distorting the truth for the liberal cause.

Why are many countries backing away from the Kyoto agreement? Why is the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) so concerned about how we (the world) address the issue of global warming? The answer illustrates just how complex the problem and solution are. We must understand the causes of global warming; we must address the problem in a way that does not harm or impede the improvements in the lives of the world’s poor; we need to remember that mankind is principally the producer and steward of the world, not the consumer polluter; and we must develop a sound environmental ethic.

We have to act responsibly and recognize alarmists like Dr. Hansen, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. and not jump off the deep end. Are the greenhouse gas emissions the cause of global warming? Based on my reading, the answer is No. According to research done by scientists such as K. Lassen (Danish Meteorological Institute) and Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West (Duke University), the major cause is solar warming. A paper by K. Lassen shows clear evidence that there is a direct correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and temperature changes on Earth during the past 130 years. I am not saying that the greenhouse gas emissions are not contributing to the problem, but we need to understand the full problem in order to take correct action. We should ask, “Is there anything in the atmosphere that reduces the impact of solar activity?” Also, climate experts such as Gabriele C. Hagerl of Duke University say the greenhouse gas buildup will cause significant climate change in the coming century, but not the extreme changes predicted by some studies. New research shows that extreme changes are unlikely to occur.

Based on the information I found in 20-plus articles and Web pages, the Bush administration was correct in not signing the Kyoto agreement. Enforcing the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as proposed in ‘Kyoto’ may cause hardships on many people, economies, and countries. Not that we should not take action, but if the U.S. follows President Bush’s proposals to develop the hydrogen engine to power our motor vehicles, construct nuclear power plants, which provide a much cleaner supply of electricity than fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), and continue to increase our production of ethanol fuel, we could make a significant impact on our greenhouse emissions without hurting the economy.

If we take the approach of forcing tougher restriction on power plants, manufacturing facilities, and motor vehicles, the cost of the products produced will be driven up. This will have an inflationary impact on the economy and will affect low-income families the most. We need to be careful here. Technology can help, but raising taxes to fund these activities can also have a negative impact on the economy and on middle and lower income families in our country.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006


On Friday, April 14, 2006, the Washington Post had two editorials on immigration. One, by Eugene Robinson, was titled “My Immigration Solution”; I feel that Mr. Robinson’s solution is no solution at all! In his words, he “would not brand the current influx of immigrants (as) felons or build a fortress wall along the Mexican border.” After weighing all options, he sees the alternative of allowing a limited flow of immigrants across the border, thinking this could “change the current incentive equation”, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed from Mexico and other South American countries. I believe this idea is a part of at least some of the proposals currently before Congress, but it cannot be the solution by itself. The number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country must be based on our ability to assimilate them into our society. We need the desired growth rate for our country as well as our ability to produce the resources needed to support our total population.

The second editorial, by Charles Krauthammer, was titled “Immigrants Must Choose”. Mr. Krauthammer says the “Hispanic civil rights movement” needs to decide: “Are they ready to be welcomed into the American family as the last illegals -- or only as the first of many millions more?” I do not believe Congress should place much importance on this “Hispanic civil rights movement”. Those who are here legally already have all the rights of anyone else, and do not need any entitlement. We need to treat criminals and lawbreakers humanely, and ensure they have basic human rights, but the bottom line is that the illegal immigrant has broken the law, whether it is a civil or felony offense. One does not ask a lawbreaker if the law needs to be changed, or if we should allow the breaking of the law to go unpunished forever. The laws that are in place should be enforced. A federal officer should not feel bad about enforcing a law. One should not get mad at a police officer giving someone a traffic ticket, if that person was in fact breaking a traffic law. The illegal immigrant should have no say as to what our laws should be!

The foregoing, to me, is a lot of blether!

Gaining control over illegal immigration is a must! What is the solution? Our borders must be closed to illegal immigrants. It is vital to keep in mind that illegal immigrants are not all Mexican or Hispanic. Eugene Robinson, who would really like an open border, like most liberals has never accepted the fact that we are at war with terrorism. Some of the illegals who have come in along the Mexican border are originally from Asian and South American countries that are working hard at becoming enemies of the United States. We need to be able to identify all illegal immigrants as soon as possible, just from a security perspective.

We need to establish a date after which being an illegal immigrant is a felony. This date should be aligned with registering current illegal immigrants. Employers must have a quick and easy way of verifying that a worker is legal . Requiring all employers to use an automated employment verification system is the way to go. This system exists, but needs to be implemented. After the implemetation date the employer must report any illegal immigrants currently employed, or those who apply for work. This raises the risk to the illegal of being caught. We have to convince the would-be immigrant that it is not worth his risk to come into the United States illegally. This will do a lot to ensure a legal workforce.

We should erect whatever is needed in the way of walls, fences, etc. along our Mexician border, and add new surveillance systems for border patrol.

We should plug any loopholes in exiting laws, ensuring that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted. These changes should take place no later than the end of the amnesty period.

Now, what should we do with the countless numbers of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Our government is partly to blame for the magnitude of the situation, because they have not enforced existing laws. Our current immigration facilities could not handle deporting them, or even being able to identify them in a short period of time. This needs to be considered when changing the law associated with those already here. It is not feasible to deport 12 million people! Nor is it fair to automatically make them all legal, with no penalty for having broken the law, and put them on an equal footing with those who have already gone through the current naturalization process to become legal residents. Neither is it fair to give preference to Hispanics over any other nationality. And whatever we do, we must not push the illegal deeper into hiding or into an even more dangerous underground existence. Although most Americans hate the word amnesty, it seems to me the only reasonable approach is to come up with an amnesty program such as the Senate has proposed for the current illegal immigrants. However, any amnesty program must have a cutoff date, corresponding with the date for changing the penalty for illegally entering the U.S. from a civil to felony offence. I would implement an amnesty program for a one-year period, after which any illegal immigrant would be liable to prosecution to the full extent of the law.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006


I have for many years considered myself a “citizen of the world”. A comment received on my April 2, 2006 posting ‘Democratic Party Misses The Point’, got me thinking about what it means. The person providing the comment, who calls himself Corndog, used to be a liberal, and stated that the process of becoming a liberal “begins with the psychological renunciation of one’s American-ness, in order to become a ‘citizen of the world’.” As one might expect, this set me to thinking: Could I be shifting to the left? NO WAY!! I cannot ever see myself as a liberal! So I decided to see what was available on the Internet on this subject, and after doing that, I decided to write about what being a “citizen of the world” means to me.

First, I found an organization called World Citizen, Inc., a non-profit organization that empowers the educational community to promote a just and peaceful world through activities for children and youth. Most educators are very liberal; one should ask are the youth being taught to think, or just being indoctrinated?

Next was The World Citizen Foundation. This is a non-profit, non-partisan think-tank dedicated to the design of solutions to international problems based on the fundamental principles of equal human dignity, liberty, democracy, and constitutionally protected basic rights of all. This may or may not be liberal depending on its members.

Then I found the World Citizen Update. This one started by asking “Who Represents World Citizens?” The message began “In politics, the nation-state insidiously controls not only the dialogue but also the electoral process.” Another statement was “the general public’s loyalty on this national political illusion blinds it to the solution of humanity’s ills taken together, i.e. world law based on human rights”. There is no doubt this is extremely liberal.

The last one was called “World Citizen Guide”. This guide was put together by students for students to use when going abroad. The group, Business for Diplomatic Action, Inc., started this because in their words ‘America’s favorability’ in other countries was decreasing. They blame U.S. public policy, the negative efforts of globalization, our culture, and collective personality. Globalization-- hmmm….that is interesting. One should not go abroad with an attitude, or present one’s self as superior. Depending on how this is done, it could be very good.

Do the preceding come across as leftist or very liberal organizations? (Corndog does have a point.) But I would like to tell you my definition of a “Citizen of the World”. Every individual is a citizen of the world! I do not believe that being a “Citizen of the World” means you must be liberal. That is a false theory that has been accepted for too long. All of the above items are rather liberal in nature. Some of the points they cover are important, but there are many differing viewpoints about what can and can’t be done, and what the causes are. Let’s look beyond these.

The world is getting smaller every day. Back in the 19th century, Jules Verne wrote “Around The World In 80 Days”. We now do it in hours, and astronauts can do it in minutes. But this is only a small part of why the world is getting smaller. If the world is ever going to truly have peace, the economy of every country needs to be developed to its full potential. As long as some countries are under-developed and don’t politically fit in with the rest of the world, there will always be a danger of war. This is a huge challenge for the world to overcome. Every year the economies of the United States and other industrial countries become more dependent on each other. How many items do we buy each year that say ‘made in China’, Korea, Japan, France, Norway, etc.? This occurs because things are made better or cheaper somewhere else, or may not be available in your country. This helps keep down our cost of living, and it helps the economies of other countries to grow. Each country needs to find its niche. The more people of different countries do business with each other, the more they realize we all have the same goals in life, and the more tolerant of each other they become.

Then there are issues such as terrorism that are truly global issues that the world needs to address. The more nations take an active role in this fight, the sooner terrorism will become a thing of the past. Each year since 9/11 more countries have come to this realization. The sooner the world learns to recognize evil and address it with immediate and decisive action, the sooner there will be peace in the world, but as long as countries such as those who took advantage of the UN’s Oil for Food program continue to profit by their actions, the longer the process will take.

In conclusion, I say every person is a “Citizen of the World” because every year we are coming closer together and more dependent on each other. Sometimes the process seems hard to see, but it is happening. The extremist Muslim groups that are fighting this change through terrorist activities are actually accelerating the process by forcing the rest of the world to join together to fight terrorism.

Monday, April 10, 2006


On April 10, 2006, in an article titled “U.S. Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi”, the Washington Post accused the military of magnifying the role of Abu Musabat al Zarqawi in Iraq in order to help the Bush administration justify the war in Iraq by linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda. The article is based in part on a quote from Col. Derek Harvey, an officer on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a meeting that took place LAST SUMMER (2005) in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas! Why would anybody dredge up a statement made that long ago to lend credence to an article in April 2006, in view of the dramatic flare-up of the insurgent problem just since the Iraqi elections in December, months after the meeting at Ft. Leavenworth?

I have three problems with this article.

First, the facts related to Zarqawi as presented by the military prove the Post article is without basis. Everyone should read the American Forces Information Service news article titled “Zarqawi, al Qaeda Threaten Iraq, Military Spokesman Says”, by Steven Donald Smith. This article points out that Zarqawi and al Qaeda have openly declared war on the democratic process in Iraq, and that they have recruited, trained, and equipped more than 90% of the suicide attackers who have injured or killed thousands of Iraqis in the past year. This is a fact, not hearsay as the Post indicated.

Second, the Post article implies that propaganda is bad, and is a tool that should not be used by our military or the United States government. Webster’s dictionary defines propaganda as “information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, movement, nation, etc; the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement”. The heart of capitalism and our election process are very dependent on propaganda. My take on this is if the information used is based on fact, it is good. However, I must add: if it was illegal to put out false information, many politicians, like John Kerry, who lied and propagated false information about our military in Vietnam and in Iraq, would be in jail and not in Congress!

Third, the Post article opened by saying that the military overstated al Zarqawi’s importance in helping the Bush administration link the war in Iraq to al Qaeda. I do not understand their point. Zarqawi is a member of al Qaeda, and he is in Iraq. The Washington Post is just pushing their own agenda once more, and not reporting the facts. They are trying to make something out of nothing, and hurting our military and the war effort in the process, without just cause.

Saturday, April 08, 2006


Once again Senator John Kerry opened his mouth and tried to undermine President Bush and his administration in an article titled “May 15 Deadline Urged for Iraq’s Government”. This time, his statements received only minimal support from his own party, but there was one idea Kerry put forth that, if changed slightly, might help get the formation of the Iraqi government moving faster. He suggested convening a summit of Iraqi leaders and others on neutral ground, with the goal of reaching agreement on a government. I do not believe the newly-elected members of the Iraqi Parliament would agree to a summit meeting outside of Iraq, but maybe they could be closured within Iraq, with no contact with others in their home areas, and hopefully come to an agreement. (However, are they doing any worse than our own Senate is doing with the borders and immigration issue?)

Senator Kerry has no respect for people of the Middle East and showed it with his suggestions that the Iraqis do not want democracy as much as we want it for them, and that Iraqi politicians show no commitment to establish a working government. He has always talked down to the people of the Middle East. Unfortunately, his approach only strengthens distrust of the United States in the Middle East, and may cost us dearly.

Setting up arbitrary deadlines like May 15 for having a government formed or risking the pullout of American troops, as Kerry suggested, is a bad idea. This is nothing more than the cut-and-run proposals put forth by Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, and Democratic Party Leader Howard Dean. The Iraqis are attempting for the first time in their history to set up a democratically elected government. They are currently struggling with the selection of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as Prime Minister. We have to give them time to work through the issues surrounding the selection of the Prime Minister and the formation of a National Unity government. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this past week that “it takes patience”, and he quoted Bill Schuster who said “we’re living in the microwave age where we expect everything to be cooked in about 30 seconds.” In Rumsfeld’s words “The world isn’t like that”, but despite the difficulties associated with putting the Iraqi government in place, progress is being made. There are now in excess of 240,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and they are carrying more and more of the load. Now is not the time to cut and run!

Kerry also said the Bush administration has made only half-hearted diplomatic efforts to overcome the issues preventing the government from being established. He stated that the administration has failed to support U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s efforts. Of course there is no basis for these statements. Has the Ambassador said this? NO! Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visited Iraq this week and pushed the issue, but Kerry totally dismissed her efforts.

Senator John Kerry should just shut up and go home. In my book he is a terrible example of what a Senator should be. The foundation of his career was based on lies about American servicemen in Vietnam. He is what I call pure politician, which means he will say or do anything to get votes no matter who he steps on or hurts in the process. There is no honor in this man. No one should believe anything he says.