Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

Our President is THE BLACK KNIGHT

This post has absolutely nothing to do with race.  But watching the president today reacting to the shellacking he and his fellow progressives took yesterday, I was reminded of one of my all time favorite movie scenes.
 President Obama is now willing to call it a draw.  Now we can compromise.  "It's only a flesh wound!"

Got a Funny Feeling?

Survival books, whether they be outdoor survival, or about surviving in the city, tell you to trust your instincts.  We can all sense danger, it's just that we usually ignore our instincts.  As Americans, we trust until we are given a reason not to trust.  That makes us easy targets for everything from e-mails from Nicaraguan check-cashing scams, to 9/11 terrorists taking flying lessons in our country.  Or for that matter, immigrants entering our country illegally, counting on us to let them stay.  Our trust makes us an easy target.

So, let's put a couple of things in writing and see if it gives us a "funny" feeling.  I'm not even going to list all our president's socialist/communist/maoist advisers.  That's so old that we don't even get any feeling about it.  So let's start with the president's reaction to the incident involving the D.C. police and Harvard professor Gates.  When asked for a reaction, President Obama said, "I don't have any details, but it is apparent that the police acted stupidly."  I don't have any facts, but I have a strong opinion anyway.  Kind of funny coming from the most powerful leader in the free world, huh?  

President Obama on his cap and trade legislation, changed to green job creation legislation, now changed to American energy independence legislation:  "under my plan, the cost of electricity would necessarily skyrocket."  What politician in their right mind would say his plans would make any utility cost, not just increase, but "skyrocket?"  Seems like he is not worried about our support.  It's like the issue has already been decided.  And why would he want it to take effect during the worst recession of the lifetime of the average American and before an already hotly contested midterm election?  A little funny, huh?  Then we learn that the president was the conduit for the Joyce Foundation's grant to start the only energy exchange in the United States, and that he worked on the grant while still an unknown state senator.  A little funny.  A little, very little actually, research is required to learn that other investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange are a company with Al Gore on the board (An Inconvenient Truth, huh Al?); a bank, Goldman Sachs, who not only was a major contributor to the economic recession, but also received huge taxpayer funded bailouts; and several of the board members of the Chicago Climate Exchange came from Goldman Sachs.  Funny.  

Exxon-Mobil decided a couple of years ago not to form a separate department to do research for alternate forms of energy.  They decided it was best to do what they have always done, look for oil.  Seeing how fast the world is changing, it seemed a little funny that they would not at least hedge their bets by starting to adapt to future alternative energy demands.  Fuji Films and Kodak are examples of how quickly an established company can go from the top to broke by not being on the leading edge of innovation.  But Exxon-Mobil seemed oblivious to the danger of falling behind.  Funny.

One of the president's first acts when he took office was to freeze leasing on shallow water offshore oil drilling, and a federal takeover, or much tighter restrictions of western land where drilling was planned, or already taking place.  No freeze on deepwater drilling though.  Oil companies complained a little, but were strangely quieter than you would expect about the restrictions.  Some just adapted and went to more deepwater drilling projects.  Now we all know what happened with British Petroleum's well in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely enough, the president was very reasonable in his early reaction.  He said BP would be responsible for the clean-up and loss of business revenue caused by the explosion and leak.  Again, strangely enough, BP has seemed relatively unconcerned about the cost of the lost rig, its eleven employees killed, the loss of sales of a minimum 5000 barrels of oil a day, at $70+ per barrel for more than 40 days and counting, that turns into real money pretty quickly.  Kind of funny how calm and reasonable BP has been about this loss, and the potential cost of the clean up.  Funny too how unconcerned about the huge decline in their stock market value they have been.

Now, all offshore drilling leases have been frozen for a minimum of 6 months.  Effectively a minimum of a year for projects off the coast of Alaska where many projects had been planned.  Land-based drilling restrictions still have not been eased to compensate.  The cap and trade bill in the senate has now been re-named an American Energy Independence bill, and it still will cause costs to skyrocket.  But little to no complaints or comments from the media or oil companies like Exxon-Mobil or British Petroleum who would potentially be hurt the most by the legislation.  Funny.

The Chicago Climate Exchange estimates business transactions of $10 trillion a year if the legislation passes.  They stand to make a boatload, make that an oil tankerload, of money if the legislation passes.  Yet, only a couple of days after the Canadian Free Press ran stories showing the suspicious links of the Exchange to the president, his backers and advisers, to Goldman Sachs, to Al Gore, and more, the founders of the Exchange sold their controlling interest.  Funny.  Sold their interest to an Atlanta based company called Intercontinental Exchange (ICE on the New York Stock Exchange).  Thirty minutes on their site and a couple of business news sites and you will learn that major shareholders in ICE include Exxon-Mobil.  Funny.  British Petroleum holds a large share.  That's funny.  Why isn't MSNBC investigating?  General Electric holds a big piece of ICE.  General Electric owns all the NBC networks.  Now that's funny.

For as long as I can remember, oil prices have gone up around Memorial Day, as Americans hit the road for summer vacations.  Oil prices traditionally go up when hurricane season arrives in June and potentially threatens to interfere with our coastal refineries and oil shipments.  Oil prices always go up with increased regulation, like the recent offshore freezes by the president.  Oil prices always go up when tension in the middle east increases, like it has with the recent incident with Israel blockade of Gaza.  So, in the past 60 days, we have had the worst offshore drilling accident in U.S. history, followed by tightened government restrictions, followed by the arrival of summer vacation season, followed by the start of hurricane season in the Gulf, topped off by extreme tension in the middle east.  Oil prices have gone down in that time.  That's funny.

That's just the oil-related funny feelings.  Throw in the funny worldwide and media reaction to Israel's defending itself against terrorist organizations whose goal is the absolute annihilation  of Israel.  Add the president's funny labeling of Arizona's immigration law as "misguided" before he, his attorney general, his Homeland Security secretary, or anyone else in the administration had even read it.  Add the continued criticism of the law even though an estimated 65% of Americans and over 70% of registered voters nationwide support the law.  Add the passage of a health care law that over 60% of registered voters oppose; a bill whose cost upon analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office keeps going up.  And finally add the seeming indifference to an unemployment rate staying near 10%, even with funny hiring practices by the Census department reducing the number of unemployed temporarily.

We should have a very funny feeling about all this.  Either they have another crisis planned that they will take advantage of to keep and increase their control, or this Democratic/Progressive Congress and President are the political equivalent of a suicide bomber that is just trying to do as much damage and leave as big a hole as possible when all this blows up.  I have a funny feeling that a large hole is not their goal.      

Tell Me, Who Are You?

Here's my daily football reference.  The featured band at this past year's Super Bowl was The Who.  Thanks to CSI on television, their most well-known song is Who Are You.  That's a question we should be hearing a lot between now and November's elections.  

I read a lot of news and opinions from sites as diverse as Big Government and The Huffington Post.  Even more informative than the articles themselves are the comments that follow.  On one site, you will see a lot of "Obama's the anti-christ" type comments.  Of course on the other, they claim that it's all Bush's fault, you racist!  Read enough of the comments, and you really start to worry about where our country is heading, and even more importantly, why our politicians are encouraging the division.  There is very little discussion of the topic.  Mainly a lot of name-calling.  Both sides of our national arguments strongly believe they are right, and that the other side is stupid, evil, or possibly just stupidly evil.

In the past four months or so, I have become a Glenn Beck fan.  The thing that first attracted me to his show was his level-headedness.  He would lay out the facts, tell his listeners to check them out for themselves, and then decide for themselves.  He has never, at least that I have heard, read, or seen, said that our president or his supporters were evil.  Beck has repeatedly said that they have an agenda for the transformation of America.  That happens to be a progressive/socialist agenda and they have been very upfront about their intentions, but only if you are listening.  The progressives truly believe that their plan is what is best for America.  Beck has also said that he believed that when he laid out the facts, the national media would take the story and run with it and the American public would wake up.  Well, the national media has not covered the story.  They seem to be part of the progressive/socialist movement.  So then Beck laid out the connections between the media (GE-owned NBC networks), the president, Al Gore, Fannie Mae, the economic collapse, the global warming hoax,  the cap and trade legislation, and the trillions of dollars the legislation would bring to each of them.  Still no public outrage.

So, for the sake of comparison, say you see flames bursting out of the upstairs window of a crowded theater.  You run inside yelling "fire!!!"  Only a few patrons glance your direction.  So you yell louder.  Still no response.  You run outside, take a picture with your handy dandy cell phone camera.  Run back inside, waving the photo over your head, while still screaming "fire" at the top of your lungs.  When only a couple of patrons follow you outside, you get mad.  Now, instead of trying to inform the movie-goers of the danger they are in, you start name-calling.  "Moron" comes to mind.  How can they not see the peril.  They just must be stupid.  Maybe in reality, they are very cold-natured.  Burning the theater for warmth is the best idea they have.  They truly believe you are a conspiracy theory loving idiot; they are not trying to kill everyone.  A really big fire is the best way to get warm.

Ok, it's a stretch.  But that's where we are as a nation.  While Beck and others are yelling "socialism, you idiots," Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, and NBC are yelling, "we know, you idiots!"  We've got stop the name-calling and birth certificate checking and educate ourselves and those great masses of uninformed about what is really at stake.  Progressive sounds good.  We all like progress, right?  Well, kind of like the change we were promised, we'd better find out what we are progressing toward.  History does not paint a very pretty picture of past socialist movements.  

And history is what we all need to learn.  A big part of the country is waking up to the fact that the progressive movement began to change our history almost a century ago.  The changes to the Texas curriculum could be a start in the change back to the truth.  David Barton was part of the board that made the changes.  Check out his book, Original Intent for the real history of our founders, especially their belief that they were led by God.  As Barton says repeatedly, the founders were Christians.  Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  The founders did not believe in government sponsoring a religion, but neither was religion banned from government.  

Another extremely hot topic is race.  So, take a look at Barton's American History in Black and White.  It tells the true roles of black Americans in the formation of our country, starting with patriots who were instrumental in the winning of the revolution.  The 3/5 compromise (slaves only counted as 3/5 a citizen in deciding representation in Congress) was a powerful anti-slavery provision.  That's not Barton's opinion, Glenn Beck's, or mine.  That's the opinion of Frederick Douglas.  Just in case you went to public school between 1980 and today, Douglas was a former slave and abolitionist leader who became great friends with Abraham Lincoln.  At first glance, it looks like the founders believed that blacks should not count as a whole person.  Then think logically.  When counting population to determine representation, southern slave states wanted slaves counted.  Northern states said, they count when freed.  Southern states threatened not to sign the Constitution, so a 3/5 compromise was reached.  Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and John and Samuel Adams believed that slaves would be eventually freed in response to the free market and in order to increase southern states' representation.  But counting slaves for representation would only tilt the congress toward making slavery permanent.  When was the civil rights bill first passed?  How about during the Grant (R) administration.  Some was overthrown by courts, then the rest repealed by the Wilson (D) administration.  Who re-introduced it?  Eisenhower (R) re-introduced it.  It never made it out of a Democratic senate.  Kennedy(D) and Johnson(D) both voted against it.  The vast majority of Americans believe that Republicans have consistently fought against rights for minorities and that Democrats have been leaders in the fight for equality.  At least since President Lincoln (R) got it all started.  But we all know that he would be a Democrat today!

Those are just some of the things that were taught at one time.  We need to learn why the texts were changed and make sure all Americans know true American history.  Americans need to make informed decisions at the next election.  We need to know who we are and where we want to go.  We can't again vote for change without asking "change to what?"  Obama's idea of what America is, is not my idea of what America is.

Glenn Beck is very good at distilling issues to their core.  On his television show today, he said Americans need to look to the summer of 1969.  Are we the Americans that went to the moon?  Or are we the Americans who, three weeks after the moon landing, rolled in the mud smoking pot at Woodstock?  As Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who (they played at Woodstock by the way) asked, "Who are you?"

Barack Hussein Obama is a Jewish Mother??

 A commentary on the average American's response to Arizona's new immigration law quoted poll results from Newsweek illustrating that Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona's position.  The question was phrased in several different ways.  In the different versions of the question, Americans' support of the law ranged from 65% to 78%.  The lowest positive rate was of the question, "would you support your state passing a similar law.  "Only" 58% answered yes.  So, why is everyone in the Obama administration criticizing the law, without ever reading it?  What is their goal?  In an already contentious mid-term election year, when most experts predict Democrats losing control of at least one branch of congress, why fly into the face of such overwhelming public opinion?


At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother.  You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children?  "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day.  I know you are busy and all.  I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule.  I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."


The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way.  That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign.  Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist.  They couldn't question his choice of religion.  So what if he is a Muslim?  They couldn't question his choice of a pastor.  So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God?  They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.  His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him.  They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America."  They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator.  Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism.  Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words."  And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.

Now immigration policy is the hot topic.  Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law.  The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law.  It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions.  So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality.  Without ever reading it!  He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!

Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives.  His topic?  The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law.  His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House!  And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans.  What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments.  The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working.  Or are they trying to divide the country even further.  It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what.  So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism.  Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment.  And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed.  So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them.  What could be their endgame?  The possibilities are a little scary to think about.

Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.  


Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up.  Just the cities, as the case in most of the country.  It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity!  Hope that wasn't too racist.  I'm feeling a little guilty.

Thank God for Texas!!

When we moved to Arizona in 1993, it was the first time in my life that I lived outside of Texas.  When we were renting our house, the lady we were renting from told us where all the county offices were in Prescott.  She said we should get an Arizona license plate as soon as possible.  She said if we did not, expect to get stopped a lot by the local police.  They don't like people from out of state, but especially not those from Texas.  We kind of laughed it off, but did get new plates fairly quickly.  Didn't want to tempt fate or the local police department.  We were in Arizona for a few years before moving back to Texas - Amarillo.  No one recommended that we change our Arizona plates quickly.  We moved back to Arizona in 2005.  I started work on Monday.  Thursday afternoon when I went outside for a break, I found a note on my windshield from the local sheriff's department.  It detailed the local requirements for updating your vehicle registration within 30 days after moving and told the fines possible if you did not.  I did not see it as an anti-Texas practice, just a revenue enhancer for the county.  My belief was justified when another new hire came on from Oklahoma and received the same note within a week.  And no one resents Okies.

Then I moved to Colorado and what a difference!  I heard the usual jokes and good-naturedly took them.  It's easy to take the jokes about your perceived natural superiority when you know that you really are superior!  The first comment that was not good-natured joking came from a local hunter when I was selling him a hunting license.  A license for the first elk hunting season came to about $175 and he started complaining about those *@! Texans making the price of licenses go up.  Well, the same license for a non-resident cost almost $500!  And the state is using money from out of state hunters to actually keep the cost down for in-state hunters.  Not to mention the sales tax I collected from them on the ammo, sleeping bags, tents, firewood, propane, gasoline, coats, orange hunting vests, gloves - what exactly did they bring with them???  I probably threw a little fuel on his fire when I mentioned that our little town was actually part of Texas at one time.  Along with Denver and Cheyenne and everything in between.  He just lived in the part of the country that original Texans decided they had no use for.

Next came negative comments from Raelynn's 5th grade teacher about Texans in front of her class.  Raelynn was upset, so Cathy let the teacher know that Raelynn lived in Texas and still has a lot of family in Texas and she should be careful who she is ridiculing in front of the class.  The comments stopped, but so did any other conversation or interaction with the teacher.

We moved to Gunnison, which is a friendlier area.  It has to be, since it gets a huge chunk of revenue from out of state skiers, summer vacationers, and students at Western State.  Like most prejudices, they are softened with exposure to people from a different background.

I started seeing news stories a couple of weeks ago about conservative views being re-introduced into school curriculums in Texas.  Since Texas is the largest non-California market, what is taught in Texas is rolled out to the rest of the country since publishers go for the biggest market.  And California is so far off the chart that no one will follow them.  According to the news stories, the conservatives were successful in rolling back almost all the progressive changes, especially to history, that occurred beginning in the early 1970's.  So the media and progressive educators started sniping.  An editorial cartoon in this Sunday's Denver Post (yes, I am one of the 156 people that still read the newspaper) showed a copy of the Constitution with sticky notes saying things like "mention the 2nd amendment here," "can't we work Reagan in here somewhere," "talk about capitalism here," etc.  Like requiring students to memorize and recite the preamble to the Constitution is a bad thing!  And the 2nd amendment is in there!  And Reagan was a president!  And Texas and United States has actually featured English-speaking white men!  It's Texas history!  We won the Texas revolution.  Don't really care why Santa Ana decided it was necessary to kill everyone at the Alamo.  Just that he did and he got his butt kicked at San Jacinto.  And Sam Houston did not have all his gun-toting rednecks kill all the Mexicans.  He let them live and go back home to Mexico.  He didn't even decide to go conquer more territory.  Same with the American revolution, WWI and II, the Cold War, capitalism vs. communism/socialism/fascism.  We won.  Get over it.  America is blessed and exceptional.  Our kids need to be taught about the good things their country has done and is doing.  It is not necessary to go around bowing to foreign despots and apologizing for our success.

Years ago when I had the book store, I noticed a paperbook published in the early 1970's or maybe even the late 1960's, called The Super-Americans.  Its premise was that the reason other Americans dislike Texans is the same reason that people in other countries don't like Americans.  We know we are right, and don't really care to hear what you think about it.  As Emmitt Smith told Kevin Greene of the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XXX, "look at the scoreboard."  That's all that matters.  Deal with it.  

First the education reforms, then being one of the first states to say they will challenge the health care takeover in court, to being one of the few states whose economy is not in complete freefall.  Now, take a look at this nightmare of a news story from Washington.  It's just unbelieveable how far we have fallen as a country.  About half the comments say that the mother in the story is wrong.  She should have no say in the matter.  What the school did was legal.  In 1995, Texas repealed the law that would allow the schools to do this in Texas.  So maybe California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Washington, Colorado, and D.C. should just close their mouths and take a look at the scoreboard.  Follow the example of a successful state.       

Public Lands, Hope, Change, Hope It Changes!

When we first moved to Arizona in the 90's, one of the first things I noticed was all the public land.  We went all over the north and central part of the state, hiking, camping, and taking day trips.  Coming from Texas, I couldn't believe that you could do so much travelling without coming to a fence, locked gate, or No Trespassing sign. 

As someone who loves to camp, hike, and practice outdoor photography, I really enjoy the access to all the wild areas of the state.  Colorado also is home to large amounts of federally controlled land.  Take a look at the maps of the three states above.  Any part of that map that is not white is owned in some way by the federal government.  I'm not sure what percentage of Colorado and Arizona are federal land, but it is well over 50%.  Texas is just under 2%.  I read that Utah is over 90%, and Nevada is 98%!  I think the only part of Nevada not controlled by the government must be Las Vegas.  No wonder President Obama seems to hate Vegas! 

Recently the President used an executive order to "protect" parts of western Colorado to preserve habitat for wild horses.  Who doesn't want to protect the habitat of wild horses?  I don't know how he finds time for all his interests.  What with running Government Motors, Chrysler, all those banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, controlling excessive insurance company profits, and getting healthcare legislation passed in spite of the fact that most Americans don't want it.  I bet he watched the Disney movie Spirit, with his daughters last weekend.  And they said, "daddy, you've got to make sure those poor horses have a place to live!"  You know how persuasive little girls can be.  He probably looked at a map and figured that western Colorado would be a good place for some mustangs, I bet he watched an old Ronald Reagan Henry Fonda western that mentioned horses in Colorado. 

Surely it wouldn't be because of the shale deposits in the area that he decided to limit private company's access?  You know the shale that energy companies can extract clean burning, efficient natural gas from?  The same energy companies that would provide hundreds of high paying jobs to people who would then buy houses, cars, healthcare insurance, and pay taxes.  That's what President Reagan called "trickle down economics."  It does work.  It's the only thing that does work.  The problem that President Obama and his progressive friends have with trickle down economics is that private companies are making money.  And deciding for themselves how to spend it. 

I travelled regularly in the Grand Junction area last year and listened to a local radio station frequently.  They started with stories about tighter regulations on drilling in the area, making it more expensive to extract the natural gas, which was going down in price at the same time.  Then, later in the year, Haliburton announced that it was discontinuing operations in the area and laying off hundreds of employees.  Home construction in the area that had been booming for over a year, suddenly slowed to a crawl.  Construction workers that had been spending a good portion of their paychecks in the local stores moved on to jobs in other parts of the country (probably Texas with all its non-federal land).  Guess what?  Unemployment went from 3.5% in the summer of 2007 to 4.5% in January 2008 to 9.4% in today's report.  Oh yeah, with all those evil energy companies, their well-paid employees and their paychecks going elsewhere, sales in the area stores dropped dramatically, forcing more layoffs.  And to make matters worse, the drop in sales brings a drop in sales tax revenues.  So now the local governments are feeling the pain too.  Only the government could screw things up this bad and this quickly.  

So, the obvious solution?  Restrict development in the region even more!  Not what you would've thought?  Well, then you are obviously not a mustang loving Harvard graduate.  

To steal a line from Sarah Palin, "How's that hope-y change-y thang working out for ya now?"  

Change the Past Control the Future

In college, I think it was freshman literature, I read a science fiction collection called Last Defender of Camelot, by Roger Zelazny.  My favorite short story in the book was A Game of Blood and Dust.  In the story, intelligent beings play a game where they are each able to change three events in  history.  Then they let history play out and see if human life on earth continues, blood wins, or if mankind eliminates itself, dust wins.  For example, in one of the scenarios, the blood player makes John Wilkes Boothe successful in his attempt to assassinate President Lincoln (implying that originally Lincoln survived).  Anyway, the theme is that with only a few minor changes the course of events is altered.

Our politicians have learned that lesson.  But since they are unable to actually change past events, they are changing how they are reported or recorded or, most importantly, taught.  For example, what do you think of when President Grant is mentioned?  Of course, the first thing I think of is his victory as general of the Union army in the Civil War.  But I was also taught that he was a drunken butcher that only won because the Union had superior numbers and resources.  I seem to remember being taught that he graduated last in his class at West Point.  As President, his reputation was even worse.  Again, he was a drunken executive that overlooked rampant corruption that almost destroyed the recently saved Union.  Take a look at Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character for a more accurate view of the great general and President.  While in office, he would get daily visits from his former Union soldiers, coming by to thank him for leading them through the terrible war.  Sound like a drunken commander who forced his men through a meatgrinder at the unnecessary cost of thousands of lives?  Hardly.  As President, he advocated a peaceful integration of Native Americans into white man's culture.  He worried that the only alternative was "a war of extermination."  Again, not exactly what you would expect from a blood-thirsty warrior.  After leaving office, he was greatly respected by most Americans, ranking only behind Washington and Lincoln in esteem.  

So, why the change in the public's perception?  It's not like he did anything after office to change our view.  Could it possibly be that while in office, he constantly supported the position of the individual states over the federal government?  You know, like the Constitution requires.  The Constitution that he and all other Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend."  After President Theodore Roosevelt's term, only 24 years after Grant, the focus was on the powers of the federal government.  And since then, with the exception of President Reagan's two terms, the federal government has been slowly and at times, not so slowly, grabbing more and more power.  So, by the time FDR comes into office and begins to accelerate the power grab, Grant is being portrayed as a drunken fool.  

With me, almost everything has a sports, or more likely, a Dallas Cowboy analogy.  When Drew Pearson played for the Cowboys in the 1970's and early 1980's, he was a perennial All-Pro.  Along with Steve Largent, he was seen as the league's top receiver.  And with his big plays at crucial times, no receiver was more "clutch" than Drew Pearson.  Yet, he has never even made it to the final ballot of Hall of Fame voting.  Why not?  Receivers like Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, who have similiar stats but at least in Stallworth's case, nowhere near the longevity or the clutch plays are in the Hall.  Pearson was the victim of some politics by some voters.  Tackle Rayfield Wright finally overcame the same issues just a couple of years ago.  More than twenty years after he last played a game.  To see the true greatness of a player, look at how they were perceived when they actually played.  Don't let years of revision cloud your perception. 

Grant has suffered from this kind of biased revision.  On the flip side, FDR has enjoyed a complete historical makeover.  Historians and economists have quietly said for years that Roosevelt's policies did nothing to end the Great Depression, and actually may have made it worse and more lengthy.  Yet, we are taught in school that Roosevelt was one of our greatest Presidents and was so beloved by Americans that he was elected to office four times!  He was so beloved that only six years after he died, Americans ratified the 22nd Amendment, guaranteeing that no one would ever hold the office more than eight years.  Just to compare, the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in 1923, and today, only 87 years later, it still has not been ratified!  Sounds like Roosevelt was truly loved and respected by all.  Or at least all progressive historians.

I'll continue this tomorrow, I've gone kind of long here!