The intolerance of liberalism.

My neighbor told me the story of how another motorist passed her, then shot her the finger for no apparent reason. Deciding she needed an explanation - she drove after the guy and caught up at him at the next stoplight. She rolled down her window and asked what was the problem. Embarrassed, he admitted he didn't like her "Romney" bumper sticker. In a similar story passed on to me, a woman was confronted by an Obama supporter who ranted and raved at her while she parked her car. She also had problems with a Romney bumper sticker. I've personally encountered people yelling things at me back in 2004 when I sported a Bush decal. If people had a problem with my Romney sticker, they've kept quite. Apparently they are much more respectful when they see the NRA sticker on my car as well.

Liberals love tolerance. They preach tolerance for virtually everything - as long as it's in their belief system. If it runs counter to their beliefs, they'll label you a racist, woman hater, homophobe or any number of other convenient  insults. Apparently tolerance is a one way street to them. For instance, they will tolerate a flag burning as free speech. But if you decide to show support of the Chik-fil-A CEO to voice his traditional view of marriage - you're a homophobic troglodyte.

Bill Mahr along with other high profile liberals can call Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and any number of Conservative women, b**ches, c**nts, mindless tw*ts, sluts and meat bag whores. Conservative commentator, Michelle Malkin has been called the "Subic Bay bar girl", and "Manilla whore". She takes it in stride saying: "I've been called a whore so many times (Huffington Post), I'm beginning to think its my middle name." Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked her early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.” Nice, huh.  Incredible tolerance for those who hold a differing viewpoint. Rush Limbaugh makes one errant remark about Sandra Fluke being slutty (in reference to her need for free birth control) and the whole world stops - demanding he be taken off the air. Bill Mahr donates $1 million to the Obama campaign and liberals applaud his vulgar attacks as free speech.

Liberals have ton of tolerance for a woman who decides to abort her baby, but none at all for the dead baby. Should you speak up for the baby's right to life, you are a woman hating hate mongerer for denying a woman's right to choose  - to murder a baby. Conversation over.

Tea Party members have been called the worst of the worst. I refuse to reprint here the slings and arrows they've been called. But remember this; when the Occupy Wall Street crowd were, well occupying - there were reported rapes, drug use, public defecation and outright violence upon persons and property in almost every city they occupied. When the Tea Party holds rallys, they leave the property cleaner than when they arrived. (See the Washington Mall rally photos before & after) And there has never been an arrest at any Tea Party rally anywhere - even when confronted by opposition persons who try and get a response so they can post it online as proof of Tea Party intolerance. Nice try, losers.

Liberals aren't interested in true tolerance or exchange of ideas. Witness what happens when a conservative tries to address a gathering at a college campus. They are shouted down. Sometimes so much that the guest speaker has to leave without speaking - often in fear for their safety. (Ann Coulter at the University of Connecticut. Daniel Pipes, University of California-Irvine. Bill Krystol, University of  Texas. Star Parker, Penn State. David Horowitz, University of Emery. ) When challenged, liberals act like Muslims upset over a cartoon of Mohammed. Makes you wonder what they're so afraid of? I'm guessing "facts & logic".

Liberals believe we must have tolerance for an "artist" whose works include a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and a crucifix in a bottle of urine. The New York Times stated; “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.”
 However, the Times has now decided that being disrespectful of Islam is apparently different than those exhibits stating about the recent movie about Islam; "Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths."  Perhaps if the film were shown at the New York Metropolitan Museum, it would be "art". Then again, probably not.

Its easy to be a liberal. All you have to do is first, see everyone (except those you disagree with) as victims. Secondly, show tolerance for everything. (Again, except those you disagree with) Third, be open to every lifestyle, every act, every manner of living - hold no standards. Hey! It's a free-for-all! No standards, no judgement. Be exclusive. Don't tolerate disagreement. Allow emotion to dictate policy. Believe in the collective.

Conservatism is harder. There are rules. There are ideals. There are standards. There are constants. Logic outweighs infantile emotion.  Belief in the individual. Responsibility, personal and otherwise. While liberals describe compassion as how many people are on government assistance, conservatives describe compassion as to how many people don't need it. Conservatism is inclusive. We take all like minded members. We don't care, even former liberals. We don't shout down our opponents. We don't have to. Conservatism is...tolerant.

This post is not intended to annoy any of my liberal friends. I see you as an individual before I see you as an ideology. Perhaps that shows my tolerance. And in return, I ask only for the same.

Minority report. Obama has failed you, and played you.

Are you a woman? Black? Hispanic? Young? Gay?  In 2008 when you pulled that magic lever for Barack Obama, did you think he was the panacea for all your woes? Did he speak to you - almost on a personal level? Did you feel as though he was such a trans formative figure that by shear force of being, all of your woes and the rest of the downtrodden would disappear? How's that working out for you? It's been almost four years since the confetti was swept from the floor at the DNC convention in Denver. Those Styrofoam Greek columns are now (slowly) decaying in some land fill but we're left with the real cleanup. Let's check some of your "expectations" against the reality we've been handed.

Are you black?

Well, I guess having a brother in the White house isn't all you thought it would be, is it. Then again, he's only half black. The level of black Americans in poverty has risen. Waaaaay up. Of course, that also comes with increases in food stamp usage so its not all bad. Black unemployment is now 13.6%. When you factor in those who have given up looking for work, its closer to 20%. Those numbers have barely budged under this administration. In fact, it was a tad lower under George W. Bush and he hated blacks, didn't he? Wow. I wonder how much Barack hates you? The High School dropout rate for blacks is 53%. So much for Barack inspiring a new generation. Face it - government can't raise our kids regardless of color. That's done by parents. When we finally get over this government should save us attitude, we'll all be better off. As a Conservative, I want everyone of every color to have the same opportunity.  And I want all Americans to excel to the best of their abilities. Your lot has not improved.

Are you Gay.

As a Conservative, I don't give a damn as to your sexual preference and identity. If your a consenting adult, its none of my business what you do, whom you do it with or who you love. I'm happy to have you as a friend, neighbor or co-worker. I've broken bread with you in your home as well as mine. I don't see you as Gay. I see you as "you". If you think that means I don't feel your pain, your right. I can never know the prejudices you've encounter. But it doesn't mean I condone it or accept it. I don't. But I wont pander to you either. If you believe in Gay marriage, I respect that. But I respectfully disagree. President Obama had a change of heart about Gay marriage this Spring - right in time for his re-election bid. In 2008, he stated that "Marriage is and always must remain, between one woman and one man. This is my belief". A few months ago he had an epiphany regarding Gay marriage. Convenient, wasn't it. You're being used by his election machine. He cares about your vote. That's all. And he doesn't have the power to legalize Gay marriage anyway. Only the states can do that. You are hitching your wagon to a horse that can't and wont run. After election night, he wont even remember your name.

Are you a woman?

You've come a long way, baby! How are you enjoying those free birth control pills? That's all you ever really wanted. right? Oh sure, a job would be nice too. But come on, be realistic. Things are bad, baby. You know you earn less than a man and Barack meant to help you but...things just didn't work out. If you're a married woman you know how hard it is to feed your family nowadays. Food prices up. Even getting to the store costs more now as gas is up from $1.90 a gallon in 2009 to $3.78 today. Barack meant to do more for you but he was so busy in 2009 and 2010 pushing his health care reform, that he just didn't have time for you. Kinda' like your husband. Barack talks the talk, then he walks...away. Dump this loser, ladies.

Are you Hispanic?

You thought those horrible Republicans want deport all of your illegal brethren. But wait, do you know Barack has deported more illegal immigrants than Bush did? In fact, deportations are way up. I thought he liked you guys? Its so confusing. Latino unemployment is 11.0%. Again, when you count those who have stopped looking for work, its closer to 19%. The fastest and clearest path to success is an education, training and a job - regardless of race. You're being "race baited". Don't let anybody do that to you.

Are you young?

Whether you belong to any of the above categories or not - this one is the absolute worst to belong to. Why? Well lets look at the math. Unemployment among American youth is an abysmal 38% in the 20 to 24 age group. Ages 16 to 19 is 71.1%. New College graduate rate of unemployment is 50%. Hope you like Mom & Dad, cause' you may be spending your entire 20's with them. Maybe more. You may have loved "Occupy Wall Street". But you're more likely to "Occupy Mom & Dad's Basement". Even if you're lucky enough to get a job, your wages will be depressed. But that's not the worse of it. You will be inheriting the largest amount of debt ever saddled upon a generation. Our current $16 trillion debt will have to be paid off by someone. That someone is you, Princess. And its quite possible that in order to satisfy that debt as quickly as possible, some bright politician will suggest hyper-inflation as a way to do it. Try not to think about it. It's too depressing even for me. While people in their 40's and older will demand that their Social Security and Medicare benefits remain unchanged, you'll be the ones who will continue to foot the bill. And without reforms, there will be a bare bones (if any) Social Security and Medicare entitlement for you. But Obama refuses to even discuss entitlement reforms or reduce spending. Simply put - you're screwed.

Your future isn't tied to a party that offers sympathy for you because your simply too downtrodden to excel on your own. You are much more than black, white, latino, Gay or any other category. Don't be "played". Don't be bought. Hope & Change was a great slogan. It could mean virtually anything to anybody. But the reality is that results have been ineffective and costly. The ideology is flawed.When November 6th comes around, take inventory of the promises, the results and the burdens of the last four years. Vote as if you are in control of your future. Because you are.

Writer's note: Last month saw the largest surge in my blogs readership, doubling the previous high water mark. Thanks.

Our National debt and the Chinese military.

There's a biblical proverb that says; "The borrower is the servant to the lender." True words, no doubt. It can be argued that certain types of debt are better than others. A mortgage for instance, can be a good debt as the value of the home (usually) increases as the debt decreases. Credit card purchases? Uh, forget it. Chances are whatever you bought on them has depreciated drastically. If those are personal debts, what about National debts.

Currently, our national debt stands just over $16 trillion. Four short years ago, it was $9 trillion. See how fast it can grow? Annually, our budget deficit is $1.1 trillion. Meaning we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. And interest? We spend about $500 billion in interest payments alone. If you think your personal debt is important, and it is, debt by countries has even more devastating and farther reaching effects. Consider this. Half of our national debt is held by foreigners. The majority of that is held by the Chinese. If the People’s Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payment on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.  In 2010, the Pentagon issued an alarming report to Congress on Beijing’s massive military buildup, upgrading bombers, and an aircraft carrier research and development program intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the Pacific.  What the report didn’t mention is who’s paying for it. America. If that doesn't alarm you, go back and read that last paragraph again. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Every time some politician in Washington promises to extend unemployment benefits, we borrow money from Beijing so they can build a new jet aircraft. Every time Washington spends stimulus money that we don't have, the Chinese use that money to build another naval ship. Get the picture? I hate to say this, but only America would be stupid enough to fund its largest military and economic adversary. Even the Romans didn't buy the spears and fund the Barbarians and Vandals.  But Americans want their stuff (entitlements) and apparently don't care from whom we get the money to fund it with. While our current administration wants deeper U.S. military cuts -  it funds Bejing's through debt. Brilliant.

For most people, the idea of a $16 trillion debt is something they just don't care to wrap their head around. Its a big number. And the average person just can't relate to that size figure. After all, if you're doing fine economically why do you care about all that outstanding debt to the Chinese Army? And make no mistake - that's mostly where our interest payments along with the principle are going. Eventually we're going to run out of money to pay the interest on our debt because Washington and the average American, show no interest in changing their ways. But don't worry. Because by the time that happens, the U.S. military will be a shell of its former self and overshadowed by the new and more lethal Chinese military that we funded.
America could never fall at the hands of an invading Army. Instead we will fund it. And in doing so, seal our fate as a "former Superpower".

Rome had the circuses to distract the people's minds from impeding doom. Today in America, we have our iPads, smartphones and satelite TV. But no matter how we try to distract ourselves from our impending doom, the result will be the same. Most Republics are destroyed in this matter - from within. I am often reminded of the words of the great 19th Century French admirer of America, Alex Tocqueville. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  If any of those words ring familiar - good, you're paying attention.

An invitation to those considering voting for Obama. Consider this...

Imagine you sit on the board of a business. You and the other board members hire an a new CEO who by way of his words and demeanor inspires you to hire him. His lofty words actually make you feel good about his abilities, even though he's never run a business of any kind before. In fact, he's never held a leadership position in his life. But you feel this guy just might have that something special, so you hire him.

 Since the company wasn't doing well in the last quarter before he took the reins, you give him a little leeway.  Perhaps a lot of leeway. But hey, you're willing to try just about anything to right the ship - even if it means spending a lot a money that your company doesn't have. The debt you're incurring is quite high - more than the company has ever seen. But your new CEO tells you that its quite necessary. In fact, if you don't institute his company saving programs, the company may sink completely and every employee could lose their job. The company credit cards are maxing out but the new CEO insist that this is a tact that must be implemented to secure the future of the company. You wonder how you're ever going to pay off those cards. And you know that the next generation of owners will be responsible for it, long after you're gone. It will be quite a burden for them but hey - that's their problem, I suppose. Besides, if we can get this company back on solid footing - things may be better for them. You hope against hope.

After a few years, things get progressively worse. The new CEO blames the previous CEO. And while the new guy did walk into a bad situation - his way of dealing with the problem, has made it worse. Your employees are being let go. The company debt mounts. And the only response the CEO offers is to divert blame elsewhere. Instead of accepting responsibility, he employs tactics such as demonising any other employee who dares to question his authority and plans. He knows the board isn't happy with his performance and his contract is about to expire. In fact, the board has been interviewing prospective replacements. After a lengthy search, they settle on a guy who has an extensive background in business. His track record is actually quite good and he appears to be an outstanding citizen. Once, he even saved a winter business in Utah and didn't take any money for the job he did. He didn't really need the money though. He's done quite well for himself. Yep, the board members are taking a closer look at the new guy. Looks like he just might be what the company needs. He wants the company to stop spending money the company doesn't have. He wants to implement programs that will save money while saving popular employee benefits for current employees as well as future employees. And this guy has actually been in leadership positions before. Quite a pedigree to be sure.
But the current CEO isn't going away quietly. He knows he hasn't done very well the last few years and there's no way he can make the board members forget about that. Instead he decides to ruin the reputation of his prospective replacement - though that's proving harder than he thought. But he wont stop trying. After all, what choice does he have? He can't hope to keep his job based upon his past performance. Especially since he's already told the board that if he's re-hired, he'd like to continue employing the same business model he's already used.

Okay. You got me. I'm talking about the choice this November between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But you already knew that. (I can't pull the wool over your eyes, can I?) But President Obama is hoping he can. Listen, I know some of you out there are so melded to your affection for this guy, that you can't imagine voting for anyone else. But this isn't a high school class President election we're talking about here. This is about the future and direction of the country. Clearly, the path of more debt and an ever growing federal government isn't working. Neither is ignoring the bubble that's going to burst when Medicare becomes insolvent in 8 to 10 years. Mr. Obama has no plans whatsoever to deal with this and similarly important problems. Expanding an entitlement state has never worked anywhere else in the world, unless your end goal is to bankrupt a nation. We have very serious problems to be addressed. And Mr. Obama has had his chance to deal with them. He has failed in every measurable way. You know it. I know it and I imagine the majority of voters will show their displeasure as well this November. The CEO needs to be replaced. Not because we hate him. Not because we don't like his wardrobe. But because he has failed to right a ship in turbulent waters. It's time for a new approach. It's time to admit an error in our judgement was made 4 years ago. It's time to consider if ideology is all that matters to you. Or are results important too. It's time to consider Mitt Romney.

Separation of church & state. Think you know what that means? Guess again.

If you ask most people where the phrase; separation of church and state comes from, they'll most likely tell you that its in the constitution. Wrong. Okay, it must be in the Declaration of Independence then, right? Wrong. Want another crack at it ? Magna Charta maybe. Uh, nope. And neither is it in your Avis rental car agreement. Liberals just love to quote that phrase - as though its some kind of mantra that brings you internal wisdom and peace. But like so many other things we weren't taught correctly - if at all, the origin of that phrase is not quite what we thought it was and not quite what we thought it meant.

Back when the constitution was crafted, the individual state constitutions laid down the law regarding church and state. Hard to believe but as late as 1833 ( almost 50 years after the drafting of the Constitution) certain states actually had religious requirements as to who could hold elected and public offices. North Carolina's constitution said that a person who denied the being of God or belief in the old and new testament, could not hold public office. Several states required an officeholder to be Protestant. The founding fathers were careful not to step on this right of states to choose their own religion. They even spelled it out in the federal agreement between the states, promising that Congress would never try to usurp their power by establishing it's own national religion. They also promised that the federal government would never pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So, instead of separation of church and state, there is a clear protection of religious expression outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation is clearly between the states and the federal government. Don't get me wrong. I think having a state religion in any of our states is a bad idea, but the Constitution clearly leaves that up to the states, not the federal government.

The phrase separation of church and state is in fact, as liberals like to point out, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson. However, they conveniently leave out the all important context. In 1802, the Connecticut state religion was Congregationalism, and they petitioned the president for aid in religious disestablishment, which Jefferson himself had advocated as Governor of Virginia. The Danbury Baptists were disappointed when the president failed to intervene on the grounds that the federal government was strictly forbidden from interfering in state matters. Although Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" in that letter to the Danbury Baptists, one must read the full text to grasp it meaning. The statement reads, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state". The "state" to which he referred is clearly Congress, which he called the 'legislature'. The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in the establishment of a national religion for obvious reasons - Congress is prohibited from doing so because that right was reserved for the states alone.

It should be noted that the president did nothing to help the Baptists in their effort, because he did not believe the federal government had a role in this state right. If the federal government did have a role to play, then why was no action taken against the states which had a religious litmus tests even 50 years after the Constitution was established? Also wrongly reported is that Jefferson was an atheist. Not true. In fact he attended a religious service the very day he wrote the Danbury letter. Though he did not belong to a specific church, he was devoted to the idea that our rights come to us from God, not government or man. If that sounds familiar, its because he wrote something quite similar and placed it in the Declaration of Independence. Check it out - its pretty easy to spot. The separationists have so bastardized the the religious establishment clause that they now consider any hint of religion in any government sector to be a violation of the Constitution. As someone whose actually read the Constitution, it frustrates me when I hear that phrase attached to the Constitution because its just not there. However, it is in the old Soviet Union's constitution. How's that for irony?

How rich is rich? And can one of "them" really be a good President?

Have you noticed? Its open season on rich people. You know, those horrible filthy rich people who light their cancerous cigars with $100 bills and wipe themselves with the same - all while laughing at the homeless. And when they're not shopping on Rodeo Drive - they just love kicking puppies. Hardly the type of people you'd want to hold elected office, right? Well, before we start building the gallows from which to execute the wealthy, maybe we should find out exactly who these wealthy are.

First, let's define - "rich". How much money must someone make in a year before they qualify as rich. The average yearly salary in the U.S. is $43,460.00. Meaning half the people earn over that amount and half under that amount. If you earn $26,000. a year, the guy making that $43,460.00 might be rich to you - though I seriously doubt he thinks so. Is $90,000 a year rich? Hmmm. Probably not. Especially if you live in a place like New York City or almost anywhere in California. $90,000.00 a year in those places is like earning half that almost anywhere else in the U.S.  Surely $250,000.00 a year is rich. That must be the magic number because that's the number the President wants to raise taxes on - which will produce an extra $83 billion a year. Even $83 billion sounds like a lot until you realize that's about the amount of money the federal government spends in 9 days. Yes - NINE DAYS. Forget balancing the budget on the backs of the so-called rich.

A lot has be written about the wealth of Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Yep, he's rich alright. To the tune of about $200 million or so. He's also quite philanthropic. Though the Mormon Church asks their members to tithe 10%, Romney gives far more, roughly 18% of his income to charity according to Forbes. And his beneficiaries are quite diverse - from "AIDS Action" to the Wright Brothers Museum. In 1995, he inherited millions from his father, former CEO of American Motors. Do you know what he did with all that dough? He gave it away. Every...last...dime.  If Mitt Romney is greedy, he's sure bad at it.The political left often decries that a rich man just can't identify with the average American and therefore shouldn't be President. Well, before you go logging on to that misguided logic - check out the all time richest U.S. Presidents.

Adjusted to 2012 dollars.  John Tyler was the 10th wealthiest with $51 million. FDR, the "New Deal" patriarch of the poor was worth $60 million. Not too shabby for a big government semi-Socialist.  The rest follow;
No. 8 - Herbert Hoover, $75 million.
No. 7 - LBJ, $98 million.
No. 6 - John Madison, $101 million.
No. 5 - Andrew Jackson, $119 million.
No. 4 - Teddy Roosevelt, $125 million
No. 3 - JFK, $125 million. (Though he lived off his Trust Fund his entire life.)
No. 2 - Thomas Jefferson, $212 million
No. 1 - George Washington, $525 million. He is the only president who is sometimes included in rankings of the 100 wealthiest Americans. Washington also achieved something Mr. Romney never will: In 1789, his salary was 2 percent of the total US budget.

Some pretty note worthy Presidents up there - no matter what party you support or ideology you embrace. Had John Kerry been elected in 2004, he would have popped in right after Washington. Had John Edwards been President, he'd be right after Teddy Roosevelt. Notice Ronald Reagan nor either Bush made the top ten list. They weren't even close.Washington was quite wealthy, yes. But while he could have enjoyed his wealth and lived quite profitably no matter what government was in place - he left his home and battled the British for 8 long years, only going home to Virginia a few times during the Revolution. He lived among the men he led. He was loved, respected and adored by those he asked much of. And yes,he was rich. It didn't seem to matter. At one point in the battle of Germantown, his uniform jacket endured 4 bullet holes, none touched him. He had 4 horses shot out from under him. Rather than stay warm and cozy on his Virginia plantation, he led the surprise attack on the Hessian's at Trenton in 1776 and in doing so - saved the Continental Army and the cause. And when his country needed him again, he reluctantly became the United States first President. That's right. He didn't really want the job. But his country needed him and he responded. After two terms, he left the Presidency for his Virginia farm. Napoleon said that Washington must be a great man to leave the Presidency and such power voluntarily. And as mentioned,Washington was rich. Perhaps it not the accumulated wealth that really matters. Perhaps its what one does in such a position of wealth. Perhaps wealth is a sign of personal success that might translate to Presidential success - or perhaps not. Either way, its the person that really matters. His, or her ability to lead, to promote the American message and ideal. To preserve and execute  the documents that must remain the foundation of our country. To uphold the truths that are eternal and to pass on those cherished truths to generations yet unborn. That is what ultimately matters. We used to call it "character". We used to require it of our leaders. Perhaps we need to again.

Sub note: Thanks to all of you who take the time to read my blog, whether you agree with my posts or not. According to Google, my blog posts have been downloaded and   read in Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Belarus, Russia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, China, Brazil, Australia and of course the U.S. I think one of the guys in Russia might be Putin but ...probably not.

If only the rich paid more in taxes, all our problems would be solved. Right?

Damn rich people. If they only paid more in taxes, we wouldn't be in this financial mess we have. Right? Well, before we have the debate about who should pay more in taxes, lets define "rich".

President Obama's plan to save the country from financial ruin, calls for people earning over $250,000 to pay more in taxes. Great, right? Well, exactly who are these people? A great number of them are small businesses who pay tax at the individual rate. They may have gross revenues of $250,000 or even $800,000 but they have to pay their employees salary, benefits, insurance, utilities, rental space and every else thing involved with running their business out of that amount. Usually, the boss is the last person to get a check. It would not be unusual to have a business with say, $300,000 in annual revenue not turn a profit - it happens all the time, especially now a days. These are a large part of the newly discovered rich people the President wants to raise taxes on. You know, the actual job creators. And how do you think an increased tax burden will affect their decision making regarding expanding and/or hiring new employees?

Then there are the disgusting rich. These people usually earn  $1 million a year. Impressive, huh. Unfortunately for us there are only 235,413 people who fall into that category according to the IRS. The number of people earning over $10 million annually is 8274. For comparison, 97% of wage earners reported less than $200,000 a year. The average income is $54,283 - a drop of over 6% since 2008. There just doesn't seem to be enough "rich people" out there to bail us out of this mess.

However, the top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden. The top 20% pay 69%. A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000. But here's the kicker - nearly 48% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes at all. We're at a tipping point where soon more people in America will not pay federal taxes, than those who do. And as you saw above, the rich can't bail us out.

Here's another bit of abstract thinking. If ALL the income from people earning over $250,000 a year were confiscated by the government - and I mean ALL of it, the money generated would only fund the federal government for 5 months. And it would still not reduce our $16 trillion national debt a penny. Plus we'd still run an annual deficit of $800 billion, which is twice what it was when Obama took office. And remember, thats if we took it all. Still think the rich are our problem?

Today 100 million Americans receives some sort of entitlement from the government - that's a third of us. And that does not include Social Security and Medicare payments. That is unbelievable. But the really scary part is, its unsustainable. No matter who tells you the problem is those rich people and their tax loopholes, they're dead wrong. The problem is a government who can't control it's purse strings and a population who has grown up with an entitlement mentality. If you want a sneak peak at our future, take a look at Europe. Like what you see?

No one would deny that a financial safety net needs to be in place for those less fortunate. But the idea that all our wants, needs and desires can be paid for by a bankrupt government who promised far too much than it could ever deliver - needs to end. We are out of money and even scarier, we're running out of time. The class warfare mentality may be great for liberal Democrats looking for re-election, but it will deny the reality of the situation and have future generations incur massive debt. (And your grand children thought you loved them) We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the feds spend. Most of that goes to China who buys our debt via treasury notes that we have to pay interest on. Hey liberals, what part of this are you not understanding? I know you hate the rich but come on. You can't raise the status and standard of living of the poor by dividing an ever dwindling money pie. Opportunity, upward mobility, hard work, drive, risk taking and most importantly - capitalism, have enabled all of us the ability (not the guarantee) of success. Redistribution of wealth has never brought the standard of living up for the lower classes. Never. Want proof? Since LBJ's Great Society program of the 1960's, trillions have been spent on social engineering the poor out of poor. Yet the poverty rate has risen from 14% in 1965 to now 17% under Barack Obama's tenure. 40 million more Americans receive welfare than before Mr. Obama took office. Ever notice how he never talks about spending less, always more - on nearly ... everything!
I am left to conclude that either he actually wanted more Americans to take advantage of entitlement programs or he is simply an incompetent fool in a job that is way over his head. Either way, the methods and philosophy has failed miserably and your kids are stuck with the tab. This brand of Hope & Change has failed. And unless we change the course, I'd stock up on canned goods and ammunition.

The War on Religion. And how the haters have it so wrong.

Have you ever heard how religion has been the cause of most of the World's problems, deaths and general mayhem? Yeah, me too. It makes for cute little bumper sticker-ish quotes, but whoever authors those witty and yes, hateful remarks - they must be real bad at math. So I will hold a little arithmetic course along with a basic World History class right here.
It is true that there are those who have used violence in the name of their religion. Witness the Crusades.  But if you have to go back 1000 years to make your point about hateful Christians, you may want to buy a new calendar. There of course was 911. This time hateful Muslims. And at various times extremists of nearly every religion have exploited faith for their own designs and purposes. Religion was not the problem. The exploitation by those masquerading as the devout faithful was. But I stray too far from my point. I promised you a math class, didn't I. Sharpen your number 2 pencils and get ready. Here we go.

Religion has been the cause of most of the world's violent deaths. WRONG. Oppressive regimes have been the cause of most of the World's violent deaths. WW I was not fought defending or promoting religious ideals. (40 million dead) Neither was WW II (another 40 million dead) which was brought about by a madman who professed no religious piety or beliefs. Hitler was raised by a skeptical father & a devout Catholic Mother but ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. He used religious rhetoric when it suited him, but was neither a man of faith nor were his conquests committed in pursuit of some religious ideals. The Japanese were told that the Emperor was God on Earth. But they fought for the most basic of reasons - Earthly raw materials to promote and advance their empire.  Both of these regimes believed in the power and complete obedience to the government. (The Fuhrer and the Imperial Emperor) They would have viewed God as competitor for people's allegiance.

The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered millions for political ideology not religion. (Rent "The Killing Fields") African tribes wage war upon each other to this day for numerous reasons such as ethnicity not related to any religion. The Korean War in the 1950's, the Vietnam War in the 1960's were once again, wars brought on by brutal  powers, not religious warriors. The Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and the Chinese Traitors prisons doled out pain in order to keep people loyal and fearful to the state - not any church. Even those who practice ethnic cleansing or genocide, do so almost entirely because of age old rifts between tribes, not religion.

Soviet missles were not placed in Cuba back in 1962 to ensure that the U.S. would convert - one way or another - to a specific worship. Nor was the Berlin Wall built to keep Eastern Europeans faithful to the Bible. Nazi Germany. Fascist Italy. Imperial Japan. Communist North Korea. Communist North Vietnam Communist Soviet Union. Communist China, dictators in Iraq, Cuba, Africa, Central America and Venezuela,  - none of these regimes used their military power for anything other than to promote a Godless ideology that dehumanizes the individual in deferrence to the state. The total human casualties both military and civilian for all the wars of the 20th century number near 240 million. I dare say the smallest fraction of that figure is due to religious intolerence and hatred.

If you hate war, then hate the regimes that oppose God and faith in nearly every form - or manipulate it for their own purposes. They are the enemy of peace. They are the intolerent ones who doom the innocent. I don't ask you to believe as I do. I don't require it. It offends me not if you worship differently - or not at all. But please get your facts straight. Millions have died to preserve your right to so. The least you could do in their honor is not re-write their sacrifices ...and their history.

Stop the War on men!

You've probably heard about the War on Women. Those dastardly Republicans want to deprive women of birth control pills. Well, maybe not deprive them of it, but they want them to pay for it themselves. Dear God! What's next? Next week they'll want women to pay for their own tampons. Then designer shoes! Where does it end? I ask you? Of course, its all phony baloney politics. If I were a woman, I'd be upset that some elected official thinks I'm too stupid or poor to afford my own birth control. But that's just me. But enough, lets get to the real war. The War on men.

The majority of college student are now women. That seems a tad unfair, doncha' think? Perhaps the government needs to step in here and level the playing field. Yes, I'm sure that's what's needed. (They do such a great job with everything else). Maybe we need quotas. And if that means we have to allow more less deserving men into institutions of higher learning and less women - so be it. After all, we need to be fair. Right? College football programs raise the highest sports revenue for the school - allowing less attended and less popular sports (girls field hockey) to exist at all. Hardly fair. Those poor men are out there sweating just so Jennifer can swing that stick thingy at that ball thingy. So unfair. If they can't carry their own weight... ditch the program. It's only fair.

But nowhere is the inequity between the sexes more prominent than when it comes to the issue of sex. While liberal doo-gooders believe a woman should enjoy free birth control, (ever notice how liberals always want someone else to pay for things) there is no outcry for the right of men to enjoy the same liberty. You could agrue that the man's right not to procreate is being served by the woman taking the free birth control. But suppose she's a skank who is lying - trying to trap that poor man into a relationship (or worse) marriage by getting pregnant? Seems to me that the man should have his own free birth control in the form of condoms. Yep, that sounds more fair. Actually, condoms help prevent against STD's where birth control pills do not. The necessity for condoms is even more dire than the woman's birth control pills. Yet, men have to pay out-of-pocket for condoms. Depending how popular the guy is with women, that could easily add up to more than a woman's monthly payout for birth control pills. Under Obama's new health care mandate, women are suppose to get free mammograms. Yet men still have to pay for prostate examinations.  I suppose Democratic politicians just don't care about men's health issues as much as women's. That seems unfair.

The number one killer of women is heart disease. Women needed to be made aware of this. So, February became "Fight heart disease in women" month. Heart disease is also the number one killer of men. We didn't get a month. We didn't even get a day. October is "Breast cancer awareness month". A good thing to be sure. But men also get breast cancer. I didn't hear word one about that during the entire month. Finally, they threw us a bone and made June Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. What's that you say? You never heard that June was Prostate Cancer Awareness month? Well, nobody else knows it either. We don't have a colored ribbon for that yet. I hear Congress may be working on choosing a color for us. Unfortunately, all the really good colors are taken.

Maybe if you have to be told you're in a war of some sort - you're not really in one. Maybe some wars are just fabrications intended to political sleight-of-hand. And maybe, just maybe you're being used as cannon fodder for someone elses plans.
Actually, there is a war. But it's a war on common sense. And from what I've seen - the enemy is winning.

Chik-fil-A. Is it "free speech" if it costs you?

First of all, let me preface this post by saying a few things up front. I don't care if you're gay, straight or bi-sexual. Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I believe individuals must be true to themselves and I respect that. But that applies to me and every other individual as well - or it should. The CEO of Chik-fil-A, Dan Cathy, made a comment the other day that angered some people. He stated that he believed no one should be discriminated because of their sexual preference - but he did not believe in Gay marriage. He holds a view that the majority of state legislatures and American citizens hold - yet he was held up to public ridicule for it. It wasn't long before the protest groups gathered themselves up, painted hip protest signs and marched in front of Chik-fil-A restaurants calling for a boycott. But my question is - exactly what results is it that you want your boycott to produce? Perhaps you'd like Chik-fil-A to go out of business - although that would cost thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. Surely you don't want that. Maybe an apology would suffice. But what is it you'd like Mr. Cathy to apologize for? His personal views? Isn't he entitled to them even if they are opposite of your own? Your views may differ from Mr. Cathy's. Perhaps you owe HIM an apology. See where I'm going with this?

Amazon's CEO donated $2.5 million to the cause of Gay marriage. I don't plan on boycotting Amazon. Starbucks is a left leaning company yet I still purchase my Pikes Peak brew there every Saturday morning. Ben & Jerry of the famous ice cream Ben & Jerry are extremely left leaning and ardent supporters of President Obama. Yet I will still purchase their product when the urge hits me. I know the politics of each of these organizations, yet I do not demand an apology for their views that are opposite of both mine and the majority of the American people.

We are constantly remind by liberals that we need to be tolerant. But apparently, tolerance means something different to them. Apparently, it means to be tolerant of them while they are under no obligation to be tolerant of your views and opinions. Mr. Cathy made it clear that he does not discriminate against Gays who work for him or who patronize his business. He just doesn't believe that marriage extends beyond one man and one woman - a view I hold as well. You may think that makes me "intolerant". You have the right to believe so and I have the right to my convictions.

There is a campaign to support Mr. Cathy's 1st amendment right as well as Chik-fil-A  by patronizing their restaurants this August 1st. Currently 2 million people nationally has subscribed to do so. I will be among them. This stand is not being taken because we are "anti-gay". It is being taken because were are "pro- 1st amendment." Free speech comes at a price. You may have to listen to those who don't always agree with you. But their freedom is no greater or lesserr than yours. Simply accusing the opposing views as being hateful is not conducive to good dialog. Sometimes we must simply agree to disagree. Mr.Cathy had this view. But that wasn't good enough and now his "free" speech may cost him and his business millions. I for one, will not allow the intolerant to define what tolerance means. So on August 1st I will make my own protest statement along with millions of others, by patronizing Chik-fil-A. If you really believe in true tolerance - you may want to get in line behind me. My protest vote supports your right to your opinions as well - even if I disagree with them.

So, how much will YOU pay for Obamacare?

The Supreme Court rendered it's decision on the legality of Obamacare this week. This post will not discuss that here. That's for another day and another column. Today is about the intended and unintended effects of this new far reaching federal legislation. But mostly, its about the massive cost of Obamacare. As the President and the Democrats envision it - Obamacare will add 30 million new people into the healthcare rolls. On the surface, that sounds great. 30 million people with medical coverage who didn't have it prior. But eventually someone will have to pay for it and that someone is... (Get ready. Here it comes) You. That's right. You will be the benevolent benefactor to most of these new enrollees. How? Will it is complicated and yet quite simple. Here goes.

We all now know that despite what Mr. Obama told you back in 2008 and 2009, his healthcare plan mandate is actually a tax, not a penalty. The Supreme Court just said so and this time, Obama didn't even flinch when they said it. Those who don't have insurance must buy it somewhere or pay a penal -  OOPS, tax. Many of these people can't afford coverage or else they already would have had it. So the government will subsidize their premiums through your taxes which will most certainly increase to cover the cost of the subsidies.  If you get your coverage through your employer as most people do, expect them to trim benefits to reduce costs. A Pew Research poll recently stated that 68% of employers are considering reducing benefits, deductables and yes, salaries as a way to keep their operating costs down. The same survey found that 71% of employers would consider hiring only part time workers instead of full time workers so as not to have to provide medical benefits. But it gets worse...

Pennsylvania for instance, will have to absorb as many as 700,000 new people enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid at a cost of $2 billion. Where do you think the Commonwealth is going to come up with that kind of scratch?  Hmmm. If you guessed you through increased taxes... Bingo! You win! Or do you?

The governments estimated number of new physicians that will be required to execute Obamacare is 160,000. As a member of the healthcare community, I hear all kinds of conversations. And I can tell you there is no way a number of new physicians even close to that figure will be coming anytime soon. In fact, at the rate that current physicians are choosing to retire because of this massive interference in medicine - that 160,000 number is probably way, way too low. Try doubling it. Medicare & Medicaid reimbursments have fallen so much that medical offices must see many more patients a day to break even. My Mother had two recent doctors visit. In both of those visits she saw a PA (Physician's Assistant) not a doctor. Even with a return visit to further investigate her problem, the PA mis-diagnosed her condition as "geriatric menapause" assuring her everything was normal. Only after she had a hospital stay for appendicitis did they catch the tumor she has growing near her Uterus. The doctors at the hospital couldn't believe that a simple ultra-sound wasn't performed. I'm sure there are fantastic PAs out there. It is not my intent here to maligne them. But a PA is not a substitute for a doctor anymore than a window is a suitable substitute for a door.
In any case - get used to seeing a lot of PAs in your future and a lot less doctors. As for specialists, you'll only get to see the ones you can afford. (They can afford to be pickier about who they see) And since they are even fewer in numbers, and since 30 million new potential patients will be coming their way - you may wait a long time to see the front of the line.

As with most government programs, this one is going to end up cost a lot more than originally envisioned. In 1965, Congress estimated that Medicare would cost about $5 billion by the year 1990. In 1990, the actual cost of Medicare was $95 billion. See where I'm goin' here?  When was the last time a government estimated cost of a program was actually correct? If the cost of Obamacare is even a fraction of the Medicare error ... well, you get the idea. And the bill.

I wish I lived in that fantasy world some do, who think that a major program like this wont cost much if anything. But I live in the real world. And I'm old enough to see the history and patterns of Washington's wild spending and it's dismal outcomes. While smaller more simple ajustments to the current healthcare situation would have been cheaper and easier to put into effect - like allowing insurance companies to compete against each other across state lines - we have been saddled against our wishes with this massive intrusion. Fortunately, we do have a method to undo this mess. Its called an "election". On November 6th I will be voting to elect the people who are commited to repealing Obamacare not to mention promote fiscal sanity and job creation.  However, if Barack Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is allowed to stand, we will have missed the one possible chance we had to return to sanity and reclaim the most fundemental rights our founders gave us.

Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

There were a number of photographs I could have posted. Some included pictures of six year old children lined up on the ground - all dead. Others showed entire families slaughtered on the living room floor. Some were more graphic than others. Ultimately, I settled on the photo above. It shows death and grief. It show the results of President Assad's assault on his own Syrian people. It shows a type of genocide, one inflicted upon a people within their own borders by their own leader, because they dare to want to live in freedom. Since the uprising in Syria began, thousands of civilians have suffered and died at the hands of Assad's regime. If you show any sympathy for the uprising, you and your family are targeted for assassination. Entire cities sympathetic to the freedom fighters are systematically attacked. Not because they are of a military or strategic importance, but because Assad's forces hope to punish those who dare speak up. And while all this goes on... we do nothing.

China and Russia continually veto any UN resolutions that are critical of Assad. Imagine the arguments they must make in the UN chambers against these resolutions. They should be embarrassed but I doubt they know how. While innocents are slaughtered - they argue in favor of those who do the slaughter. I am reminded of the old saying - "All that is necessary for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing". We are a good people of a good country. Yet we do nothing. Resolutions fail. Assad continues to kill. We protest. More children die.

I've not heard one person speak in favor of committing American troops in the Syrian cause, and you wont hear it from me either. But U.S. foot soldiers are not necessary nor are the rebels asking for any. What they do want is a chance at determining their own future. That future will be determined for them if they do not have the arms to liberate themselves from tyranny. It would be nice to think that rational conversations among nations and tyrants could resolve such matters. The truth is - they seldom do. Liberation comes at the end of a gun. It was true in WW I, WW II, the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraq War and our own American Revolution.

I cannot imagine how empty the Syrian people must feel. Eager and ready to fight against their own evil and no one will give them the tools to defend themselves. Meanwhile we sit by and beg the U.N. for help. Why must the United States beg those who facilitate this carnage? We should immediately define evil in the name of Bashar Assad. Automatic weapons, rocket launchers, food and medical supplies must be airlifted to the regions where the rebel strongholds exist. We admitted to having "eyes and ears on the ground"  (CIA) in Syria just as we did in Libya. These efforts can be coordinated with minimal effort and costs. The payoff could be the fall of one pillar of evil within the middle east that includes Syria and it's ally, Iran. Russia and China support both these rouge nations. It is time to offer tangible support of our own - and not in the way of meaningless U.N. resolutions. There are those nations who would follow if we led. But clearly, it must be us who leads.

The United States, whether we like it or not, has some responsibility to support those who, like us 236 years ago, sought to throw off the shackles of a tyrannical oppressor. And like us, asks only for the tools to gain that freedom. Can we deny our help to those who seek the same today - as we did so many years ago? In 2009, the United States said nothing during the demonstrations in Iran. Not a word of support. Not a syllable. And they died in the streets asking us why we remained quiet. That was not leadership. We stayed silent and the brave died. Now we have another opportunity. History may well note that this was a defining moment in time. The question is - will it note the liberation of the oppressed with the help of the standard bearer of liberty, the United States? Or will it note the deafening silence of good men who allowed the slaughter to continue?

When "Green jobs" don't produce the green.

Still think the government can run the economy better than those rascally capitalists? Well, a couple of years ago the President and his party opted to stimulate the economy with $800 billion borrowed from China that your kids and grand kids will have to pay for. Included in that package was a mere $90 billion for so called "green" jobs. At that time the President boasted that this package would produce 200,000 jobs annually over the next 3 years. Three years later... let's revue.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, that $90 billion has produced 16,000 jobs since its inception at a cost of... (drum roll) $5 million per job. According to my calculator, that means 584,000 less jobs that promised. And at $5 million a job - hardly cost beneficial. But the government can afford to waste our money in such a manner because it cost them nothing. They'll just add it to our tab which currently is approaching $16 trillion.

In the real world where those evil, dastardly capitalists live - you can't afford to blow $90 billion and then tell the stockholders; "Hey, at least we tried".  Yet that is exactly what the President and his party want to tell us. Besides $90 billion is only a small fraction of the $800 billion stimulus package. Kinda' make you wonder how they pissed away the other $710 billion, doesn't it? Considering how much we had to borrow for this fiasco, you'd think we'd be seeing better results. But we aren't and here's why.

First. Economics 101: Governments can't create jobs or wealth.
Economic growth is created when investors risk capital in a venture. If it succeeds, they make a profit... eventually. They hire people to work in this venture. Those people use their income to buy goods and services from other workers who produce other things. All these workers pay taxes. The government uses those taxes to (hopefully) run necessary elements of the government. (Have you noticed that so far the government hasn't done shit in this success story. Good. You're catching on) The government can help facilitate this process by keeping the tax burden on both the company and workers low. But when the government promises more and more entitlements that it can't afford - they have to increase taxes. This robs both the investors and the workers of capital they could better spend elsewhere - like buying goods and services from other workers which keeps this whole scenario rolling.

When the government decides who will be the recipient of the D.C. cash cow, we get things like Solyndra, the solar panel company that Obama gave $550 million which went bankrupt. (Another half-a-billion dollars lost) When you add a billion here and a billion there, it starts to add up to real money! The government cannot create winners and losers. That's what the free market is for and it works quite well. If Solyndra had been such a great offering, why weren't there hundreds if not thousands of private investors lining up to invest their money? Hmmm. Maybe they know something that those brainiac politicians don't.

I'm something of an amateur American historian. And having read the words of our founders, I can tell you they never envisioned a federal government with such sweeping powers and debt. In fact, Jefferson (Tom not George) said that every generation owed the following generation a government without debt to inherit. One can only imagine how he would grasp that 16 trillion number. I've been hearing about the savior of green energy since I was 10 years old. In the decades that followed, that cheap, free energy source we've been promised is neither cheap or free. And is incapable of sustaining itself without government money. Even GM (the recipient of a government bailout) ceased production of its flagship eco-car the Chevy Volt because demand was non-existent even with $4.00 a gallon gas.

I don't doubt that one day our cars will be propelled by non-polluting and plentiful sunshine and lolly pops. But that day is not coming upon us anytime soon. Till then, we better start a real national energy policy that includes drilling here as well as developing new sources of energy. And it can all be done without Washington's involvement and our money. In 1977, President Carter started the Energy Department. Since then, the cost of energy has skyrocketed and no solutions have been developed or enacted. Yet this department  has grown in personnel and budget by 500%. If this was a company - any company, it would have and should have folded decades ago. But don't worry. If we run out of money, we can just borrow more. What's another trillion between the generations anyway.

Why blacks should vote Republican. Yep, that's what I said.

First - a little history. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act became law. Democrats have been taking credit for it ever since as a sign of just how much they care for down-troddened black Americans. But hold on a second. When you check the numbers, you find that a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats. HUH?! Yep, you read that right. The breakdown was GOP 138 - 34 , Dems 152 - 96  Without the GOP votes, the bill fails. Plus, it was a Democrat (Robert Byrd) who filibustered in an attempt to destroy the bill's chances. He was also a member of the KKK. Your kids will never read that in any history books. Nor will they read that it was the Republican party that pushed for emancipation, not the Democratic party. Or for example, that the first black Secretary of State, Condeleeza Rice was appointed by a GOP President. (G.W. Bush)  as well as the first black Joint Chief of Staff, Colin Powell. (Also by G.W. Bush) In fact, Bush's cabinet and his appointees had the highest percentage of blacks EVER by a President. I could go on and mention that it was JFK (Democrat) who wire tapped Rev. M.L. King's phone, but you get the point. Sadly, 38% of college graduates think Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator was a Democrat. They may need more skoolin'.

Since Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs of the 1960's, an estimated $7 trillion dollars have been spent on programs to benefit the poor and blacks in general. We and they, haven't got much for the money. One of the most devastating to the family was that if an unwed woman became pregnant, moved out of the home of her parents, did not name or know who the father was, then Big Daddy in Washington would provide for all her essential needs. Ergo she no longer needed a husband or the support of her family. In fact, the more children she had out of wedlock, the more money she would receive from the government. This program was the death knell for many families, especially in the black community. Unfortunately many black men saw this as the best of all possible worlds. They could father as many children as they wanted, from multiple women, without ever having to accept the responsibility of fatherhood. Many women rejected marriage in favor of a boyfriend who could slip in the back door and not jeopardize her government check. If you think this is just racist talk - you haven't looked at the statistics lately. 60% of black children grow up in fatherless households. 70% of black babies are born to unwed mothers. Almost half of young black men in America's cities are neither working nor in school. And having a black President has made no difference either. Thinking differently will. If you don't see this as a ticking time bomb - you're not paying attention.

Too many elected Democrats believed that by offering generous handouts, they could cultivate a large segment of the black population for votes without having to try very hard. They were right. Blacks vote for Democratic candidates by huge margins, up to 95%.  Most don't even think about an alternative. In most inner cities, Donald Duck could be elected Mayor if he was listed with a "D" next to his name. Republican candidates aren't even considered and are just lambs to be slaughtered at the polls. But the party that pretends to care so much about the black vote has abandoned them. Trillion of dollars spent has yielded little improvement in the black condition. This is because government cannot replace family, honor and commitment.

Imagine a party that actually believes in YOU - not a system of endless entitlements designed to keep you in their fold. Imagine receiving a handUp instead of a handOUT. Then imagine being told that you couldn't possibly compete with the white class and therefore should be content with the cheap freebies as long as you continue to vote for them. Such is the choice. When a constituency - any constituency, constantly gives their support to a particular party without reservation - they have sealed their fate. They no longer have clout.

Its just assumed that the Dems are more tuned to the black community's needs. Yet the reality is that the programs designed to lift them up have kept them down and continues to do so. All while the majority of black Americans blindly stay in the Democratic party's back pocket. It is time for a new political reality. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans especially Conservative Republicans want black Americans to succeed in the system, not be dependent upon it. Because it creates an environment in which every generation that follows can build upon the success that preceded them. A government check will never replace a father or dignity of work. It will never allow true economic liberation and freedom. This is true for all of us regardless of race. If results matter - the time to look elsewhere for answers may have come for black America.

Voter ID required. About damned time.

I voted in the Pennsylvania Primary this evening. Everything is as it has always been except for a little yellow notice on the door that said voters will have to show an ID before voting. No problem. I brought my wallet with my Pennsylvania Drivers license intact. I showed it to the poll worker and guess what happened next?
I voted.
Yep, it was just that easy. They didn't ask for my birth certificate, deed to my house, 3rd Grade geography test results or blood sample. They didn't even swab my mouth for a DNA test. All they wanted was for me to prove that I was who I said I was. Imagine that! What an incredible obstacle I had to leap. Well, apparently some people thought so. One of the workers told me that earlier, a young woman was quite upset that she had to show ID. (Apparently she thought the notice on the door was for people not as privileged as herself) She made some amusing comment about how we are "losing our freedom" and bolted from the building. She was partly right. We are losing our freedoms - bit by bit, day by day. But not because we're required to show ID when electing local, state and federal officials.

There are numerous things you cannot do without showing identification. Here's a partial list.
Buy a gun. Drive a care. Buy insurance. Visit a Dr's office. Board an airplane. Cash a check. Rent a movie. Get a credit card. Get on welfare. Obtain a Passport. Get a fishing license. Enter a Casino. Buy alcohol. Buy cigarettes. Pick up a package from the post office. Buy a bus ticket. Enroll in college. Rent a hotel room. Apply for a loan. No one would consider asking ID for any of these items "racist". But somehow the hard left has decided to make Voter ID just that. If I were a member of a minority, I'd be raving mad. But not for the reason you might think. I'd be angry because some do-gooder liberals think I'm too ignorant or stupid to actually have identification. Don't minorities drive cars? Then they must have a driver's license - right? If they have have health insurance, even government health insurance, they had to show ID - right? Both of my parents gave up driving in recent years. So Pennsylvania gave them a FREE identification card with their photo and everything. The infirmed and elderly often complain that its just too hard to get to the places where free ID is offered. My question is - then how did you expect to get to the polls?  Its almost as if the opponents of Voter ID actually want fraudulent votes to be possible. Hmmm.

The lowest and I do mean lowest possible threshold one should have to perform in order to vote - is to show identification. If you're too lazy or stupid to produce it, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway. I'm tired of lowering the bar for everything and everyone. Responsibility has been replaced by blame, indignation and entitlement. Here's a news flash. A Presidential election will be held on November 6th this year. That gives you almost 7 months to get your ass off the sofa and get a free ID card from the state. No one is asking you to enlist in the Armed Services and storm a beachhead - just produce a f***in'  ID card. If you find that too taxing to your system - sit this election out. They'll be another one in 4 years. That should give you just enough time to get that card. Idiot.

After 10 years, its time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

Ten years is a long time to pursue a war. A long time to nation build. A long time to commit America's military and finantial assets. To put things into perspective - the United States fought in a World War, won that war, established Democracy in those countries, then rebuilt the former enemies fallen infrastructure in about the same amount of time.

The reason for our military action in Afghanistan was real and yes, necessary. Afghanistan was the home base of Al Quada - the group responsible for attacking America on its own soil on September 11th. They and their assets needed to be neutralized and a safe haven for their activities denied. The Taliban held a brutal hold upon that country. Women were executed for acts as simple as showing too much skin. Some were shot because they dared to teach their female children to read. Others were beheaded because they were raped and apparently, in some bizarre and twisted way, brought dishonor to their families. Once the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan was successful, these brutal acts ended. Children both boys and girls attended newly built schools. Hospitals reopened. And at a very high cost both in blood and national treasure - security was established. But now a decade has elapsed. It is not unreasonable to think that the Afghan army should be able to provide for their own country's security. But is our commitment greater than the people we liberated? If so, and sadly I believe this to be the case - it is time to depart - at least the major cities, such as they are.

The problem is that Afghanistan is less of a country than it appears. A population that is largely uneducated and tribal, there is no unifying tie that binds them. They have little historical experience in a strong national government. It is an alien concept to them. They are poor - eeking out an existence in a hostile environment both politically, culturally and environmentally. They appear to have no appetite for the hard slog necessary to liberate themselves and establish a nation. To be fair, there have been many Afghans ready to make that sacrifice. But are there enough? And why, after 10 years are there not more of them? Perhaps they are better suited to the existence they know than the one they could have. And perhaps it is time for us to realize that.

I would not abandon the country and our military assets entirely. We should establish and maintain one or two bases outside the major cities, away from populated areas where we could react to AlQuaeda incursions and Taliban military activities. Drones could be used more often to reduce the risk to U.S. military personnel. There is no need for us to risk American lives patrolling Afghan cities and towns. Let Afghan security forces take on the brunt of maintaining security and doing the heavy lifting. After all, it is their country.

In every measurable way, we have been successful in this Afghan war. The enemy has been routed. Defeated. He holds no ground except that which he uses to cross and escape into neighboring Pakistan. An elected government, though corrupt, has been established. A national army trained. Now it is time for us to exit stage left and go home. Whether Afghanistan remains free or not is largely out of our hands. We cannot force the love of democracy upon a people. It is their to embrace - understand the sacrifices necessary or allow themselves to revert to oppression. The choice and the hard work is theirs.

No voter ID? Then vote early and vote often.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has just passed a law that requires a photo ID when casting your vote. I can hear the cries of "racism" already. I never thought of ID being necessary to vote as a racism issue, any more than requiring a drivers license to legally drive a car, a racist issue. Or for that matter, providing ID when you buy liquor, rent a car, cash a check or board a plane. In actuality, the list of things that require a photo ID is quite lengthy. So why does a required ID to vote cause such an uproar? Aren't we all interested in an accurate and fair representative vote? Well, you'd think so wouldn't you, but... uh, uh. Democrats fight tooth and nail against any efforts to require a photo ID when voting. Gee. Its almost as if they want to encourage illegal and fraudulent voting. (sarcastic smirk) They know that most Americans think its a good idea to prove you are who you say you are when voting - and to vote just once, not multiple times. Since that's an argument doomed to fail, they have to address the issue in another manner. They need a boogieman. A diversion. VIOLA! When all else fails and logic takes a nap - enter "racism".

The story goes something like this;

Requiring poor, inner city people (re: Blacks) to provide ID is an insult and hearkens to the era of the poll tax. It creates fear and resentment. Plus these people probably don't have any ID because after all, they've been kept down by "The Man" so long. (It has nothing to do with the fact that this constituancy reliably votes Democratic 96% of the time) (2nd sarcastic smirk) Plus many old people don't drive, so they don't have drivers licenses. What kind of ID could they possibly have? So in addition to racism we have ageism.

Enter the facts.

First of all. I think it would be difficult to find anyone without a photo ID. My parents are 87 and 83. Both gave up their drivers licenses a few years ago. Yet, they have the FREE photo ID's issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If you accept government assistance, you also have a photo ID. So the old and the poor are covered. In the event you don't have a photo ID, the state will allow you to cast a provisional ballot that could be included once ID is obtained, should a vote be close. So far, I'm not seeing the racist part - just the "stuff the ballot with bogus votes" part.

I'd have more respect for this farce if the Dems just came out and said; "Hey, we like stuffing ballots like in the old days. Its a Chicago tradition!" But instead they resort to the flimsiest of arguments that have no basis in reality. I imagine that lawyers for the opposition are preparing their legal briefs as we speak. Ready to bring the case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court. And what will be their main argument? Well, the poor are to stupid to get an ID card and the old are too feeble. And in the upside down world we find ourselves in - sadly, that argument just may work.