Anything But Civil

You can call it civil, but the reality will be anything but.

The drumbeat of homosexual marriage continues to reverberate through the states houses of congress across the country. After the Iowa Supreme Court overrode the will the people by declaring their state constitution amenable to homosexual marriage and the Vermont state legislature narrowly overrode the governor’s veto of the same issue, state office fillers are looking for a way to placate their homosexual constituency without causing a drop in their poll numbers amongst heterosexual voters.

In Illinois the state may soon be considering a bill proposed by Chicago Democrat Representative Greg Harris granting both homosexual and heterosexual couples the right to a civil union status. This civil union would hold all the same rights as marriage without being called marriage. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors designed to accomplish both of the above stated objectives.

The problem is it won’t work.

First off, the homosexual activists driving this debate will not be satisfied with anything less than a union called marriage. They don’t actually want the legal benefits as much as they want homosexual marriage accepted by law in all 50 states. Even if this bill passed and all the legal rights were granted, the homosexual community would still not be satisfied with a civil union and claim it was a second rate solution which treats them like second class citizens.

The reality is that the vast majority of the homosexual community would not consider entering into a marriage agreement. Monogamy is a difficult proposition in the heterosexual community. It is all but non-existent in the homosexual community. It is not about getting married for most of those actively seeking it, but rather a rallying cry for homosexual rights.

Secondly, the heterosexual voting bloc will not hold their representatives harmless once the true costs and ramifications of civil unions became apparent. They think civil unions will have no effect on married couples. They are wrong.

The first thing heterosexuals will notice is the dramatic increase in their already outrageous insurance premiums. As civil unions will be allowable between either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend will become eligible for employer subsidized health insurance. This may ease the burden of the uninsured on the health care system, but it will have a profound impact on the employer’s costs of health insurance. Employers will be forced to either offer the same plan to civil union couples as they do for married couples or they will be forced to reduce or completely terminate the premium subsidy currently provided. It will also be almost impossible to check for fraud as the couples will not have the legal restrictions of marriage and it is unlikely anybody would change their name. The risk of fraud is so great it will likely influence the time new enrollees must wait before coverage becomes effective. Anybody with a sick friend can now claim a civil union and garner insurance benefits without the ramifications of dissolving a marriage. If the effective date is extended for civil unions it will by law be extended for married couples as well.

By law unmarried civil union couples will have the ability to qualify for insurance benefits for their companion’s children as well further increasing costs and threatening benefits. All this with very little ability to verify actual eligibility.

It will extend survivor benefits to a live-in unless a legal will is in place that specifies otherwise. This includes social security benefits tacked onto an already bankrupt system. It will open the door to all sorts of legal questions regarding property settlements in the case of death or even in the case of a breakup. A whole new set of benefit laws and probate laws will need to be established to accompany this flawed piece of legislation. Even children custody rights will be called into question.

Insurance and probate are just a few of the areas that will make civil unions unworkable. Just think of every other financial area that marriage entails and you can see how a civil union will have a detrimental effect. The idea that civil unions will be a cheap and easy alternative to traditional marriage is both shortsighted and patently incorrect. It will only reduce the current benefits enjoyed by married couples and increase fraud at every level. Once again, politicians are looking to appease their constituents by lowering the standards instead of increasing responsibility.

Cheap and easy. It’s fine when you’re talking about a TV dinner, but is that what we should be striving for in our relationships?

Bowing To The King Of Partisanship

After bowing like a subservient slave before the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President Barack Hussein Obama is now bowing to the real king of his administration. Good old fashioned American partisan politics.

It has got to be tough for this accomplished campaigner to actually have nothing left to campaign for. He is like a fish out of water. Oh sure, he’s the President of the United States. But doing the job isn’t anywhere near as much fun as running for it. It is far easier and more politically expedient for this thoughtful self-biographer to lay the groundwork for the upcoming midterm election and then his reelection campaign of new promises than it is to make the hard choices of the chief executive and stand on the principles he has already explained.

Last week this president of hope and change bowed down to the internal pressures within the Democrat Party and abandoned his previous position that no prosecutions would take place regarding the interrogation techniques used to garner information after 9-11. His new and anything but improved position is that his liberal political hack Attorney General Eric Holder will make the decision as to prosecutions. Holder who lobbied for forgiveness of murderers from the FALN has already discussed his willingness to prosecute the dastardly interrogators from the Bush era.

Only two days before this new position was announced, the president’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was on ABC’s Sunday morning show “This Week” with ex-Clinton communication director George Stephanopoulos. He said of the president “"He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted. ... It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy in looking back in any sense of anger and retribution."

Not a time for retribution? Guess again Rahm!!! Retribution is all the Democrats have to run on.

They certainly don’t want the American people to look at who was holding the national checkbook and formulating the national budget for the two years prior to the current recession. They don’t want even the possibility that someone might ask how we let Fannie May and Freddie Mac get into a position to collapse the entire global economy without any oversight. And they really don’t want anybody to question the trillions of dollar in new spending that is and will continue to have absolutely no effect on stimulating the economy. Hammering away at the Bush administration is the only answer for keeping the national attention deflected enough to stay in power.

But at what cost?

It was the rather innocuous act on the part of the Clinton administration of installing the wall of silence between intelligence agencies that allowed the covert terrorist cells to formulate a plan, learn to fly jetliners without the need to learn how to land them and carry out test runs that led to that fateful morning in September 2001.

This chillingly vengeful political maneuver on the part of the Obama administration will have equally disastrous consequences for the future of intelligence gathering and terrorist interrogation. Is waterboarding an extreme measure? Yes it is. Is it as extreme as flying planeloads of people into crowded office buildings and government offices? I’m voting no on that one.

No one will need to ask how we allowed another brutal, murderous attack to take place. We will only need to look at the interrogation records to find that the attorneys for the terrorists we had in custody counseled their clients to plead the 5th Amendment when it came to discussing future plans of attack on America.

I am certain that the Democrats will be all too eager to blame long held resentments that the misunderstood terrorists had against the Bush administration as the reason for the successful assault. But the real reason will be that the interrogators hands will have been tied tighter than those of the terrorist being questioned.

It’s really easy to connect the dots on the how and why this change in presidential opinion is taking place. It’s also pretty easy to see where the last dot of this timeline is located.

Would this president and the Democrat Party pursue prosecution of interrogators at the expense of national security?

Insert your answer here. I know mine.

Polling The Polls

The polls are in and its official, Barack Obama is the greatest president in the history of the world.

Reporters are gushing and waxing poetic tomes of effusive praise for this 100 day old president. There are just not enough words to express the wonders of what Barack Hussein Obama has been able to accomplish in this opening salvo of his presidency.

The Pew Research Center released their most recent poll showing a 63% approval rating for Obama. The AP and Gfk Roper Public Affairs survey showed a 64% approval rating. The press is delighted to quote these impressive although not extraordinary numbers for a first term president’s first 100 days. But if you take a closer look the numbers are far more revealing and may prove that the old rules of polling are not going to supply real or useful data with this administration.

Addressing the second issue first, the numbers show that these polls are dubious at best. I am a firm believer that if you want to discover a root cause or the reasoning behind an action all you have to do is follow the money. So the question is; where is there money to be made in this presidential popularity polling? Certainly news media will pay even though most have their own polling and political action groups will pay. They are useful as an historic reference but because each is simply a snapshot in time.

Polls always reflect political party affiliation but more importantly they reflect the issues of the time. After the Nixon resignation America was desperate for a fresh new face. They found it in Jimmy Carter, a toothy smiling southerner that carried his sport coat slung over his shoulder. After his first 100 days Carter received a 63% approval rating just like Obama. Carter turned out to be a dismal failure as president. His complete cluelessness to the issues at hand and his blind pursuit of what he deemed human rights led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his merry band of Islamic zealots. This led to the forceful overtaking of the American Embassy and the kidnapping of 52 Americans who were held hostage on the world stage for 444 days. The Middle East is what it is today thanks to the feckless leadership of Jimmy Carter.

The hostage taking along with runaway inflation and mortgage interest rates around 18% led to Carter’s dismissal after only one term. Ronald Reagan stepped into the White House and within minutes of his inauguration the hostages were released. Reagan garnered a whopping 67% popularity rating after his first 100 days thanks in great part to the release of the hostages.

But these poll numbers reflected a wide range of the American population. With Barack Obama the numbers are far less wide spread. Democrats are giving him a 93% approval rating while Republicans are giving him 30%. The black community has now what was thought to be impossible only a decade ago. A black president was more than anybody in the community could have dreamt of. Regardless of what this president does he will receive a 99.9% approval rating from the blacks. He will receive a similar approval rating from white liberals regardless of the results of his actions because they too feel the most important thing is his color.

When you take these two major groups into consideration a 63% overall approval rating is actually not what it seems. The fact that Obama is carrying a 49% approval when asked if the country is headed in the right direction may be up from the old Bush numbers, but is in fact pretty disturbing when you consider a 99.9% approval from blacks.
It remains to be seen how long it will take to get a more realistic view based on results rather than rhetoric. But once the black community begins to feel they have been let down by this black president the poll swings will be far greater than anything we have seen before.

Change was the promise. When the ridiculous spending and insurmountable debt being implemented by this administration fails to deliver the desired results the biggest change will be in the polls.

Keeping An Eye On The Court

Headlines scream “Supreme Court seems split on decision regarding race”. My only response “So what else is new?”

The case of the white firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut versus the city that employs them is underway before the justices of the Supreme Court. You may recall that during the most recent advancement test to fill fourteen spots in the higher ranks of the department thirteen of the highest scores went to white firefighters with the only other one being Hispanic. After the test was completed and graded it was decided that because no blacks had scored well enough to earn a promotion the entire test would be thrown out and nobody would be promoted until a new test could be devised.

This case holds tremendous impact not only for the firefighters involved but for just about every other race based program in the country. When it comes to setting legal precedent this one will be a doozie. But when it comes to getting a split decision out of the current Supreme Court this case is no different than most of the others.

Court watchers are already trying to figure out what the decision will be long before its anticipated publish date later this July. Most can discern the judges leanings based on the questions they ask and the retorts they make to the attorney’s answers.

As one would expect the very liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg seems sympathetic to the city of New Haven. She asked leading questions of the attorneys that seemed to tie the city’s decision with that of other municipalities that were forced a number of years ago to alter their strength and physical fitness tests to accommodate women. The problem with the justice’s argument is that this has nothing to do with physical strength but rather mental acuity. It is not a test to decide if you get to be on the fire department but rather if you get to be promoted within the fire department. If in fact this legal argument holds up the question that will remain unanswered is; just how low do you want to set the standards for advancement and what impact will that have on the command structure of the department?

This entire situation was brought about because the New Haven city council forgot what their main focus should be. They put the health and safety of the New Haven citizenry second to the political correctness of racially biased affirmative action. The test would have never been a problem if enough blacks had scored in the top fourteen.

The hard work and studying done by the successful firefighters was completely disregarded for one reason and one reason only. It is because they were white. There was no racial bias against the black firefighters. It’s not like they were given a test harder or more complex than the white firefighters. The ONLY racial bias in this entire process is against those firefighters who happen to be Caucasian.

I understand the disappointment felt by all the other firefighters who were not successful on the test, both black and white. They had their chance and they failed. They will now likely have to wait years before this kind of chance comes around again. It’s disappointing but it is not unfair.

While the court’s decision may end up being split it is to the great benefit of the Constitution that we also have conservative constitutionalists on the bench as well.

Justice Anton Scalia has brought some rather harsh questioning to the city’s attorney’s regarding their claim that the decision was race neutral. City Attorney Christopher Meade claimed that because everybody would have to take a new test that made it race neutral. Justice Scalia responded with the sarcastic response "It's neutral because you throw it out for the losers as well as for the winners? That's neutrality?" I love that guy.

Chief Justice John Roberts has already shown his constitutional interpretation when he voted down the 2007 school segregation plan. The majority of the court sided with Justice Roberts and said any system that based school assignments on race is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy who also voted down the school plan seems to have a problem with the constitutionality of the New Haven decision as well.

It seems pretty simple to my simple mind. If blacks can no longer be denied employment or promotions based solely on race than it would be a constitutional travesty to say it was okay to do so against whites.

As I’ve said before, constitutionally that pesky equal protection under the law trumps political correctness.

Okay. It's All My Fault

The latest report out of Britain reminds me of any conversation I have with Mrs. Big Frick. I’m never sure how we are going to get there, but I’m pretty confident that whatever the problem is it will end up being my fault.

Such is the case study being reported by the British newspaper The Sun. The latest and greatest study by the world’s best and brightest scientific minds proves that global warming, the bane to our existence and possible squelcher of all life on this planet, is caused by(insert descending musical “dunt dunt dahhhh” here) ……………………Fat People!!!!

These hard working scientists have conclusively proven that fat people eat. They have also concluded that many of us are what you would call BIG eaters. This phenomenon of fat people eating causes increased food production which in turn causes more CO2 gas emissions warming the planet. It is my understanding the CO2 gas emissions are the byproduct of producing the food and not from us fat people digesting it. That is probably a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak, but I am certain it is worth a government grant to conduct a new study.

These brilliant scientists also discovered that fat people drive cars. Not only do we drive cars but we are more likely to drive cars than skinny people. This also adds to the deadly emissions threatening life as we know it on the planet. Once again it is my understanding that the emissions being cited are from the cars and not the drivers, although probably worthy of another government funded study as well.

The third and most chilling discovery is that fat people breathe. And not only do we breathe but apparently we breathe more than skinny people. Dr. Philip Edwards of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving a gas guzzler.” It is estimated that each tubby respirator is responsible for an additional ton of CO2 each year versus a skinny breather. The World Health Organization estimates this adds a billion tons of extra CO2 each year. If my math is correct that would mean the WHO is estimating a billion big eaters are lugging around their gas guzzling bodies. I’m surprised the planet can turn at all.

Dr. Edwards and his colleague Ian Roberts published this study in the International Journal of Epidemiology, following in the footsteps of Australian professor Paul Zimmet who predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006.

Once this report reaches the masses there could be dire consequences faced by me and my blubbery brotherhood. I have already drawn the shades and dimmed the lights lest the townspeople where I live show up at my home holding wooden torches and shouting “PLANET KILLER”. I fear that activists will lay in wait outside fast food establishments waiting for a big eater. The poor unsuspecting tubby will walk up to the cash register expecting to order his double cheeseburger and large fry only to be doused with a can of Slim Fast by a marauding emaciate. Woe to those of us whose belt buckle cannot be seen or whose tank top was actually used at one time to cover a tank.

Having nowhere else to turn I have decided to create my own organization for the protection and advancement of the heftier humans inhabiting the earth. I will call it PET FART or People for the Ethical Treatment of Fatties And Rotund Tubbies.

Annual dues to PET FART will be payable by cash, check, chocolate or buy one get one free Dairy Queen coupons.

Big Bows and Glad Hands

First the bow to Saudi King Abdullah now the handshake with Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez. What next, a You Tube video of Barack Obama humping Castro’s leg or dancing the Lambada with Kim Jong-Il?

The John McCain campaign commercial that compared Barack Obama’s mass hysterical popularity to that of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton is proving to be nothing less than prophetic. Every autocratic dictator on the planet is lining up to have his picture snapped with this photo-happy leader of the free world. I hear they are thinking if digging up Edi Amin and Chairman Mao to have their images immortalized with Obama in a scene right out of “Weekend at Bernie’s”.

The first incident had Obama bowing before the dictator that was assigned the number five spot on the 2008 World’s Worst Dictator List, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. Initially it was explained that Barack Hussein Obama bowed before the king as a sign of respect. But respect for what? In Saudi Arabia under King Abdullah, it is punishable by death for a Saudi citizen to practice a religion other than Islam. Just last year, the U.S. State Department judged Saudi Arabia one of the top eight offenders of religious freedom. According to a 2006 report by the Center for Religious Freedom, Saudi school textbooks continue to be virulently anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. It is also possible to be executed for witchcraft or for just being in a room alone with someone of the opposite sex that is not related to you. It is a country that still employs the use of indentured slaves. Is that what the first black president is bowing to?

More importantly, when Barack Obama makes these trips to visit world leaders he is not just Barack Obama, thoughtful autobiographer from Illinois, he represents the people of the United States of America. The United States bows before no nation. It is not a sign of respect to bow before a king; it is a sign of subjugation and obeisant submission. And when the president does it, it is one country bowing before another.

After much public outcry for the humiliating act the White House announced that in fact Obama had not bowed before the king. “It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hands with both hands and he’s taller than King Abdullah” said a presidential aide. This may have been an appropriate dismissal had there been no cameras in the room, but the video shown repeatedly around the world and posted on You Tube clearly shows Obama bowing low enough to see if the royal carpet matched the royal drapes, if you get my drift. If height was the issue it was a bow low enough that Obama would have been eye to eye with King Herve Villachez.

The next big photo-op came during a three day meeting of Western Hemisphere leaders in Trinidad. With cameras rolling Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez made a determined stroll around the table to shake hands with Obama while purposefully displaying the book “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”. The book written by extreme left wing South American author Eduardo Galeano blames the United States for all of South America’s troubles damning American Imperialism while omitting any commendation for the substantial American financial support. Obama said it “was a nice gesture to give me a book. I’m a reader”.

I have read “Open Veins” and it is anything but accurate or factual. It is a rambling story by an author that admits he is far from a historian. It blames Europe and the USA for all of South America’s troubles taking no responsibility for any of the corrupt dictators that have devistated their own countries. It could have been written by almost any left wing socialist, like Bill Ayers or Barack Obama for instance. Having called Obama an imbecile just a few weeks prior, Chavez was certainly giving Obama a gesture. But it wasn’t meant to be nice. It was meant to bolster Chavez as a world leader who was able to publicly spit in the eye of America.

During the campaign it was pointed out time and again that Obama lacked any experience whatsoever in foreign policy. That minor league rookie status has been on full display every time Obama makes a foreign visit. The embarrassment of this presidential on the job training has the whole world laughing.

And they’re not laughing with us.

The Myth That Is Tolerance

How do you tolerate the intolerable? That is the million dollar question.

What I hear on a daily basis is that we all need to be tolerant of each other regardless of how wrong or offensive we feel some action or idea might be. Unfortunately what is meant by this daily barrage tolerant-speak is that people with conservation views and principles are expected to be tolerant of those who insist on making up the rules as they go along to suit their own personal interest. It also means that those of us with conservative views should hold absolutely no expectation of reciprocation of tolerant attitude.

We are living in a time when the word tolerance has become the catch all for every action and idea one group wants to inflict upon another. Liberals have constantly touted the social benefits of tolerance to the point where the word itself has lost its intended definition and in doing so has also lost any hope of achieving its purported inevitable outcome.

The concept of social salvation through the ever-saving qualities of tolerance has been forced into the waffling public consciousness for so long that the definition has somehow morphed into the mistaken assumption of acceptance. No two concepts could be farther apart than tolerance and acceptance. Acceptance requires action. Tolerance requires inaction.

Tolerance does not beget the latest nebulous concept of “Change” that has swept across the country. In fact it has the exact opposite effect. It seems only fitting that the candidate who campaigned on the mantra of “Change” would also be the one lecturing on the benefits of “Tolerance”. It shows how hollow the rhetoric is. I am either tolerant of something or I am looking to change it. It can’t be both as the two concepts are mutually exclusive of each other.

Acceptance requires change in attitude. Tolerance requires restraint. If anything is to change it requires first an acceptance that the change being proposed is the more beneficial than tolerance of whatever currently exists. That acceptance comes by the careful examination of all the aspects that change entails. Acceptance is based in reality and truth and sometimes it is only after trying and failing at every other option that we are willing to accept. Reality brings acceptance, the lack of reality requires tolerance. Any of us, regardless of how stubborn we want to be, cannot overcome reality. Even if we deny its existence, eventually reality always wins.

Conversely, tolerance is a cheap ploy used by those who are trying to justify the unjustifiable. It requires a complete disregard of reality by burying those basic instincts of right and wrong or what is real and what is an illusion. That’s why tolerance is always a one way street. It is only proposed that a conservative viewpoint tolerate the liberal viewpoint because the liberal view has no tolerance and more importantly is unable to provide a reasonably convincing argument to evoke acceptance.

Politicians even try to legislate tolerance, which is as silly as trying to legislate good weather. Regardless of the issue or how unacceptable we find the activity we are told we must be tolerant. From same sex marriage to the murder of the unborn to the reverse discrimination of supposed affirmative action to gun control to the complete abandonment of personal responsibility, conservatives are told we must be tolerant for the greater good. But no permanent good can come from tolerance because tolerance is not based in reality.

Tolerance is attainable in small doses for relatively unimportant situations. But when tolerance is proposed as a solution for long term or far-reaching problems it can only lead to increased pressure and resentment which will eventually create a greater crisis and more profoundly negative outcome once that pesky reality comes into play.

Listen carefully to the liberal use of the concept of tolerance. It is usually attached to a viewpoint that has no basis in reality and is completely counterintuitive. The only hope for the survival of such viewpoints is mandated acquiescence through the faulty and dangerous notion of tolerance. The graveyard is full of those that tolerated pain. They were unwilling to accept the reality that some underlying issue was causing their pain and so by tolerating it signed their own death sentence.

It happens with people. It happens with cultures. And it happens with entire countries.

UNhappy But Gay

This just in from the Gay but not Happy desk.

It has become blatantly obvious that some folks are just aching for something to offend them. And if need be they are more than willing to create something out of nothing. In Peoria it’s a sign in karaoke bar window that that has the Gay but not Happy community with their undies in a bundle.

The story being reported in the Chicago Tribune regards a bar that used to be a gay bar but is no more. The Quench Bar was located on Main Street for decades and was recognized by the locals as a gay bar. Ownership changed hands in the 90’s and the bar is now called the Elbo Room. The new owner decided to change the bar to a karaoke bar and while gay patrons were not refused service they were asked to keep their public displays of affection in check. Same sex make out sessions which had been the norm in the Quench Bar were no longer appropriate for the new owner. Even so the relatively small gay community in the area continued to frequent the watering hole.

I’m guessing it wasn’t difficult to discern the gay patrons from the straight patrons. Karaoke is bad enough but how many Broadway show tunes and Liza Minnelli songs can you listen to while you try to get a buzz off your rum and Coke?

In an apparent effort to increase his business with patrons more likely to sing Desperado than New York New York the owner placed a sign in the window of his establishment that read “We are NOT a gay bar. We are a karaoke bar!!! 7 nights a week. Diesel is down the street.” I can only guess that Diesel is in fact a gay bar and is located down the street from the Elbo Room. Either that or the owner is trying to help out a drunken trucker that lost his rig.

Either way, the sign went up and it was time to man the battle stations and prepare for incoming flak.

A gay patron named Nick Stroman snapped a picture of the sign and sent it out via text message to some of his likeminded friends. It wasn’t long before the bar had a group of gay but not happy boys and girls stomping their Doc Martins and Birkenstocks in disgust.

Three separate protests were held with a total turnout of about 40 people. Barbara Van Auken, a local councilwoman got involved and claimed she notified the bar owner that the sign violated state law. I question both Ms. Van Auken’s legal abilities and her motives. As I stated above, nobody was denied entry or service, the bar used to be a gay bar but was no longer a gay bar and the sign simply and plainly pointed that fact out. All it did was advertise the fact that this was now a karaoke bar. If that’s illegal than McDonalds should no longer be able to advertise that they serve hamburgers. As for the restriction on the public display of gay affection I would ask the learned councilwoman if they allow that sort of thing at the Peoria city council meetings. If so all they have to do is invest in a karaoke machine and some Peter Allen songs and they could solve the whole issue.

The real motive behind this feigned outrage became apparent when some of the protest organizers commented about going to Springfield to demonstrate in favor of legalized gay marriage such as was done recently in Iowa.

The local gay but not happy community has vowed to never set foot in the Elbo Room again. I can’t speak for the entire Peorian public at large but I’m guessing that even those locals that hate karaoke as much as I do will now stop by for pop.

At least until someone starts singing “Feelings”.

From Tragedy To Tragedy

From tragedy to tragedy. How quickly we forget.

It was only eight years ago that the United States was attacked by covert cells of Islamic fascists bent in bringing death and destruction to America and her people. I remember the sadness, I remember the pain, I remember the anger and I remember the fear.

How could this happen, or more appropriately, how could we have allowed this to happen. With all our intelligence, with all our abilities, how could we allow these terrorists to live amongst us and train to fly jet airplanes with no need for the lesson on how to land them?

It was only after the political hacks on the 9-11 Commission began to investigate that the American people discovered the walls of silence installed between intelligence agencies by the Clinton administration and Janet Reno.

In an effort to ensure that this type of tragedy would never happen again President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security. There was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the loss of privacy rights such a commission would impose. And there was snide insults regarding the original attempts to grade threat levels by colors like red, orange and green. There was the usual partisan bickering over how and why we should impose restrictions or tap phone lines. It was during this time that slowly but surely the liberal side of the aisle was able to confuse a sufficient number of Americans on just who the enemy was and what they were capable of.

This sad, dangerous and confused message continues today with the newly installed head of the DHS Janet Napolitano.

You may recall this bastion of truth and honesty from her days as lead attorney for the sad and confused Anita Hill in her attempt to destroy the object of her unrequited affection Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was Napolitano that tried the pubic hair in the Coke routine that not only got a lot of comedic input on late night television but also may have been the turning point in the approval process as even the most liberal members of the panel began to see the ridiculousness of the claims being made.

And now as head of the agency tasked with keeping the country safe from those bent on her destruction Napolitano has come out with a dire warning. Is she warning us about more terrorist cells or an impending attack from abroad? No. She is warning us about the threat that comes from our returning military personnel.

Napolitano has issued a warning that US military veterans could become right wing extremists. While it is difficult to discern exactly what information she is dealing with to make this assessment one thing is clear, the Obama administration has led the country so far to the left that anything short of Al Franken looks right.

Napolitano is basing her assessment of the tragic Oklahoma City bombing. Her internal memo cautions that military personnel could be so dissatisfied with the Obama administration as to create “another Timothy McVeigh situation”. This only proves how completely out of touch she is. Could it be possible that liberals are so completely devoid of common sense that they honestly believe the OK City bombing was celebrated or even accepted by the right wing of the country?

I too remember the OK City bombing and as a staunch right wing conservative I felt all the same pain as I did on 9-11. All the pain, all the sadness, all the anger and all the fear. To equate the carnage brought about by one mentally challenged veteran and use that to damn all those that served is an insult far above the name calling and spitting many endured as they returned home from Vietnam. Those disgusting displays were carried out against our veterans in airports and shopping malls by the clueless pacifists being led by the left wing media, not by a government official tasked with national security.

If this is the level of “intelligence” we are now depending on to keep us safe we should all be afraid.

Very, very afraid.

Tea'ed Off

If we close our eyes maybe they’ll go away.

At least that is the sentiment echoing through the hallowed halls of congress today. Some Republicans tried to hitch their wagon to the protest while most Democrats tried to hitch a ride out of the spotlight for awhile.

In 750 cities across the country thousands of protestors showed up to send a message to their elected officials that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. There could have been in excess of one million protestors and not a single store was looted or car overturned and burned. Let just a few hundred protesters loose for illegal immigration of welfare reform and you know somebody is throwing a brick through a store window, or as Maxine Waters likes to put it, “Some baby momma’s doin some shoppin”.

There were between two and three thousand Tea Party protesters in Chicago today. I was not in town or there would have been one more. From what I heard on the Fox News station over my satellite radio there was at least hundreds if not thousands at every one of the events. Why not more? Why not the same kind of turnout seen by other protest rallies? My first guess is that most of those sympathetic to the cause were at their jobs and not able to attend. Put together a rally for people who don't pay taxes and you could have tens of thousands. But put together a rally calling on the silent majority and a few thousand is pretty darn good.

The president’s press secretary basically brushed off the demonstrations when asked about their significance. He wrongfully suggested that this was about Republicans making a grandstand play and chided those attending by saying that if they look they will see that their taxes have actually gone down. And therein lays the problem. The politicians in Washington DC and at every other level of state and local government just don’t get it.

The American taxpayer, while gullible, is not completely stupid. We know that the increased spending on personal pet project ear marks, non-stimulus road building, tax refunds for people who don’t pay taxes and new NASA space shuttles has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is us.

I don’t think they understand the level of outrage in this country regarding the job they are doing at spending the money we work for. My guess is that only a small fraction of those that are mad as hell were actually able to attend the tax day rallies.

But their worst nightmare awaits because even though the rallies are over the outrage is not.

The government spending has gone from unrealistic to outrageous. The Democrat controlled House and Senate have taken the mantra of “Change” touted by the chosen one during the campaign and used it like a sledgehammer to fix a watch. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. We are talking about trillions of dollars with no end to the spending spree in sight. And even though the Democrats control Congress, Republicans had better take heed as well. Long time GOPers like Arlen Specter will have one hell of a time trying to convince taxpayers in their districts that they have their best interest at heart with their hand in the taxpayer’s pocket.

The rallies are over and each in its own way was successful. But the real success will come in the midterm election when the taxpaying voters will get a chance to really show their fury.

Nobody likes an enema but they sell a lot of them so we can get rid of the crap. It’s time to give one to Congress.

And for the same reason.

45 Caliber Truth

Some things are tough to figure out, some are not.

Having just taken a quick glance through the online version of the latest news I am once again heartsick to see the senseless violence that man perpetrates against his fellow man. It isn’t necessarily limited to one race or one economic class, but it would be impossible to not notice that the majority of shootings and gun violence is in poor and minority urban areas.

Certainly the insane drug turf wars of the street gangs are the biggest reason for this violence. One gang member shooting a rival gang member, or attempting to shoot a rival and shooting an innocent bystander. Or the fairly common instance where a gang member shoots a non-member for whatever reason someone would randomly shoot someone.

All these shootings have Chicago’s Mayor Daley repeating his call for banning guns and suing legal gun shop owners simply for plying their trade. But if guns are the problem why don’t we see the same level of violence in wealthy suburban communities?

Many of my neighbors have guns. Both hand guns and rifles. I often walk the streets of my neighborhood and it has never even occurred to me that I might get shot. All the gun owners in my neighborhood have legally purchased their guns from the same gun dealers that the mayor wants to shut down. How come they are able to act responsible with the same lethal tool so many in the poorer neighborhoods use to end each other’s lives? If the gun itself were the problem wouldn’t it be the same problem everywhere?

For many years Chicago had a ban on owning a hand gun. It did absolutely no good. That’s not theory or conjecture, it’s a fact. We have gun laws up the whazoo and I can’t find any reliable data that proves these laws have saved even one life. Studies have shown increases and decreases in gun violence but they have yet to be able to tie any of these statistics to a gun law. It seems only logical to me that if someone is willing to commit the ultimate crime of murder it is remarkably unlikely that they will be worried about a gun possession violation.

Guns in the poor neighborhoods are passed around like currency. The same gun may be in the possession of 4 or 5 different people over the course of just a few months. Guns in wealthier neighborhoods are there for hunting or owned by collectors or kept for personal protection from gun toting bad guys. It would be almost unheard of for someone to pay a debt with a firearm in those areas.

To be sure there are instances of gun violence in the middle and upper class suburbs. Usually these are confined to domestic situations where one spouse does away with the other. Or like in the tragic case out of Casselberry Florida where a mother shot and murdered her son at a shooting range before taking her own life. The gun range and its owner will likely be accused of being responsible for this horrid event. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a law suit, which like most of these suits will be for millions of dollars but claimed to be so this type of neglect doesn’t happen to anybody else. The key is that it was not up to the range owner to keep the previously diagnosed mental patient out of the range. Her family knew her history and it was up to them to protect her from herself.

The question is, if the gun wasn’t there would the murder not occur? I think it has been sufficiently proven that once things get that out of control a baseball bat, kitchen knife, rat poison or the family station wagon can be just as deadly.

The preponderance of gun violence is high in the typically high crime areas with large gang populations, rampant illegal drug use and a complete lack of personal responsibility. Wealthy neighborhoods have the same number of guns, probably better more powerful guns, yet the gun violence is almost nil.

Maybe if politicians start looking at the real facts they can actually do something about the violence. Blaming the gun is like blaming the car for the drunk driver. It’s used as the tool but it’s not the cause.

And if the politicians won’t do it maybe the voters need to pull their head out of the sand and start questioning the cause and effects of the lack of personal responsibility. Data unequivocally shows that states that have instituted gun carry laws have seen a marked decrease in violent crime. That could not be possible if the gun was the problem.

Barack Obama has already shown his penchant for increasing federal gun laws and adding new restrictions to gun ownership. Perhaps he may want to take a walk through the streets of Washington DC where guns have been banned for many years and the gun violence rate is one of the highest per capita in the country.

The key to any gun law is that guns don’t vote, so rather than hold the person responsible you simply blame the tool.

When Barney Gets Bitchy

Maybe folks are finally catching on to the shell game.

Congressman Barney “It’s Fun To Stay At The YMCA” Frank made a road trip to what should have been friendly territory. He was giving another of his remarkably perjury laden speeches when all of a sudden the unthinkable happened. Somebody asked him to explain his actions.

Frank was at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University regaling the audience with his version of how Republicans and President Bush had destroyed all that we hold dear and the need for government to now make most of the daily decisions for private businesses. Being on a college campus I am certain Big Barney felt he was preaching to the choir until a student stood up and asked him how he could have pushed so hard for passage of the near trillion dollar stimulus package only to attack its passage later on.

Frank is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and one of the leading architects of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco. He was a principle opponent to then President Bush’s efforts to institute oversight of the mortgage giants by creating a new oversight board within the Treasury Department. Said Barney at the time “The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress neither has the tools, nor the stature for adequate oversight. "These two entities Fannie May and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”. Frank also thwarted efforts by Senator John McCain and Representative Elizabeth Dole to institute oversight leaving both proposals to die in his committee. Frank said these bills were “a solution in search of a problem”. This of course was just prior to Fannie and Freddie nearly collapsing the entire global economy and destroying the credit markets. Even though Barney’s comments and votes are part of the congressional record he continues to deny he did any of these things.

When confronted by the student Bend Over Barney immediately got his congressional thong in a twist and verbally attacked the young man stating how "This is an example of the right-wing's efforts, frankly, to change the subject from getting regulation.''

Franks dismissal of the student met with disapproval from those present. One member of the audience chided Frank saying “Stop labeling and answer the question”.

Here’s where it gets good. Frank responded by saying "I am labeling, I think labels are important. And I think there is a systematic right-wing attack to try to divert the blame for deregulation.''

So you think labels are important do you Congressman? You have labeled yourself as a left handed gay Jew, but I think you are simply being modest. You are in fact so much more. Let’s see, what do you label a guy who hired a homosexual male prostitute as a congressional aide, illegally fixed 33 traffic tickets for the whore, used his congressional power to lobby the Virginia parole board on his behalf and claim to have no knowledge that the gay hooker was running his prostitution business out of your own house? A guy who abuses the power of his office for personal gain, has consistently been proven to be dead wrong on the issues, refuses to admit to his costly and dangerous actions and lies about everything else except his now celebrated deviant sexual behavior?

How about a left handed gay Jew mendacious corrupt pimp debauched bathetic degenerate fatuous criminal demagogue? Does that label work for you?

It might be a little long to fit on your business card, but If the Mary Jane fits..................

Miss Direction

If in fact the American public is suddenly losing its will to oppose gay marriage, why lie about it?

We are entering another PR blitz by those that would have you believe that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle. Having failed in every state where the question was placed on the ballot regarding gay marriage they have now taken that well trodden road of making up facts to match the story.

A few years ago it was the pandemic spread of aids amongst heterosexual couples that the gay but not happy public relations wing of activist organizations were trying desperately to push. Newspapers across the country dutifully printed the dire warnings of the almost plague like spread of HIV and aids in heterosexuals. Graphs and charts printed on the front pages of major newspapers showed an increase in incidence that resembled a NASA rocket being launched into orbit and stories from the four corners of the country focused on seemingly happy families now being destroyed because mom or dad got aids. Sexually promiscuous heterosexuals were flocking to clinics for HIV/aids tests and doctors were being deluged by patients that were sure their sore throat was the first sign of the deadly disease.

But it was all a well orchestrated ruse. Gay activists figured if they could get straight people worried that they might in fact get the disease more funding would be made available to find a cure. The real facts showed that the only population segment where HIV/ aids was increasing was within the homosexual community.

Nobody in the media bothered to check the facts before they ran with the story. An activist group would come out with some official sounding report and get a doctor to put his name on it and the next thing you know it was a full blown epidemic.

The same thing is now happening with gay marriage. The headline from the AOL Political Machine news segment read “Rick Warren Abandons Fight Against Gay Marriage?”. The accompanying story stated that Warren the founder and pastor of the Saddleback megachurch, and the pastor that Barack Obama invited to give the invocation at his inauguration had made a recent turnaround in his position on the issue.

The writer went on to state that the recent overturning of the governor’s veto by the Vermont legislature and the Iowa Supreme court decision that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional according to the Iowa State Constitution is further proof that public sentiment has changed. But his statements are as deceiving as the headline was misleading.

First, did you notice that the author conveniently included a question mark at the end of his headline. While the punctuation mark is not what first grabs your attention its purpose is clear, it changes the statement to a question although there is no question needed.

What Rick Warren said was that he has never been an anti-gay marriage activist. He doesn’t even address the issue. But the church which he founded like most evangelical Christian churches still maintains their position that homosexuality is a sin and that someone actively involved in homosexual activity cannot be a member of the church. Christians are taught to accept the person but not their actions. If a homosexual is willing to remain completely celibate of homosexual activity he or she can become a member. Warren has worked tirelessly to council and bring comfort to all those suffering and dying from HIV/aids, including homosexuals.

The further statements that the Vermont legislature shows some dramatic shift in public opinion doesn’t take into account the profound liberal views that have been part of Vermont state politics for decades. Let’s not forget that it is in Vermont that several towns have arrest on sight orders for George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes.

The action taken in Iowa was in the legal realm and not an indication of public opinion. It was the Iowa Supreme Court and not the state legislature or voters that made the decision.

Any state that has the power to grant homosexual marriage has the power to rescind it. It will eventually be up to the voters to decide who they want to represent them based on how they feel on this issue. All the unbiased data makes it clear that the majority of voters do not approve of homosexual marriage and maintain that marriage is between one man and one woman. Legislators who go against that will find out how easy it is to lose an election regardless of how long they have served.

The gay activists know this so having failed to sway the public through vague threats and boycotts they now turn again to the faithful media who are more than willing to publish reports without fact checking. They figure if they can convince enough people to believe there is overwhelming support they will be less likely to oppose.

The backlash from this new ruse may be more significant than anyone is bargaining for. That goes for the gay activist groups, the state legislators and the news media.

That Pesky Equal Protection

When is racism not racism? I guess it all depends on the race being ismed.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Ricci et al v. New Have Connecticut to decide if denying promotions to qualified white folks because of their lack of minority status is Constitutional.

Ricci suffers from an unfortunate lack of pigment in his skin color. He is a Caucasian firefighter in New Haven and has spent months studying and listening to study tapes to prepare for the fire department’s promotion test. He spent his evenings, free days and even his drive to work getting ready for this once in a decade opportunity to move up to a command rank within the department.

His hard work paid off as he earned the top score out of everyone that took the test. Being the top guy surely would secure his future and give him his rightful place amongst the commanders, right? Not so fast their white guy.

There were 15 vacancies for upper ranks available to be filled. It turns out that 14 out of the top 15 scores from the test were white guys. The other one was Hispanic. If the department used the test scores as the deciding factor there would be no blacks promoted this time around. Not because of their color, but because no black proved to be as qualified as these non-blacks. It doesn’t make the blacks who took the test bad firefighters. But denying them a promotion because of their test results isn’t racist either.

After four racially charged city council meetings it was decided that as no blacks would be promoted, nobody should be promoted. The city’s civil service board rejected the test results and Ricci along with the other 14 qualified candidates were denied their hard earned promotions.

Barack Obama, the President of all the people, sided with the city and said that the test should be disallowed because it had “gross exclusionary effects on minorities”. They went on to site that while blacks make up 31% of the city’s firefighters, they only account for 15% of the officers. What that statistic has to do with Ricci and the other 14 is beyond me. I guess what they’re saying is that if 7 of the qualifying candidates would have been black Ricci would have been qualified, but because the blacks blew the test Ricci was not.

Lawyers for the firefighters claim the city violated the firefighters Constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The president of the NAACP disagreed stating that because fire departments have been “the preserve of white males” in the past it is only fair to unlevel the playing field in the favor of blacks.

A similar situation in Chicago back in 1986 just had the city pay off $6 million last month to firefighters who had their test scores disallowed because they are white.

It’s got to be tough for blacks having depended on the Civil Rights Act to advance their cause for these past 55 years to now have that pesky equal rights constitutional protection make the act their adversary. It also seems pretty disingenuous to have a black man elected President of the United States trying to make an issue out of white oppression.

The Obama administration is lobbying the Supreme Court to send the case back to Connecticut for obvious reasons. A ruling in favor of the white guys will have far reaching impact on the racially unfair practice of affirmative action in almost every other venue in the country.

No one is denying a history of black oppression, but to claim that history is still relevant justification to racially prejudice hiring and promotions is taking a huge step back not forward.
The president just made the headlines discussing his daughter’s past medical problems with meningitis and commended the dedicated nurses and medical professionals that helped her recover and assisted the family through the ordeal. I wonder if he was looking for a black doctor or the most qualified doctor to treat her.

Maybe someone should ask.

Creating The Creator

It used to be that beauty was in the eye of the beholder, I guess now everything is.

The recent Notre Dame debacle has caste the harsh spotlight of reality on our omnipotent sense of pre-eminence. There are no more lines drawn between good and evil. There is only self-justification driven by a complete loss of responsibility. The black and white of right and wrong has been blended into a dull, murky gray and life and death have been distorted by a self-serving mentality of sanctimonious political correctness.

We live in a sin free world, because sin is no longer recognized. Even the use of the word is avoided as if saying it was the sin itself. If it feels good it must be alright. The bible teaches that God’s ways are not our ways, so to align our ways with His without actually having to change our ways we simply change our god.

We create our own personal god like a golden calf (or even a golden dome). We know what our god expects of us because he is in our own image and likeness. We use this god to bring praise and glory to ourselves rather than the other way around. Our every thought and decision is sanctified by our own free will and a god that empowers us to teach rather than learn, direct rather than listen and act with impunity without fear of retribution.

Our god is all knowing and he knows that we know best. It’s like a computer god whose knowledge may be greater than our own but in reality is only the cumulative data of our experiences. There is no threat of punishment because our god is love, and love doesn’t judge, except those we deem guilty and so we seek his guaranteed corroboration. It is a god who is eager to please us because he is our employee. Like a cosmic waiter waiting for our orders. We assign him a list of projects we want him to take care of and give him the time frame within which to accomplish them. We usually don’t think of him until the need is immediate so the time frame is typically short. If he performs his tasks to our satisfaction, like any real boss, we take the credit. If he fails we simply fire him until his services are needed again.

It is a god of barter and negotiation, “Just get me out of this and I’ll never do it again” and of complete forgiveness. Even Christians, who understand that Easter is not about a bunny, can wield their salvation like a perpetual get out of jail free card rather than a gift of grace. “I may not always be right but I am always forgiven, so why worry.” It is a god who may still be “our father who art in heaven” but the father has become as dysfunctional as the rest of the family.

It is a god whose ten commandments have been whittled down to just one. “Well, as long as I don’t kill anybody”. But even that one has been modernized to exempt the murder of infidels and unwanted children.

It is a god of endless theory and the unlimited possibility of change, morphing with the fickle nature of public opinion so as not to offend anyone. It’s a modern day god who mirrors our revulsion for the restrictions of definition, unless of course the definition is also of our own creation. It’s a god of self-centered fairness and completely devoid of challenges. It is a god of success and prosperity because difficulty and failure are no longer useful teachers.

We create this god to be as comfortable as an old shoe. We use him for the traditions that make us feel warm and fuzzy without considering their significance. Like an old shoe we wear him occasionally but we don’t feel any pride in him. We use him when we want to be comfortable but when we want to flaunt our stature we leave him in the closet for something a little more politically acceptable.

It is a god of spirituality that has no spirit, who is omnipresent but has no presence, who is just but has no judgment. It is a god of the me generation. We pray to this god, we light candles and give cash all so that, like an old friend we haven’t talked to in awhile, we can call on him when times get tough. And then we wonder why this god of our creation seems feckless over our plight or doesn’t us answer at all. There's no answer because we’re really just talking to ourselves.

God still answers. We just stopped listening. It’s not a matter of proclaiming faith. Even the devil knows there is a God. What is important is where we place our faith and how it dictates our actions. That’s in both good times and bad.

He never promised it would be easy. He only promised it would be worth it.

Aborting Truth

He fakes right and goes left leaving everyone wondering how he can be so nimble. Whoa Nelly!!!

If this was only an announcer’s call at a Notre Dame football game maybe the Fighting Irish would be in line for the Orange Bowl or the Rose Bowl instead of fighting for a spot in the Idaho Massed Potato Bowl. But alas, while the above mentioned fake out does involve Notre Dame it is not about their football prowess but instead about Cardinal Francis George and his staunch rebuke of the university’s choice for commencement speaker. At least what was once his staunch rebuke.

You see, after making public his displeasure with Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama to speak at this year’s graduation festivities the Cardinal is now claiming his words were taken out of context.

While it is an honor to have the President of the United States speak at your college it brings into question the very core of your catechism when that president is an unwavering supporter of abortion on demand and your college is Roman Catholic.

While the Cardinal is looking to mince words regarding his stance Barack Obama is not, having made it clear in the first 60 days of his presidency that he will use his office to further availability of abortion on demand in this country and around the world. He is simply now living up to the reputation he developed as a member of the Illinois Senate where Obama voted three times in favor of a bill to legally allow doctors to kill babies born alive during an attempted abortion.

For his part, while speaking at conference on human dignity and infertility last week Cardinal George urged those attending “to call, to e mail, to write letters” to Notre Dame regarding the “extreme embarrassment” the university has caused by inviting Obama. He said it was unlikely that the university would cancel the invitation regardless of the outcry but went on to say that “Whatever else is clear, it’s clear Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued the invitation and didn’t anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that it has happened.” That seems pretty clear to me having come straight from the horse’s mouth, or in this case beak.

But never let it be said that this Cardinal can’t find some way to vacillate on the important issues. Cardinal George is now stating that he had hoped to have his discussions with Notre Dame in private. “Now unfortunately those discussions are complicated because of the publicity given” he said.

Complicated because of the publicity? Perhaps Cardinal George may want to consider that it was complicated by the Notre Dame invitation. Bishop John D’Arcy of the Dioceses of Fort Wayne- South Bend, whose jurisdiction includes Notre Dame, had no problem un-complicating the situation by clearly stating he will, for the first time, boycott the ceremony.

It is clear that Cardinal George, the leader of 2 million Chicago Roman Catholics and the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has learned absolutely nothing from the recent turmoil of the priest sex scandals and the misguided management of the Catholic Church. It is exactly due to issues like this and the inability of church leaders to keep their own house in order that has made the Roman Catholic Church a nonissue in the daily lives of millions of current and ex-Catholics.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama or the office he holds. Obama is the president regardless of his views on abortion and deserves all the respect that the office dictates. This is entirely about the South Bend cash cow known as Notre Dame and the Cardinal’s fear of disturbing that very profitable apple cart.

Barack Obama should not be banished from Notre Dame, but he should have never been invited. The fact that he was shows the profound lack of respect that the Notre Dame board has for the basic moral tenants of Christianity. As Notre Dame is where the pope would go for a cash advance they obviously consider themselves above those moral tenants.

So did Sodom and Gomorrah.

God disagreed.

Conservative Realist

I am a conservative. But I am also a realist.

I wear the appellation of conservative with pride. But the fact that I am also a realist means that I don’t feel the need to think or even agree with all other conservatives all the time. On a general basis I can understand the thought process of conservative thinkers without mandatorily adopting their particular point of view and making it my own.

I believe that abortion is the single worst plague infecting the very soul of America. Once a people are willing to accept the killing of their unborn there is very little room remaining to sink lower. It is a moral tragedy of epic proportions. Every great society throughout history that was brought to destruction failed on a moral level long before it failed politically or militarily. It was indeed their moral failings that led to their eventual downfall in every other area.

I have heard the pro-abortion arguments about the cases of rape and incest and some of them are compelling. As a man I cannot possibly pretend to know or understand the level of violation that occurs during such an act of violence. And to exacerbate that horror with a pregnancy is beyond my ability to conceive. But I do know that regardless of the circumstance under which a child is conceived, it’s not the child’s fault. Yet he or she is the one that pays the ultimate price. I have profound sympathy for the victims of these crimes and would support the creation of a non-profit organization that dealt solely with making adoptions of babies conceived through violence. Special care could be given to the expectant mothers and special care could be given in placing the children into loving homes with the adoptive parents aware of the circumstances involved in the conception. There may in fact need to be some additional psychiatric treatment provided these children as they develop. I’m not a doctor but I do believe aggressive behavior can be genetically passed down. Perhaps a dedicated effort directed at these children could break this chain. I would rejoice at seeing my tax dollars go to this effort rather than to abortion clinics and would not hesitate to make personal donations.

Perhaps because I view life as a gift from God, or perhaps because I have very little faith in the justice system, I am also profoundly opposed to the death penalty. I know most conservatives are rolling their eyes and looking to burn my conservative card so I can no longer carry it. But as a realist I am simply not that sure that the court system is infallible. I am however sure that death has no mulligan.

It’s not that I don’t believe that there are people who don’t deserve to be put to death. I truly believe that there are. It’s just that I don’t believe our court system, which has been proven corruptible time and time again, is competent to make that decision.

We claim we have the right to be tried by a jury of our peers. But the reality is that rarely do any of the jurors have even the slightest clue as to the rules by which the legal system is actually played. It used to be much simpler, but nowadays the legal wrangling and maneuvering have taken what should be uncomplicated and made it more complex than Chinese algebra. If you don’t know and understand the rules you simply cannot make a life or death decision. It is also plain that those who do know the rules are not the least bit interested in justice. The defense attorney is only looking for an acquittal or to plea to a reduced sentence, the prosecutor is only looking for a conviction and the judge is mainly concerned that the constitutional rules of the process are followed so the case cannot be overturned on a technical appeal.

But more than anything else I am a realist when it comes to the cost. It costs twice as much to sentence a man to die, carry through with the mandatory appeal process and finally execute him as it does to sentence him to life without parole and let him languish for the rest of his days in prison. No more hearings, no rehabilitation. Just one prison day leading into the next. I can honestly think of no greater punishment than to have no freedom, no hope and no future.

It may seem like I have compassion for the victims of violence that end in pregnancy and none to the victims of violence that end in murder. I just do not believe we as a public are any safer having killed John Wayne Gacy than we were before he died. I understand the families want and deserve closure but I truly believe they can find it somewhere other than a death chamber.

Does having these views make me less of a conservative? I don’t think so. You may disagree.

Getting Into The Sun

Thanks to my ever vigilant web monkey for some interesting blog fodder and to Grand Funk Railroad for a really appropriate title.

An interesting story has popped up about the money saving and planet saving miracle that is solar power. How often we have heard the friends of mother earth claim that we can save gazillions of dollars and the planets fragile ecosystem if we just harness the sun’s rays.

This past February President Barack Obama and his side kick VP Joe “Foot-in-mouth” Biden took the time to have their pictures taken while strolling through an array of solar panels atop the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The president used the opportunity to extol the virtues of solar power and congratulate the museum for their foresight and promotion of this renewable and “green” source of electric power. He also praised the insight of Denver citizens for their renewable energy efforts in the 2004 passage of Amendment 37 which mandates that Colorado utilities must procure a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

In their feature story on the event the Denver Post dutifully noted that “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” Notice they didn’t say how much power and for how long. Still, pretty impressive stuff, huh? But the whole story goes a little deeper and surprisingly was not covered by the story in the Post.

What was left unmentioned in the newspaper story was that the solar array on the museum is not actually owned by the museum. The price of this sun sucking solar symphony was a whopping $720,000. The museum considered buying it on their own but discovered it had about a 110 year payback in energy savings. As the solar panels have an anticipated life expectancy of about 20 to 25 years, I guess there were at least a few folks on the museum board that could see the inherent flaw in the math.

The solar panels actually belong to the Hybrid Energy Group LLC. A company formed to supply such solar arrays. How does Hybrid Energy make their money to be able to afford these very expensive solar panels? First it sells the electricity it collects to the museum and receives tax incentives from the state and federal government. But Hybrid Energy also receives rebates from the local power provider Xcel Energy via their Solar Rewards Program. This program is a result of the aforementioned Amendment 37.

Do these rebates in some way constitute a savings realized by the major power provider due to the solar energy? No. The rebates are made possible by the local customers of Xcel Energy who are hit with a special surcharge every month on the electric bill. Every Denver resident has a line item on their bill titled the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment. This is where the money comes from to pay Hybrid Energy.

And what of the all the valuable energy saved by using the solar panel array? Well actually, the solar power accounts for less than 5% of the electricity consumed by the museum. The rest comes from the same place as all the other folks in Denver, Excel Power.

So the Denver Museum of Nature and Science gets enough electricity from the sun to run a vending machine, Hybrid Energy LLC is profitable operating a three quarter of a million dollar solar array thanks to state and federal tax dollars coupled with a nice chunk of change from Excel Energy rebates, Excel Energy becomes compliant with Amendment 37 passed by misinformed voters and the citizens of Denver get to pay for the rebates with the rest of the costs picked up by state and federal taxpayers. In the meantime a $720,000 solar array ticks off the days of its 20 year life span generating enough electricity to pay for itself in 2118.

And now the federal government wants to run GM because it was mismanaged?

If this is the future of energy we will be back burning renewable torches in no time.