Politibyte.com

What if we only used Jewish embryos?

President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order and memo Monday in an East Room ceremony that will end a divisive policy decision by his predecessor, while sending a clear signal that science - not political ideology - will guide his administration.

Mr. Obama will overturn the executive order signed by President George W. Bush during his first year in office which restricted the use of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

What implications will this have on our society? Yes, everyone can agree that the research that will be carried out will no doubt generate advances in medical technology. However, at what price?

As Obama has stated many times, " political, religious, or moral guidelines have no place in determining funding for medical research, it should be left to the scientists.

By this standard, would not the medical experiments conducted upon the Jews by German doctors not be acceptable? Were the scientists not gathering useful, scientific data?

In other words, is it not our moral and religious principles that caused us to be repulsed by their actions to the point of war? Do we not teach our children to remember the Holocaust as one of the great failures of human society?

Perhaps if we only used Jewish embryos that would make it politically incorrect enough to get Obama's attention.

I would argue with our President that it is exactly because of the above that it is imperitive that society's social, religious, and moral principles be allowed to serve as a check and balance upon medical scientist's ambitions.

It is an old argument, but time and time again our society has judged that the ends do not always justify the means.

We must always remember that the best way to judge a people is to see how well they protect the weakest members of that society.

Never Waste a Good Crisis...Obama's gameplan to mold his society.

Never waste a good crisis has become the mantra of the Obama administration.

This ideology was first echoed by President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Less than ten days after Obama was elected president, Emanuel went on the Sunday Morning talk shows and said, "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

The comment didn't receive a lot of attention but maybe it should. Emanuel was echoing the Hegelian dialectic.

The Hegelian dialectic is a framework for manipulating the masses into accepting a predetermined solution. In short the Hegelian dialectic is:

First, create a problem of monumental proportions.

Second, stir up hysteria by every means possible.

Third, when people hysterically demand a solution – the solution offered will take away rights, cost considerable money, and put more power in the hands of the power-grabbing bureaucrats.

Like many presidents that preceded him, President Obama inherited a financial problem. How presidents deal with problems determines how successful the administration will be judged. So far Obama isn't faring well.

You can expect opponents to be critical, but when big donors to the Democratic Party criticize Obama's fiscal policy you should listen. Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, was one such big donor and critic. After watching the stock market fall about 40% since Obama was elected, Cramer recently called President Obama's budget a "radical agenda." "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs brushed off Cramer's remarks and said, "the President has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

Virtually no one is unaffected by the stock market crash yet Gibbs says that Obama "has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population." Either the administration is totally out of touch or they see it as the political opportunity that Emanuel mentioned.

Some might say that Emanuel's embrace of the Hegelian dielectric was misunderstood. But if that is true why did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echo a similar comment? While in Brussels Clinton told her audience, "never waste a good crisis." Two of the most important members of Obama's administration do not express the same philosophy by accident.

It is becoming clear that Obama wants to govern in an atmosphere of crisis. All the policies he wants to implement will be wrapped in the blanket of solving the financial crisis. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and has become a standard in the left-wing playbook. Crisis has been the justification for governments to seize more power and control over individual liberties.

Before you scoff at the notion that political leaders abuse their powers remember that FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to justify abolishing the rights of German citizens. We have seen Leftist revolutionaries use a crisis to promote social, economic, or political upheavals in order to impose their collectivist initiatives.

We have already seen the federal government take a controlling share in some of the domestic automobile companies and financial institutions. Obama and his Democrat allies are already planning government controlled health care and many have signaled that they want to control talk radio. The energy sector is already under attack under the guise of preventing global warming.

Does this administration want to follow Hugo Chavez and control all the sectors of our economy?

We know that President Obama promised change and we know that a crisis can provide an opportunity for change. The question is, will the crisis be fixed or will Obama exploit the crisis to implement a socialist agenda?

Obama's Missed Opportunity

When Barack Obama was elected president, he inherited a looming fiscal crisis. President Bush attempted to stem this fiscal tide but by the time Obama was inaugurated, the fiscal crisis still existed. With problems there come opportunities. President Obama had an opportunity to solve this fiscal crisis and heal the political bickering that he said he would.

Instead of throwing for a touchdown, he punted.

Every president starts with a "honeymoon" period. The honeymoon usually lasts for a few months and the president can make policy decisions without howls of opposition. President Obama had such an opportunity with the fiscal crisis. He could and should have assembled a team of business and economic leaders to create his blueprint to solve the crisis. The most effective way to get out of a recession is to stimulate business productivity. As business improves, hiring increases, spending increases, and the whole economy improves.

Instead of leading with a pro-business agenda, Obama left the creation of the stimulus legislation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi's associations and affiliations with some of the country's more left-wing organizations is well known, so expecting her to create legislation that would actually stimulus business was foolhardy.

It takes months to create the legislation for just one of the appropriation bills. So how did Pelosi produce the "stimulus" bill in just a few days? Peolsi, true to her leftist leanings, dusted off all the socialist pork legislation that sat on the shelves for years and submitted it as the solution to our fiscal woes.

There was a mad rush to pass this massive spending bill. An artificial "need" date was February 16th, President's Day. The theatrical significance cannot be ignored but the speed of the legislation was not as important as the economic viability of the legislation. Make-work projects will not improve the economy. Hiring someone to dig a hole and someone else to fill it will employ two people, but it won't increase our productivity. Third World countries use hundreds of people to do the same job that one skilled operator of a bulldozer can do. Productivity is the key to a prosperous economy.

In the frenzy to get the legislation through the House of Representatives, we also learned that there was another priority that drove the immediate passage. Speaker Pelosi had an eight-day vacation (whoops – strike that); Speaker Pelosi had a congressional fact-finding mission scheduled to leave for Rome at 6:00 PM February 13. You would think that the facts wouldn't change from day to day, so the urgency of the trip would be nonexistent. And since Pelosi travels on an Air Force aircraft that flies when and where she wants, getting a ticket or losing her reservation is a non-issue.

So it is evident that Pelosi's priority was her schedule, NOT the content of the legislation or the promise to allow the public 48 hours to view legislation before any vote. So much for Pelosi and her San Francisco "values." But worse than the public not reading the legislation, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) predicted that NONE of his Senate colleagues would have the chance to read the bill before voting. This is another admission that our legislators vote on legislation that they haven't read.

Is there any wonder why we are in deep trouble?

President Obama had an opportunity to defuse opposition, cement a long honeymoon, while solving a fiscal crisis, but he gave that up to pacify Pelosi.

Time will tell who is really wearing the pants but right now it looks like Obama is just wearing knickers.

Republicans are becoming a product without a market.

The principles of small government and fiscal conservatism have been abandoned to such an extent by America's de facto conservative party that it is no longer the default position of the party to reject on its face legislation that is hostile to the concepts of economic liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Watching news coverage of the euphemistically-titled "stimulus" bill being rushed through Congress, I was struck by something perhaps even scarier than the atrocity of the legislation itself. It was the utter and complete lack of ideological opposition to the bill in concept and principle.

The Republican party, ostensibly the party of small government fiscal conservatism, failed as a collective body to question the fundamental assumptions and spirit of the bill on ideological grounds. Republican leadership is both missing the point and asking the wrong questions.

Republican opposition to the grab-bag appropriations bill being touted as an economic stimulus should have been rooted in opposition to government intervention in markets, exponential increases in budget deficits and national debt, the resulting threat of rampant inflation, and the historical failure of Keynesian government debt schemes to ever mediate an economic recession anywhere in the world as theorized. Particularly, their opposition should have been based on a fundamental difference in ideology and principles with the socialist Democrat party model that has been employed since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.

he entire party should have publicly and proudly withheld their support for the bill in a wholesale rejection of "bipartisanship", defined in Democrat Congressional politics as giving up something you want in exchange for everything we want. Instead, Republican opposition was confined to levels of degree while fundamental assumptions and ideologies were not questioned, and in fact taken for granted. Republicans began with the same assumption as their Democrat counterparts: that government is actually capable of stimulating demand through spending, and that it is necessary and appropriate at the present time to do so. With no ideological and conceptual divide standing in the way, the focus became on details and trivialities rather than a greater debate about the legitimacy of the entire idea in the first place.

The principles of small government and free markets were entirely absent from the discussion. In the absence of any objection to the idea of a "stimulus package" in and of itself, we were told about what precisely the stimulus should be. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican talking heads were adamant that the package should be "timely, targeted and temporary"; a three-word motto so ambiguous and terse it could have come out of the political sloganeering handbook.

With those three words in mind, the major points of contention came down not to the staggeringly huge one trillion (with a "T") dollars to be created and financed through multi-generational debt, but the minutiae of exactly HOW the smorgasbord would be divvied up. For example, whether to re-seed or re-sod the National Mall, what brand of cars to purchase for the new 600 million dollar federal fleet, whether to use domestic or foreign materials suppliers for construction projects, whether or not birth control is economically beneficial, and which particular Democrat party sycophants should receive what amounts of taxpayer dollars.

This has not seemed to alarm most mainstream Republican and conservative commentators and pundits, but it represents a paradigm shift that has been ongoing since the advent of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism", which just racked up a trillion dollar debt of its own, albeit over the course of several months instead of in a single day.

The principles of small government and fiscal conservatism have been abandoned to such an extent by America's de facto conservative party that it is no longer the default position of the party to reject on its face legislation that is hostile to the concepts of economic liberty and fiscal responsibility, but rather to mediate the degree of constraint on economic liberty and the degree of fiscal irresponsibility. This can only spell further decline for the Republican brand as it substantially merges in fundamental principles with the socialist Left and alienates the small government, free market coalition of conservatives that propelled it to power the past two decades. Power without principles is equally as useless as principles without power. Real leftists do not want light leftism anymore than conservatives do.

Republicans are becoming a product without a market.

Changing The Process, Obama's Failure

In the 2008 election, our new President campaigned on his twin themes of Hope & Change. He held out the hope that he would change the way that Washington works. Unfortunately, he has already failed to deliver on the first and very likely most important legislation of his new administration.

The President made what looks like bipartisan overtures to the Republicans, even putting them into various positions on his staff and in his cabinet. However, when we look at the so-called stimulus package that has now passed in congress, it is plain to see that these were just words (a refrain that President Obama used frequently in his campaign to emphasize his hope and change message).

This stimulus package did not arise from earnest bipartisan cooperation and discussion. It does not meet the President's campaign call for openness and transparency. The legislation does not exhibit any creativity, innovation, or pragmatic common sense. It was not designed to benefit the nation. Rather, the bill was crafted in committees ruled by partisan Democrats to reward their special interests friends and rushed to a vote without a real opportunity for the American people to see what is actually being proposed. Not even the esteemed members of congress had the necessary time to read and evaluate this monstrous financial endeavor!

Where is the change from business as usual in Washington? What happened to the idea of having the people view the legislation before it becomes law? When did the President sit down with a diverse group of "leaders" to evaluate and select ideas that appear workable? How, in other words, has the process of governing the nation changed?

The truth is that the President cannot and will not bring his hope and change to America as he stated he would. It is impossible for him to do so. Since President Obama is a Democrat, he will stick with his party and be beholden to them for their support. The sad reality is that partisanship will never give way to leadership because elections in our nation are only about power: getting it, keeping it, and increasing it.

If the President was truly interested in changing how business is done by the elite ruling class that owns Washington, he would have pursued a much different approach. Since this legislation is a massive intrusion into the workings of our economic system, one would think that this was the perfect chance to do something different. But that did not happen. What we now have is more of the same, this time with the Democrats in charge and the vanquished Republicans sitting on the sidelines.

Real change in how Washington works could have been done with regards to this stimulus package. For example, what if the President actually sat down with leaders of both parties and economists who have differing points of view to establish something truly workable? What if the President had called for all ideas to be brought forth and evaluated? What if the President then chose three of the most likely provisions that would begin to achieve his goal of jump starting the economy while leaving future actions to be determined by the actual conditions and results from implementing those three ideas? What if the President told his fellow Democrats that legislation being proposed must have as its first principle that which would be best for the nation? What if the President rejected the partisanship from both sides and went before the American people to inform them of what he intended to do and why it was the best possible choice? What if hope and change were other than a political slogan created to win an election? What if, what if, what if!

President Obama has squandered his opportunity to bring about change in his very first try at governing. Perhaps he never intended to make any real changes. To do that would require him to challenge his own party and the group think mindset that is at the core of partisanship and failure. The hold on power by the elites is not readily surrendered, and the weakness of the two party system that controls this great nation cannot be overcome when the President is a member of either party. In voting the lesser of two evils, we see that once again we have garnered evil. By doing the same thing and allowing the elites to retain their power, we have ensured that the results will be the same. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result was Einstein's definition of insanity! Is there any doubt that we have an insane and out of control government run by two elite controlled parties?

The jockeying for position in the 2010 elections has already begun. The current atmosphere in Washington is once again that of partisan fighting. The President has done nothing to change the dynamics, nothing to usher in a new era of Constitutional self government. As a Democrat, he must be loyal to his party first! He cannot and will not go against them for the sake of the country. His clever campaign slogan was only a facade, and in the end, the change that we were hoping for has become an illusion.

If we wish for something different, if we really want true change, we should vote for it. Change to something different requires a different way of thinking and acting. The election of 2010 will be the time and the opportunity to do just that. It will be the chance for true independents, those who recognize the scam being perpetrated upon us all by the DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines, to reclaim an inheritance that has been stolen from us by the elites who control the two parties. With that in mind, everyone who is concerned should consider either running for office or gathering with other like minded persons to choose an independent candidate who will represent the nation before any party. Let's reject the elites and their power game and stand up for our country! It is a sure guarantee that the elites will not!

The Sky is Falling!!!!! The Sky is Falling!!!!!!!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

President Barack H. Obama: 'Do what I want, or the economy will melt, and you'll all die poor and alone.'

Irresponsible fear-mongering is not all that presidential. Now that I think about it, weren't we promised a calm, cool, post-partisan president?

Guess that 'hope over fear' stuff was "just words." Although I'm not a big fan of FDR, the man knew that part of leadership was preventing panic.

In 1933, during one of his "fireside chats," FDR said the following:

After all there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail.

Roosevelt knew panic would only make the problem worse, so while he was honest about the state of the economy, he deliberately tempered his rhetoric. Compare that to Obama's words from last night:

They can't pay their bills. They've stopped spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements to tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand. As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America. Last Monday, more than 1,000 men and women stood in line for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami [Florida]. Last month, our economy lost 598,000 jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the state of Maine. And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside-down because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from.

HOLY CRAP GRAB THE GUNS AND START STUFFING MATTRESSES WITH MONEY AND STOCK UP ON CANNED FOODS!!!!!!!!!!!

The contrast couldn't be clearer. Roosevelt was deliberate in his attempts to calm. Obama is deliberate in his attempts to induce panic.

In many ways, he's like Syndrome from "The Incredibles." *Spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie.* The villain deliberately creates a giant machine designed to attack a city and create panic so he can swoop in to play the part of the hero. He's designed the machine to respond to his commands, so he can 'destroy' it. Unfortunately for him (and the city) his plan goes awry and he can't control the destruction he unleashed. I didn't say it was a comforting metaphor.

What we've seen over the past few weeks is that Obama's definition of 'hope' is 'not-Bush.'

That may have been enough to get him through an election, but it's a piss-poor substitute for the real thing.

Grab your ankles and prepare for the ride down!

The election is over, and Obama is going to change the world. Just sit back, grab your ankles, and enjoy the ride down as best you can.

Twenty years ago I was on an airplane with my wife and daughter when we suddenly lost an engine. Cabin pressure disappeared, the oxygen masks came down, and the plane began a five minute, 45 degree angle plunge toward the ground. I thought I was going to die, and my family along with me. Except for the plaintive wails of my infant daughter who was terrified by the oxygen mask held against her face, the interior of the plane was deadly silent. I looked around at the two hundred or so people in the seats behind us and saw the same look in their eyes that I and my wife had. We knew we were in serious trouble and were unsure of our fate, but there was absolutely nothing we could do about it. Rather than scream and cry, we all sat back and accepted the fact that we were just along for the ride. Only the pilot and co-pilot had any real control of the aircraft, such as it was.

Our futures were in their hands. Fortunately, after bracing for a crash, we landed without any further incident — though you wouldn't have guessed that from the rows of fire trucks and ambulances lining the runway that were visible from the airplane's windows. Then, and only then, did we release all our pent up emotions and feel like masters of our own fates again.

I tell you this story because I've been having a discussion with a number of friends lately about the future of this country under the Obama Administration. Two weeks into his presidency I've already lost count of the number of cabinet officers he's selected who didn't pay their taxes until they were nominated. (Hey, did you hear the latest Republican plan to balance the budget? Just nominate as many Democrats for higher office as you can.)

The "stimulus package" keeps growing with non-stimulus pork as the economy continues to tank with no end in sight. Iran has launched a satellite into orbit, and North Korea is renouncing its agreements with the South and again threatening aggression. Oh, and unlike Iran, they do have an existing nuclear capability, and a missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States.

Obama fashions himself in the FDR-Kennedy mode, which gives me additional cause for concern. He's avoided the tax-cutting, pro-military aspects of the Kennedy legacy in favor of the Camelot mythology. "Kennedy-esque," not "Kennedy-like." Where he's likely to follow in Kennedy's actual footsteps is in the area of completely screwing up our foreign policy. Young, naive, inexperienced, Kennedy was no match for Khrushchev during their first summit meeting, which left the Soviet dictator with the impression that the US president could be rolled. This led to the Cuban Missile Crisis which almost brought us to nuclear war. Had it not been for Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the ExCom, I might be writing this article today with a mud brick and stick instead of a computer, assuming of course enough of humanity even remained to retain a common language.

Today, instead of RFK we have Eric Holder to help guide us through a crisis (when he's not otherwise occupied peddling presidential pardons to the rich husbands of big breasted women). Obama's ExCom is still being put together, so the verdict here is still out. The country is still being combed for enough Democrats who have actually paid their taxes to fill all the vacant cabinet slots. Looking at the people Obama has managed to get through the nomination process,

I will acknowledge that many of his cabinet officials who were given personal waivers to serve (since they violated Obama's supposedly inviolable ethical restrictions against utilizing former lobbyists, unless of course he really really really wanted them), and who paid enough of their back taxes to gain Senate confirmation, and whose husband's ethical and financial lapses were given a pass because they have 12 million names in their rolodex, are pretty smart people.

In fact, they remind me a lot of the brain trust in Roosevelt's cabinet; which leads me to my second observation. FDR surrounded himself with bright, accomplished people who held opposing points of view and were given overlapping areas of authority. He did this, liberal historians say, to give the president "the best information and options possible."

But there is also another, less generous way to characterize this situation. By setting his cabinet up along these lines, FDR assured himself that he'd have sufficient justification to do whatever he wanted to do in his own personal interest. If your Secretary of State and Secretary of War have opposing points of view, you can support the SOS on Monday when that objective serves your interest, the SOW on Tuesday when that objective serves your interest, and back and forth again and again as often as you need. What distinguishes FDR from Obama, albeit marginally, is that FDR had some actual goals and objectives he wanted to accomplish over and above his own personal interests.

With Obama, the judgment on this is less clear. My original fear was that Obama was a socialist ideologue who would actively seek to transform the country in that vision. After getting rid of Richardson, Daschle and others who were supposedly the only people capable of implementing his vision, after abandoning his tax-the-rich rhetoric upon assuming office, after promising to close GITMO without actually closing it, it's becoming clear to me that Obama has no real core philosophy other than to do what is in the current best interest of Obama. If pandering to the Left is needed one day, pandering to the Middle the next, and pandering to elements of the Right the day after that, well, that's "inclusiveness."

Don't get me wrong. Despite my reduced fears about the implementation of an ideologically driven, Obama-directed socialist paradise, I still think Obama will be a disaster for this country domestically and internationally. But the disaster will come from Obama's focus on Obama, not his focus on ideology. There isn't a bus big enough for all the people he'll toss under if he needs to keep his approval ratings high.

Unlike Bush — who had core values (though not always rigorously conservative ones), and thus wouldn't abandon friends or policies to bump up his numbers — the minute it become clear that Obama's Chief of Staff did more than simply relate an abstract preference for the new Illinois Senator in his discussions with Blago, Emanuel will get tossed under the bus too. So too with any other Obama official or supporter whose political baggage will threaten an Obama legacy.

The man likes to be president, and he likes to be popular, and these two objectives tend to clash when a person's core values interfere. Either get rid of the values (or, never possess them in the first place), or reconcile yourself to the fact as Bush did that you can be president, or you can be popular, but you can't be both at the same time. Obama's supporters will hail his superficial inclusiveness and willingness to jettison his "mistakes" (Richardson, Daschle, et. al.) as a clear example of Obama's high ethical standards, ignoring all the ethics waivers and tax dodgers he has already permitted and embraced.

Only if you look behind the curtain will you begin to see the O-man for who and what he really is; a man more interested in image than substance, in impressions than results. And this is where the ride comes in. I ranted and railed about all of this before the election. But the election is over. I still care, but without passion.

I can still analyze and write about Obama and his administration for what is really is, but it's become more of an academic exercise. When the US is attacked by a North Korean missile, or an Islamic terrorist, or suffers any other predictable social, economic, or political problems that arise from Obama's incoherent policies, it will be like sitting in that plane again. There's nothing I can do about it until the next election.

For now, like the rest of the country, I'm just sitting back, grabbing my ankles, and enjoying the ride down as best I can.

How do we get their attention?

I feel totally helpless watching our nation turn toward socialism, bankruptcy, and a naïve attitude toward national security and defense. I fear the current administration’s policies will greatly worsen our economic condition for years to come. To me the solutions seem simple and common sense, but our lawmakers seem to have none of that. Can it be they are really so un-American that they simply do not care? Or do they know exactly what they are doing and their goal is the downfall of the United States as we know it?

How do we:

Get our lawmaker’s attention?

Phone calls, letters, e-mails, faxes, and opinion polls are routinely ignored unless supported by a massive country-wide campaign like that against McCain and his amnesty for illegals bill.

Convince our lawmakers to do what is best for the country?
Aggressively defend and protect the country
Energy independence. Every President and lawmaker for the past 30 years has promised this, none have actually done anything about it.
Balance the budget - -
Reduce spending and taxes
Be responsible and spend no more than we take in
Convince our lawmakers to actually represent the will of the people?
Defined as the greater majority of the people, not the louder minority.
On issues like drilling for oil, gay marriage, & illegal immigration.
Stop earmarks and irresponsible, reckless, out-of-control spending!!!!
Make effective and positive change in government?
Elect lawmakers who actually love and support their country rather than their own ego and thirst for power.
Enact a Line Item veto
Enact the “FairTax” (www.fairtax.org)
Elect honest law abiding lawmakers (not intended to be funny)
Hold our lawmakers accountable?
For the government mandated mortgage debacle where government regulation forced banks to make bad loans. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Frank Raines.
Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria and attempts to undermine US foreign policy over direct objections of the US State Dept after the 2006 elections.
Jim McDermott & David Bonior for their trip to Iraq in 2003 to undermine US foreign policy, and McDermott’s accepting money from an Iraqi representative.
Convince our liberal friends to believe in leadership, qualifications, and experience rather than fame, celebrity status, or salesmanship?
Convince our liberal friends to believe in reality rather than fantasy, dreams, and “Hope”?

Why do our lawmakers:
Hold hostage the passage of important bills on national security in order to steel taxpayer’s money for use on wasteful pork? (I know, that was a dumb question, please forgive me)
Say they support energy independence, but fight against drilling for our own oil?
Fight against stabilizing Social Security?
Refuse to secure our boarders?
Refuse to actively enforce current laws against illegal immigration?
Refuse to make English the “official” language?
Appear to act more like subversive foreign agents rather than American patriots?

Why:
Is success and responsibility punished while envoy and irresponsibility are rewarded?
If you dare to work harder and smarter, and earn more money, you are penalized with higher taxes.
If you take care of, and improve your property, you are penalized with higher taxes.
If you are responsible, live within your means, and pay your bills on time, you and your children are penalized with debt and higher taxes to support those who do not.
If you kick back and earn just enough to get by, you are rewarded with lower taxes, entitlement programs, and rebates on taxes you never paid.
If you let your property deteriorate and gather trash and debris you are rewarded with lower property taxes and maybe even a home improvement grant or tax rebate.
If you overextend yourself and default on your bills you are rewarded with a bailout or other government assistance to keep you in the home you cannot afford and never should have mortgaged in the first place.
Are we more concerned with the rights of a small minority over the denial of rights to the majority?
We are slowly removing any reference of Christmas from public attention.
Have you noticed how difficult it is to find Christmas cards that actually say “Merry Christmas” rather than Happy Holidays?

We are slowly removing any reference to God in any form in any public setting, even though the constitution says “freedom OF religion” not freedom FROM religion.
“Press One for English”? How long will it be before we hear “Press 2 for English”? If you like this country enough to come and live here, please respect it enough to become an American, and not try to change America to become the country you left.
Is gay marriage even an issue? How about multiple partners? How about two men and a horse? I’m sure PETA would argue that horses deserve equal rights too.
Is a reduction in future growth of an expense considered a budget cut?
Do more people know the names of recent American Idols, than the names of their own government representatives?
Are our liberal friends so greatly concerned with the rights and comfort of enemy terrorists who want us all dead, while at the same time have absolutely no concern over killing innocent babies by late-term or partial-birth abortion?
Is Obama not held accountable to produce a valid US birth certificate? It’s such a simple thing to do.

Ideas:
FairTax. (www.Fairtax.org)
Zero tolerance policy for corruption, dishonesty, or criminal behavior by lawmakers.
Voter’s license; to be qualified and “licensed” to vote you must:
Pass a minimal knowledge test on the US government and history. To be renewed every ten years. Here is a good quiz from Newt: www.americansolutions.com/SolutionsLab/Solution.aspx?Guid=bb4ec4f6-6278-4eb9-8c62-ecae455c7375
Pay Federal Income tax. No vote without a vested interest in the wellbeing of the country. The right to vote should be earned. No representation without taxation. (Not necessary with the FairTax)
Term limits for members of Congress and Supreme Court Judges
Performance-based pay for federal, state, and local leaders responsible for spending/saving our money.
Government retirement benefits based on time in office - - like the military.
Publish government expenditures on the Internet, including who requested the expense, a minimum of seven days prior to the vote.
An annual “report card” or evaluation for every lawmaker; reviewing money requested, money spent, money saved (actual - during the previous year).
Annual “Pork&rdqu

The beauty of bankruptcy and eliminating our bailout mentality

The philosopher Herbert Spencer once said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

The story of the Prodigal Son teaches a beautiful lesson about repentance and forgiveness. As you may know, it involves a lazy, irresponsible young man who insists upon taking his share of the family inheritance immediately and striking out on his own. He then proceeds to squander it on a dissolute lifestyle and ends up destitute, living like an animal. Duly chastened and humbled and purged of his spirit of entitlement, he approaches his father in contrition and asks for aid, saying that he would be satisfied to just be treated as a servant. The father, overwhelmed with joy, forgives his son, proclaims him "found" and holds a celebration commemorating his return.

Of course, the idea is that he was "found" spiritually; he had developed wisdom, the capacity to not just manage money, but life. Now, after 2,000 years, we have gone from Prodigal Son to prodigal sin, and I imagine that today the story might unfold quite differently. The son's problem would probably be related via cell phone, be chalked up to a matter of money, and remedied not with character formation but cash flow.

We have all seen this new story, these parents who will bail their children out of trouble – financial and otherwise – time and again, never allowing them to learn through suffering the consequences of bad decisions. I can think of one case in particular wherein a couple I know of spent a lot of money to ensure that their teenage son wouldn't temporarily lose his driving privileges after a traffic infraction. When I mentioned to the mother that her bailout didn't teach responsibility, she sheepishly said something to the effect of how she couldn't help herself.

et the truth is that many of us, with children and without – and most notably right now those of us in government – can't help ourselves. We seem to have forgotten that not allowing people to suffer consequences has consequences. The reason for this was perhaps expressed best by English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

Given what figures most prominently in media and minds right now, it's not hard to know what I'm referring to. Main Street wants to bail on Wall Street and Detroit, not bail them out, and more sympathetic I could not be. We may very well be throwing good money after bad, and, regardless, the people doing the throwing aren't throwing away their own cash. But they sure pitch like Roger Clemens; it's stimulus this, 700 billion that, here a bailout, there a bailout, everywhere a bailout-bailout. Old McDonald had a country . . . and we're having a cow.

Really, though, if we want to know the reason for these government bailouts, most of us need look no further than the mirror. Sure, people may say they oppose bailouts, but it's not usually true. Most Americans have no problem with them at all, as long as they're the ones getting bailed out. This isn't really surprising, as people tend to refuse money like politicians refuse votes, which is why votes are so often bought with money. Yet the problem goes far deeper than the financial; it stems from the philosophical.

As I indicated earlier, we have become a bailout culture. Parents bail out children lest the little snowflakes have their feelings hurt. Schools then follow suit, bailing out students through social promotion and an overall lack of accountability. Emily Friedman wrote about some examples of this, such as a policy known as "Zeros Aren't Permitted" (except when embodied in school administrators) at one Boston area middle school, which gives lazy students the opportunity to do unfinished homework in school, which I guess makes it schoolwork. The title of Friedman's piece asks, "Are Children Coddled?" but such a question is anachronistic.

We long ago passed the coddling stage and transitioned into the "exaltation of stupidity and shiftlessness" stage. Without a doubt, we continually bail out those devoid of brains, ambition and/or industriousness, whether they be rich or poor, domestic or foreign.

For instance, there are people – and many of them are Daddy Warbucks – who insist on building homes in areas prone to floods, hurricanes and earthquakes and who do not or cannot get insurance to cover their dangerous living. Yet they don't have to fear an act of God because they can count on an act of government, meaning, they will get money that often comes from people of far more modest means.

A bailout is really a handout, and the aforementioned variety is branded "disaster relief," but it takes many forms and masquerades under many titles. We bail out illegal aliens when they cross our border for medical care, and many Americans want to offer them another bailout known as amnesty. We bail out the lazy as well as the needy with welfare, food stamps and other programs. Then consider that some politicians want to bail out the intellectually lazy (and corrupt) as well. Yes, believe it or not, they want to give our money to the ailing newspaper industry.

Now, don't misunderstand me, because I firmly believe in charity. When a private entity bails out someone who through no fault of his own is in dire financial straits, it's a beautiful example of man's humanity to man. Moreover, even a correct understanding of our Constitution – which is as rare as accountability today – allows state and local governments to establish a social safety net. (In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, however, the private sector should be the first line of defense here.)

But our bailout culture is a perversion of charity – and one that touches everything. Putting our heads together, we could probably fill 10,000 more lines with something to the effect of, "We bail out so-and-so when we _____," but the point has been made. Far more often than not nowadays, we don't teach people how to fish; we give fish to those who could cast a line but would rather fish for others' funds.   We tend to not practice healthy charity but facilitate irresponsibility.

In light of this, why would we be surprised that irresponsible politicians elected by irresponsible people want to lavish money on irresponsible businesses? Our problem isn't isolated to finances; it is part of a deep cultural malaise permeating every national pore. To think otherwise is like looking at the Prodigal Son and thinking the problem was just one of finances. In both cases, it reflects a moral defect, an irresponsibility that is only corrected through exposure to consequences.

Of all our bailout babies, perhaps the best example of a bad example is the Prodigal State, California. It now may be out of cash in February, and some have floated the idea that it should receive a federal bailout along with everyone else who isn't you or me. But I say let California and every other profligate entity collapse under its own weight. There is beauty in bankruptcy.

People are people, be they in the Bible, business, government or grammar school; they all operate by the same principles. Politicians may dress smartly and know how to tie a fine Windsor knot, but money burns a hole in their pockets just as it does with a toy-craving ten-year-old. And this is the problem in California; its government has descended into the immorality of über-statism, as it vainly tries to play the paternal role with a juvenile sense of responsibility.

A bailout would only perpetuate the foolishness and postpone the day of reckoning. Bankruptcy, on the other hand, is one of the best ways to bring big government to heel. For just as a compulsive gambler will continue playing the casinos until his well runs dry – and giving him money just delays the inevitable – statist politicians will keep spending until there is nothing left to spend.

So let state and local governments shut down and suspend services. Let them twist in their own ill wind. Let them languish in a self-created debtors' prison. In the same way the bankruptcy of a corporation can lead to a sale of assets that will allow more prudent heads to take the helm, government collapse can lead to necessary restructuring. Failure can shrink the big government of profligate statists just as it does the big heads of profligate young men.

Today we have many prodigal sons but precious little repentance. They don't need to be bailed out but bawled out – by life – because irresponsible people rarely change their ways unless forced to do so. And if allowing them to be disciplined by circumstances they created themselves is beyond us, then we are simply a Prodigal Nation, and such a place cannot long exist. After all, in just the way that failure to remove a gangrenous limb results in the death of the body, the body of a nation suffers the same fate when it doesn't allowed defective parts to be reformed or replaced. Remember, to gravitate toward a system that seeks to bail everyone out is to move toward the standard of ". . . to each according to his needs."

This didn't work very well in the Soviet Union, and I don't know how much better we will look once our wall – that ever-growing one between responsibility and state – finally falls.

As the inauguration nears the Presidential scandals begin....
Just in time for the holidays, the liberal media have received a Fitzmas present, though not of the sort for which they wished.

As the year 2008 winds down and President Bush's days in office draw to a close, liberals all over the world are celebrating the Iraq shoe-throwing incident. But this only illustrates that Bush's efforts in Iraq have proved a tremendous success, given that a member of the Iraqi press has managed to outdo even Western media types who, despite their best efforts, have never laid a glove on W.

However, just in time for the holidays, the liberal media have received a Fitzmas present, though not of the sort for which they wished.

No, after years of beating the Bushes for a chance to take down the 43rd president of the United States, they find themselves in the position of having to defend one of their own, via the Blagojevich pay-for-play scandal and the Obama Administration's alleged involvement therein.

And in a seemingly unrelated matter, we have learned that the "office" of President-Elect has swelled its crimson tide by tapping Harvard chum Thomas Perrelli for its Justice Department transition team. Now, what does the Blago flap have to do with Perrelli's presence on the Obama team?

For those who remember the Terri Schiavo case, Mr. Perrelli was one of a team of lawyers representing Michael Schiavo's efforts to end the life of that defenseless woman. Mr. Perrelli's firm, Jenner & Block, honored him for his work which allowed the state of Florida to take the life of an innocent woman whose official cause of death was tragicomically listed as "undetermined." Also lauded by his firm were those lawyers who made "exceptional pro bono contributions on behalf of Death Row prisoners."

Yes, such is the state of the legal profession in this country that supporters of innocent life have reason to fear it, while convicted killers can depend on it for a rigorous defense. We know what Shakespeare said about lawyers; it only seems more appropriate when applied to recent presidents. Is it any coincidence that neither Ronald Reagan or the Bushes had law degrees and managed for the most part to elude liberal prosecution? Or that the last elected Republican president who was a lawyer was also "a crook?"

Yet Richard Nixon's sins seem penny-ante in comparison to the goings on of our most recent lawyerly president; but not to hear the media tell it. A two-bit burglary by the Watergate bunglers was treated as a capital crime, while the reprehensible offenses — both illegal and immoral — committed by Bill Clinton were pooh-poohed as mere randy behavior by the Teflon one.

The sad part of all of this is that we have a right to expect that a United States president — the chief executor of the law of the land as laid out in our Constitution — should have at least a working grasp of those laws and the moral strictures behind them. And this should be even more true of those who are lawyers; which brings us back to Obama and his advisors.

In a presidential debate in February, he was asked about his part in the congressional intervention to save the life of Terri Schiavo; a life Perrelli fought so hard to snuff. The Big O's answer was most illuminating:
It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.
It's hard to say what's more disturbing here: knowing that the next leader of the free world is so wedded to popular opinion that he will ignore what he perceives to be the law, or that he was allowed to pass his ignorance of the U.S. Constitution on to others in the guise of teaching.

Either way, it appears that in the makeup of his administration and the way in which it seeks to suppress information before it is even installed, recalls that of his fellow law professor from Arkansas. And both of these legal scholars would be better served had they sought to know better the wording of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 4, which reads:
Misprision of a Felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Now maybe Mr. Perrelli, a former counsel to Janet Reno — whose rein of terror included the Waco Massacre and the midnight raid on Elian Gonzalez — together with Greg Craig, Clinton's Impeachment trial mouthpiece and brave defender of John Hinckley, Jr. and Fidel Castro's interests in the Gonzalez case, can help Obama out with the legal and ethical implications of all of this.

After all, these are the legal eagles who gave us the most ethical administration in history, right?