Colin Powell Another Well-Meaning Disoriented Republican Counselor

I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'

The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.

Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.

Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.

Ben Stein's Smarts and God's Wisdom - Ben on Friday's Medved's Show

Michael Medved was surprised in a discussion of federal stimuli and bailouts on Friday, to hear the reaction of Ben Stein who is accomplished on many fronts and traditionally a Republican. He is also the son of noted Republican economist, Herb Stein. I was not surprised. Stein supports both a huge stimulus and a bailout of the auto companies. Taxes or debt aren’t necessary: just print the money, he says. I have heard Stein say these things many times. He also says the very wealthy must be taxed to provide health care for those who can’t afford it. That’s a noble sentiment, but it has practical problems. It’s a disincentive to achieve and a disincentive to attentive and innovative health care. But I think there is a conflict buried at the bottom of Stein’s sentiments on this and the matter subsequently discussed.

There was also a brief discussion about one specific (there were many, Republican and Democrat) criticism of Republican politicians like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal who supposedly do not accept evolution. I say supposedly because I haven’t heard Jindal opine on the matter (perhaps he has, but surely any uncertainty about that reflects the absolute FACT that the question is utterly irrelevant to national politics) and Palin has said specifically that evolution should be taught in schools. I agree that it should be, simply as a matter of understanding Western culture. But whatever any politician may say, let’s just bring the matter home. Though I think schools should teach evp;ution (though not as FACT in my school district), I explicitly do NOT believe in evolution as a sufficient explanation for all of life on earth. I will also say that I am not philosophically resistant to the possibility of evolution being an explanation for all earthly life. Yes, I believe in God and the truths of The Bible. But, I wouldn’t lose those beliefs if I thought the case for an evolutionary explanation was compelling. I simply don’t find it compelling at all but rather find it feeble as persuasion. I’m not forced to cling to it by a philosophical commitment to deny creation.

Stein of course finds the evolution case at least eminently questionable, for those of you whose heads have been so otherwise occupied as to be entirely unfamiliar with the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which Stein hosted and which laments the resistance of the public science establishment to even the SUGGESTION of the possibility of an intelligent designer of either life or the cosmos. If I say a (now non-existent – I’m not holding my breath) demonstrable truth of evolution would not disturb my faith in God, it appears the same cannot be said of the doctrinaire evolutionists as to their faith. That just affirms that for them the issue is not one of empirical data, but rather one of naturalist philosophical dogma: intelligent design is beyond their consideration because the idea challenges evolution. I don’t, but many noted scholars who advocate intelligent design, believe that design was expressed through evolution.

Anyway, I question Stein’s sincere conviction that there must be a huge stimulus and bailouts of large industries on the basis of my belief that the prods of a free market are part of God’s design, just as is biological life. Let’s stipulate some things: Ben Stein is intelligent and accomplished. I’m a disabled ex-salesman. They shouldn’t command it anyway, but in this case clearly I’m not pleading credentials. Just as in any other case, I only plead consideration of my words, themselves. I have heard Stein express several times that the very rich have the money to finance what are some worthy needs, and these specific actions are necessary to avoid economic pain. He’s correct about that, but that isn’t the entire story. However he might distinguish it, this is essentially the argument advanced by liberals to defend most all of the projects they find so urgent. In fact, when Medved pressed Stein to name a politician who agrees with his prescription, the only name that he mentioned was Barney Frank. Ouch!? Stein admitted creating the money would be inflationary, and it is so by definition. But, he said the effect was outweighed by the urgency of sparing the pain of the alternative, whether unemployment or tight credit.

After Stein’s schedule dictated his departure, Medved did say that he opposed those economic matters advocated by Stein because they reward failure and punish success, which is true. Medved also said that what rich people do with their money if they keep it, is invest it. Stein countered that there is enough money to invest out there, but it is held because of fear. He's right that money would be freed if fear were relieved. But incremental money above what some projects demand, is also invested. The only thing better for an economy than money invested is more money invested.

But there are more reasons that I believe inhere in human nature that those prescriptions are wrong. Specifically, I believe there is no prod to achieve success and/or to avoid failure like the very pain that Stein seeks to alleviate. I’m not saying that those who are experiencing difficulty should not be helped. They should be, by private individuals and organizations; but not by government. To make such aid the presumptive duty of government removes the urgency to succeed or avoid failure. On a micro scale, it’s the same reason that government bailouts and subsidies are not constructive things for large commercial organizations. This is a disincentive to achieve for one’s family, which both will reduce the general product of society and also preclude the pride and accomplishment of having done so. All of that in addition to the monetary inflation and generally weak monetary policy.

Just as Stein believes as I do that the biological world evinces a stunning complexity and elegance reflective of design, so these prods and rewards are inherent in human society, having been built into the system of human society by the very same designer. None of this is accidental or without purpose. As in most things, when government imposes itself upon the system it more often than not corrupts it. It not only corrupts but devalues the system: the true fulfillment and reward of work is diminished and the value of true charity is all but lost.

Palin 2012 Correspondence

The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party

Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late

I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.

I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.

But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.

A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.

All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.

Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:

Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.

Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:


http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/

http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com

Our Fading American Heritage

In recent days, I have speculated that the election results might be directly related to the last few generations of publicly educated Americans. I was publicly educated. But in those days, public education was mostly administered by local authorities and all of it at the state level or usually below. Today, much of the content and funding is mandated or bequeathed from “higher” (yes, it’s a bit of an oxymoron) domains, at the state level or above. Before the election we saw discussion with people who intended to vote for Obama who could not explain much of anything that he specifically proposed to do. He would bring “change” and “hope.” I think it very likely that many will “hope” they can find another job and “change” will define much disposable income. I heard other interviews where Obama supporters lauded elements that were attributed to Obama that were actually descriptive of McCain’s campaign.

Since the election, we’ve seen the results of a 12 question survey commissioned by John Ziegler and administered by the Zogby polling apparatus . That poll showed that a tiny minority (around 2%) of Obama voters obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on this test which “gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign.” For the most part, they knew little about the Obama-Biden events and proposals, but most could identify the statements circulated about McCain and Palin, irrespective of their factuality.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a web site entitled, “Our Fading American Heritage.”

They have put together a quiz of basic American civics. This is not extraordinarily difficult stuff. I have not intensely studied American History (In studying the history of Western thought, I actually got a clearer sense of World History. I’m guessing I fared relatively well because A) I’ve been inclined to pay attention to such things as much or more than amusing myself with television or computer games, and B) such basics were more essential to a basic education in my school days in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s which now are fading into a relatively distant and increasingly irrelevant past.

But anyway, I was uncertain on one question about FDR’s response to a Supreme Court ruling of the unconstitutionality of some of his “New Deal” proposals. I couldn’t rule out all four multiple choice answers. But, most of the questions were much easier. Anyway, non-American civics or history student that I am, I scored a high “A.”

However, the average score of over 2500 people who were administered the quiz nationwide, was 49%: that’s failing and emphatically so. 71+% failed with a score below 59%. Less than 1% scored and “A.” Less than 31/2% scored an “A” or “B.” Less than 11% scored “C” or above. Over 89% scored a “D” or “F.” Many are musing on how the valuing of certain values can be recovered. Information like this makes that a considerably more vexing question.

Here is the quiz itself .

Here are major findings by demographic breakdown

Here is the report card from the site.

Pass the Bromo-Seltzer…

Absolution at a Terrible Price?

These days I’m sitting around imagining how we night avert a cruel descent of our culture into both a moral and social cesspool, and quickly considering whether such reflection might not be utterly futile. For many years, George Will has written of a “coarsening” of the culture. Today, we might justly wonder if such language would amount to a enormous understatement.

Characteristic of the elation of many people at the election of Barack Obama was the recurring camera shot of an aging Jesse Jackson in tears. Now, Jesse Jackson has been derided as a “race pimp” and a “shakedown artist,” certainly not without cause. But, irrespective of his deepest motivations, Jackson was not alone among elder blacks who were overcome at the events in the light of their long experience with racial tension in America. Many years ago, I asked a conservative black friend how frequently he actually experience racial discrimination in our society. He responded that the last time he was reproached as a “nigger” was that very day in a parking lot. I think such things come from a tint minority in America, today. But, such a minority can and surely will shout abuse out car windows. Anyway, a black man of Jesse Jackson’s age and many like him doubtless genuinely feel the reprieve from a lifetime in which they saw and experienced the disfavor that was once widely accorded blacks in America. So have their children who have heard the stories and though maybe have experienced something different, have never seen it realized in such high hanging fruit as the US presidency. Similarly, American youth prized the opportunity to overthrow the most high-profile closed door of the history they have heard and read of. The plain fact is that the election could not have been won without a strong backing from white Americans generally who wanted to realize the ultimate absolution for prejudice they may have practiced or carried the blame for in public forums. I’m just a middle-aged, middle-class white guy, but I think I get it, and I understand and appreciate it.

Understand, I loathe the fixation on “race” that has pervaded social discussion for the entirety of my now 51-year-old lifetime. Strictly speaking, that distinction is a delusion. There is only one human race. Color does not imply another kind in humans any more than in animals. For the little that it’s worth, the black and white couples that I have known have produced children that were not only whole and healthy but extraordinarily beautiful.
Many will claim that “progressive” (now there’s a linguistic misappropriation) social and political action has induced racial conciliation. Now, many events indicate that propagaing an ethos via popular culture does move the disposition of the masses. There’s the aforementioned enthusiam for “green” technology as well as the enthrall with Barack Obama for whom the organs of popular culture purred. Mike Huckabee spoke of the popularly induced sentiment against smoking and for seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

But, I don’t need textbooks and magazines and television networks to inform me that racism is wrong. Traditional vehicles of decency and wisdom have done that for many millenia. Ironically, the much derided traditions of Judaism and Christianity were quite explicit about that from their foundations, irrespective of how individual adherents may have defied the instruction. I am a Christian. Christianity even today flourishes all around the world and I have watched the decency and fraternity of Christians from every culture and ethnicity. The first catalogued Christian outreach and conversion, noted in the book of Acts, was of an Ethiopian man. The earliest books of the heritage of Judaism (which Christians obviously recognize) instructed repeatedly to treat “the alien” with grace and decency. In that regard, we of those traditional faiths can say to the secular moralists, “Welcome to basic human civility.” By the way, I have long since voted for a black presidential candidate: a conservative one, of course.

If it genuinely works for them, a feeling of absolution is a fine thing, and I’m glad people may feel bertter. But in this case, such feeling was paid for at a potentially terrible high price. Unless conservatives can do something extraordinary, it is reasonable to assume that that price will be WAY TOO HIGH. Notwishstanding his ringing rhetoric (almost a requiste to leading a people to a dramatic move…or mice into a river, or lemmings off a cliff), in the content of his relatively unguarded words, Barack Obama is an exceptionally liberal man. A liberal friend, after asscertaining that I wasn’t only a cold, selfish, leg-biting, hair-pulling conservative, wondered whether I just had an evidently socially-induced need to be identified as a “conservative.” I care little about labels and am not known for a fear of disagreeing with anyone, my Christian and conservative fellows included. And this particular liberal is an exceptionally gracious individual, whom I like as well as some of my conservative friends and more than many of them. He’s also a very literate (a professional writer, in fact) person to whom one needn’t mind one’s diction.

But, call it what you like, to me conservatism is not about disposition or anyone’s dogma. It is about some very fundamental beliefs about objective obligations and human nature and its inclinations in interaction. It isn’t about what I like. It’s about what I believe are the facts of reality and what works. My conservatism isn’t about self-interest or identity. It’s about conviction rooted deeply in my perspective that could seemingly only be overthrown by an infection of chemical insanity.

Chief among those obligations and primary in America’s founding documents, is the right to life. And, as I always clarify, this is not just for the protection of those whose right might be violated. It’s about the civil integrity of the society that reveres that right. God takes care of the victims of abortion. In the big picture, these victims whose deaths like our own is inevitable in any case, are only spared te turmoil of passing through this earthly vale of tears. On the other hand, the society which practices, countenances and assimilates the practice of abortion…of the selfish putting of perceived personal amusement and convenience over the dignity of human life, including ONE’S OWN OFFSPRING! …is in a very bad way: civilly sick and declining. Only those of us who have read the musings of some morally impaired but logically consistent academics who have proposed a grace period to decide whether to keep a born baby alive can imagine a historic posture on abortion more extreme than is Barack Obama’s. Obama has expressed his eagerness to sign a federal Freedom of Choice Act. He has opposed a partial-birth abortion ban of the sort passed nationally and in every state where it was posed. As an Illinois state senator, Obama even opposed, multiple times mind you, a bill to require life sustaining medical attention for infants born alive after a failed abortion. In that solidly Democratic body, he was the only senator to do so and spoke out in his opposition. I’m not even fully in accord with all boilerplate Republican approaches to it. But on this morally and civicly crusial matter, a politician could really not get more extreme. But, that is far from all.

It is a great irony to me that many voters idenitified Obama as more able to deal with America’s economic difficulties. After the election, a large majority expressed confidence that Obama can help our economic situation. That makes no sense and is only one indication that our communications and education establishment have tremendously narrowed the American public’s thinking and historical awareness. That ignorance is particularly accute among our youngest and most media-dominated voters. The week before the election, Peggy Noonan said on “This Week” of these 18, 19, 20-year-olds that, “Not only have they never met a payroll, some of them have never been on a payrol. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.” Lovely or not, anyone who doesn’t understand that taxing and spending does not boost the economy, particulrly in economically difficult times, lives an abstraction from reality. Actually, I’m sure that Obama and most Democrars do understand this. But, they don’t care. Not only will these prescriptions not help, they are usually disingenuous. I think they don’t care because they want to keep power, and you keep power by keeping people down and throwing them crumbs. Obama will not improve the economy with the ideas he voiced in the campaign. John Kennedy was a Democrat who stimulated the economy. And, he did it with policies exactly the opposite of what Obama has proposed.

The tale is that Republicans favor the very wealthy. In fact, I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard “tax cut(s) for the rich,” referring to an across-the-board tax cut. If there is a 5% tax cut, who gets the bigger dollar cut, one who makes $30,000 or one who make $1,000,000. The first pays $1500 less. The second pays $50,000 less. That’s called tax cuts for the rich. But, Republicans rarely talk about the fact that the one who gets the $50,000 tax cut either spends it and makes work for vendors and their employees, invests it and makes work for people, or saves it and provides liquidity for lenders. Those things provide jobs for the former level of worker. When you tax the higher earner, you deprive the lower earner of work. That’s how an economy works. If government takes the money, the work is not provided and government passes a part (after it has taken a part) to those without the work.

That leaves out the fact that expanding government usually sides with large businesses, subsidizing them and maintaining their market advantage. This is what is known in command economies as “industrial policy.” That is economic policy for the entrenched wealthy and entrenched government. The victims are the rest of the peons who might otherwise aspire to achieve a level of prosperity, but in this systemwill not even have o, tax, ccasion to think about it. Recently, government has massively invested in formerly private large industries. I quickly predicted that automobile companies would follow. And so they are now lining up and in office Obama intends to oblige. Everyone wonders how Obama might implement these things, given the current economic conditions. But they can be the excuse for these actions, especially in light of the recent unprecedented federal intrusion into markets under a Republican administration and the decade of outrageous spending that it played a major part in.

One can hope that judicious people might soon gain office and to some great extemt extract government from the domain of commerce. But, I can’t imagine how we might repeal the damage that an Obama-appointed judiciary may well inflict on society for the remainder of my lifetime.

The History of Social Progress and Fading American Ideals

I've made progress but am still working on my thoughts about the terrible price in this particular case of the understandable elation of electing our first black president. But today, I was forwarded a link to an article at Front Page: Obama's Road To Damascus , which is about first signals of imprudent foreign policy.

But in my anxiety about what may well be afoot, I replied about the precarious state of America's exceptional and advantageous place in the world.

-----------------

First of all, the link didn’t work (Page not found). But I was able to look the article up. I’ve listened to a lot of conservatives who are girding to confront what Obama and a liberal Congress may present and who feel that conservatism will review itself and make a come back, which I’m certain it will…a comeback of sorts.

But I am very concerned about the future of America. It is rather a big trick to collapse a social system in quick fashion and yes, other countries have taken steps back in a conservative direction in the face of the dysfunction that liberal policies have brought about. Yes, it’s almost beyond doubt that liberal expanding and intruding government will see token pullbacks in the face of the problems that will be the consequence of liberal policies. But in nations where its best moments might have been described as, “Two steps forward and one step back,” in the larger picture, it has always been that way in a inexorable progress to the left.

I am deeply troubled about might be distilled to a couple of points:

1. Perhaps the most notable pullback in Western history brought the election of Margaret Thatcher in Britain which had like much of Europe followed a route of socialism. Thatcher served as British Prime Minister of Britain from 1970 to 1990. Like the American President Ronald Reagan, she was able to implement some measures to encourage economic activity and bring some relief of the stagnation brought by liberal policies.

But, I recently heard discussion of how she had hoped to repeal the implementation which the socialist trend had implemented. But, that was not about to happen. Similarly in the US, Reagan was unable to staunch the growth of spending and government expansion. Tax reduction brought a doubling of revenues to the federal treasury, due to invigorated economic activity. But on budgetary terms, that was to no avail as spending tripled in the same period of time. Social Security and Medicare have divorced children from responsibility to their own parents. Parents care for their children from birth to near or beyond twenty years of age. But when parents age, there is no responsibility to reciprocate. On the whole, the government social system has not only morally maimed children, but has also relegated the elderly to a pittance in terms of living standard. But the famous “third rail of politics that is the FICA system is not only intractable, it is not even open for discussion. Bush (again) brought up Social Security, but it was summarily blown out of the water, and Bush slinked back to his corner.

Once a people has become dependent on a system, it would appear that only a revolution can change it, which incidentally has never happened.

2. All discussion of the benefit or detriment of the process of government socialization leave out what is clearly to me an essential point. The socializing nations have been to some considerable extent parasitic on a freer American society. Even beyond the fact that American power has repeatedly in the past come to defend other nations to weak to defend themselves. America has also been the seedbed of much of the technological advancement and education the fruit of which all nations have benefited from. But such advancement will be decidedly impaired once the chains of government are applied to American society. Sure, as has happened in Europe, government will necessarily in multivariate ways subsidize the largest established corporations in America. But, the seed of innovation is usually in startup commercial efforts, who are suppressed or obstructed by regulation or the subsidy of big business. So, if America is a last holdout for private liberty and the economic vitality that affords an overwhelming military, what does that mean not just for America, but for the world?

The respect for the sanctity of human life which is at the precipice of not just neglect but being utterly forgotten, Is at the foundation of the civil social character which enables both the defense of alien peoples and the conduct of civil society.

Keyes on color/re Obama

A friend passed me the response of Alan Keyes, to whom he had made an inquiry about the response of black Americans to Barack Obama’s election. I supported Keyes twice as a Republican. I remember in Keyes’ campaign in 1996 a few reports had broken out about Keyes’ handling of campaign personnel. Now in terms of trustworthy testimony and documentation, such reports were no more reliable than the detestable smears seen recently about Sarah Palin, now identified as falsehoods. Those Palin reports were accounted to “anonymous” sources within the McCain campaign, though it has been speculated that another potential 2012 Republican candidate might have motivation to drop such slander in the Palin pool. I can tell you that Mike Huckabee would not stoop to such a thing.

Anyway, at the time I said that you can be perceived as inflexible when you almost always think you are the smartest person in the conversation. In Keyes’ case, people might respond negatively because he almost always actually is the smartest person in the conversation. I sorely regret that Keyes was repeatedly spurned by a feckless Republican Party even while he maintained his fidelity to the party (actually its founding ideals) after I had abandoned the party in exasperation, finally in his 2004 campaign for the US Senate from Illinois against Barak Obama, where the Illinois Republican Party establishment that had invited Keyes abandoned him for the tall grass after media labeled him extreme. This year, The Republican Party nominated a demonstrable Republican apostate in John McCain, who has opposed the majority of the party any number of times, often holding out his “independence” as a virtue. Ironically this year it was Keyes who finally resigned the party while I returned after an 8-year absence. I supported McCain not because of his consistency (I have often called him “philosophically incoherent”), but because he has been historically strong where government has been weak all of my lifetime, even in The Republican Party after it gained complete control 8 years ago: on outrageous spending and government expansion.

I foresaw this failure when Bush was first nominated. I live in Texas, where he was governor. When Bush was elected in 2000 I said “Leviathan gets a night manager.” It surely did. Bush and a Republican Congress grew government at the steepest rate since Lyndon Johnson and The Great Society in the 60’s. Did this make him liked better by Democrats? Of course not: to them he’s evil. Some even called him an ideological extremist; a laughable proposition. Notwithstanding McCain’s infidelities, I also saw him as a decent and noble man. He was also pro-life. I questioned the stoutness and clarity of Bush’s weakly confessed pro-life confession: “I prefer life.” That suspicion was affirmed when, with a Republican Congress, two judges were put on the court that defended a partial-birth abortion ban as not violating a legitimate Roe v. Wade.

After his long experience of Republican abuse, Keyes employed his rhetorical skill to become increasingly shrill, even losing the nomination of The Constitution Party to Chuck Baldwin who is no mental match for Keyes. That’s not a knock against Baldwin as much as an acknowledgment of Keyes’ unique facility. Keyes finally accepted the nomination of the newly organized America’s Independent Party. I haven’t looked, but he surely finished 6th or worse with a vote in the tens or low 1000 thousands. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Michael Medved throws Keyes in with the rest of the third-party clowns, mocking his fervent style of speech. It’s very sad. Keyes fervency is genuine. So is the perplexity with which the general public meets it. In retrospect, I think even his high-flying rhetoric shot over the heads of the great majority of the public. But if The Republican Party had seized on the opportunity of a brilliant and articulate black man, Keyes probably would have maintained his feet and the first black president might have been a Republican 8 or 12 years ago., in which case, this past week’s potential disaster for the unborn, the economy and defense of America and its values might have been averted. Keyes wouldn’t have needed 96% of the black vote. 15 or 200% would probably have been adequate and just as decisive. Would Jesse Jackson have cried, then?

Keyes’ response is below.


Barak Obama is black like me only in the sense that we both have dark skin- I.e., a purely physical characteristic. To expect me to identify with him on that basis would require that I validate the concept of race ( i.e., grouping people based on physical characteristics). I have written and said over the years that I reject this concept, and that the only way to overcome racism is to reject the concept of race.

Because human beings are not stones, but persons, our communities are not the result of merely physical characteristics. The very idea of race in this sense is a modern lie tied to the dogma of evolution. I believe that human communities reflect the moral nature of our humanity. They are formed therefore by adherence to common moral principles, as that adherence is developed and reflected in the course of shared historical experience. Understood in this proper sense, Obama and I are not part of the same ethnic group. My heritage includes the experience of slavery, the moral sensibility to injustice and to the importance of respecting the premises of human dignity and freedom. Obama looks back to a heritage that probably includes forbears who were part of the Afro-Islamic groups of Africans who were active in the slave trade. By itself that might be of only superficial importance, but his views on the fundamental moral issues of the day (like the taking of innocent human life) mean that he rejects the premise of God-given moral equality for all men that I hold to be the true soul of the black American identity. The notion that I should take special pride in the election of such a man simply because of his skin color implies that I put the false and humanly contrived category of race above the category of common moral principle that is the true basis for human community. I do not and never will.

The tragic irony is that people whose feelings and reactions are shaped by racial solidarity implicitly validate the concepts that were the basis for racist views and discrimination. They implicitly reject the hope that Martin Luther King expressed that someday people would be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skins. As they do so, they destroy the moral substance that is the true and righteous legacy of the black American heritage in order to revel in the triumph of the very racism that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors. This is a desperately sad self-contradiction. I will be no part of it.

This quiet validation of the premise of racism is far from being a good thing . It betrays the suffering and nobility of all those black Americans who fought for justice not only for themselves, but for all, by appealing to the truth of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. This betrayal tips the scales of history back in the direction of regimes based on inequality, elitism and oppressive abuses of power.

I have by the way made these points many times, starting with the Senate race in Illinois.

Godspeed,
Alan

Gullible Nation Should Get Serious

I listened to my favorite thoughtful and gracious conservative talk show hosts, today. I fear they were more than a bit more sanguine than I feel. Bill Riggs also has put a resigned and constructive-going-forward semi-smile on it.
The depth of my discomfort is not specifically with the threat of Barack Obama personally, especially when surely Republicans will mount a filibuster against most extreme liberal measures, such as card-check, The Fairness Doctrine, and even huge tax increases.

But what is most sobering is that a majority of Americans were incapable of what ought to be the most common-sense understandings: that Barack Obama manipulated his audiences as necessary, changing his punch lines when moving from circumstance to circumstance and audience to audience. Perhaps there is an audience for the contemporary equivalent of the old medicine-show (booze-spiked) tonic peddlers. I’m not saying that Republicans and conservatives (not always coincident) should not approach Barack Obama with genuine positiveness about what we truly believe will help America.

But it’s true in fact for example, that large companies are marketing "green" products to "help the environment" and forestall global warming. Hey, I agreed with Huckabee's steering of the issue to the simple call to be stewards of the environment. Surely we know from our own history and the local legacies of reckless Soviet industry, that we can scar and tarnish the land with careless human commerce. However as to anthropogenic global warming, I see only frantic and cynical posturing on the part of a few to mobilize the many: a lynch mob on steroids.

On that subject I say, "Don't listen to me. Don't listen to any organization or individual, conservative or liberal or ostensibly otherwise. Go directly to the historical and scientific data. Not anyone's presentation of it: the historical facts, the numbers, and the graphs. I have. There was for a relatively long time a very slow global warming trend, as there have been warming and cooling trends through history, mostly evidently owing to solar activity. In fact, for the past few years, average temperatures have actually fallen. But the idea that carbon dioxide (a not only common but ubiquitous and essential element) in the atmosphere poses an imminent threat to life itself simply is not in the data. Human caused global warming is a secularist sin account and a proposed consequent of global calamity is a secular apocalypse.

But back to the point: Is this vulnerability to the simplest manipulation the result of or even related to an increasingly federally-dominated education system (in which G.W. Bush played a greatly facilitating role, by the way)? Are we becoming a nation of dupes? Our primary preoccupation not with the sober essentials of life but with amusements such as television, music, I-pods, and video games (not bad things; just not primary) hasn’t helped. You may not want to listen to a curmudgeon like me. But if you can spare a few minutes, aside from reflecting on what we curmudgeons are talking about with regard to essential principles like life, liberty and property, you should also consider that Europe is awash and near drowning in an Islamic influx and growing domination. Do a little study of Geert Wilders’ description of this European problem and the Islamic aggression that is only fainter in US due to relative distance, which may only offer us a little more time. You can fin Geert Wilders and his short movie, “Fitna,” on the web. He is a lead character in a coming December meeting to discuss opposition to “Islamicization.” It will convene in Israel, which Wilders describes as not the unique target but only the leading edge Of Islamic aggression against Western Democratic Judeo-Christian values. On the other hand, you could just turn the music up louder.

John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress

John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress

I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”

Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.

McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.

But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:


1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”

2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.

3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.

4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.

5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.

6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.

When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.

7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.

8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.

9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.

10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being

John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress

John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress

I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”

Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.

McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.

But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:


1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”

2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.

3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.

4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.

5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.

6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.

When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.

7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.

8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.

9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being

Motley Obama Enthisiasts

I was out for part of Friday and I still hope to post my top reasons against an Obama presidency this weekend (cross my fingers). But, I just quickly wanted to mention the rogues gallery of Obama supporters who stand to be affirmed and exultant if Obama wins.

Oh, I'm not talking about those simply philosophically blinkered liberals such as the Hollywood liberals, or certainly not the decent Democrats who populate the streets. What I'm talking about are the loud and abusive jerks.

1) One most notable example would be Bill Maher, he of HBO's (which I don't have and don't want) Real Time with Bill Maher. Real?...talk about irony. Maher recently reduced his movie, "Religulous," which scorns and mocks religious people, as he reliably does personally. Listen: I have read the most thoughtful atheist that literature has and has had to offer. Bill Maher isn't one of them. He isn't even in the same ballpark. He's a clever though sometimes bawdy (why shouldn't he be?)comedian. But, he is neither especially thoughtful nor minimally gracious. I have to forgive him because he doesn't know any better. But on the face of it, he's just a Jerk (with a capital "J," obviously)

2) On the other hand, there's Christopher Hitchens, a particularly interesting fellow. Hitchens is interesting as an evolving liberal who began making a face beyond his writing in the 90's by calling Bill Clinton out for his posturing and deception. He also cut a clean break from the breathless left with his defense of the war in Iraq, again disdaining and confounding the knee-jerk left wing. Of late, Hitchens has made a mark with his publication of his book, "god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," and traveling to collaborate with other atheists and debate theists. It becomes clear that his animus against Muslim extremists is only the most urgent end of his hatred for all religion, which he expresses brashly, usually with a baleful face.

Contrary to Bill Maher, Hitchens is very educated and articulate. And again, you can only pity the man who spurns God out of utter ignorance of Him. But that ignorance is probably not unrelated to his arrogance and scornfulness. His ungraciousness is expressed with an infinitely more able tongue than is Maher's. But, it is so thorough that he has belittled and morally reproved the likes of Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and C.S. Lewis. When Jerry Falwell passed away, he appeared on television to scorn "the charlatan" and say he didn't care about offense to the family, notably saying, "It's a shame there is no Hell for him to go to." Hitchens'criticism are particularly remarkable to those familiar with atheist thinkers in that the typical angle of his criticism is moral condemnation, where most thinkers have to struggle with justifying the reality of moral imperatives.

Where did morality come from Mr. Hitchens? When asked, he replies, "It evolved." The British atheist and evolution apologist, Richard Dawkins exulted that with evolution "it is now possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Personally, I don't think the evolution account is very compelling in light of the evidence and more so the lack of it, unless you have a priori ruled a creator out. Dawkins, Hitchens, and many other secularists have in order to account for life in all its complexity. But, Hitchens has taken morality along as a stowaway on the "evolution" ship. It really strains credulity let alone obligation. But it sure gives Hitchens' rhetoric a lot broader license.

3) Speaking of Dawkins, for a celebrated Oxford Professor and author, it is disappointing to see that Dawkins' typical resort in the face of anyone who questions evolution or atheism is the sophomoric tack of questioning their character or intelligence.

4) In case you flip around on cable television, MSNBC is the home for solid liberalism and Obama fervor. Most of them are irritating but sincere. But, there's one prime time host who is such a screeching and distorting critic of all things conservative and Republican that it's difficult to believe he's serious. Keith Olberman is a former ESPN sports reporter and a clever one. As I say, I liked him better when he was reporting the games. But, as he is on his program, "Countdown," "jerk" is an exceptionally polite word for him.

5) Arianna Huffington is a former Republican who first invaded public life as the fashion plate wife of (now estranded) Republican Senate candidate Michael Huffington. She has now found a prominent home on the Internet as the publisher of The Huffington Post, a blogging depot for wide-eyed liberals. She's really harmless, But, her naive condecension to demonstrably more intellectually equipped antagonists is annoying.

6) Frank Rich is the almost definitionally shrill editorial writer for The New York Times. But, it's The New York Times. What do you expect? At least Maureen Dowd does it with a touch higher diction and a Mona Lisa-like half smile.

7) He's surely close, but he may not even be the most liberal US Senator. But more liberal ones, even Ted Kennedy, don't stoop to Dick Durbin's cheap means of attack, like comparing conservatives to Nazis and such. He's the senior Senator from Illinois, where Barack Obama is the junior. Harry Reid is just not as bad (good?" Reid is the Senate Majority leader.

8) Speaking of injudicious rhetoric, how about the former Democratic presidential candidate and now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee who among other smears famousl said, "Unlike Republicans, we don't think children should go to bed hungry at night." Durbin blew up his presidential campaign with an explosion of unrestrained ardor. Have you noticed that the headf of the DNC is totally out of the current picture? Not even the unprecedentedly liberal presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to be identified with him.
These unpleasant people are the ones who figure to parade across television screens with arms and voices lifted if Obama is elected president. Does not even that make someone think twice?

FOUAD AJAMI - Obama and the Politics of Crowds/Turnout and Competition on Tuesday

I’m still working on filling out my top (so far 14) reasons why an Obama presidency, particularly in conjunction with a Democrat Congress would do grave and likely permanent damage to America. I need to hurry with only a few days left. But for now I should post this:

Fouad Ajami is an Arab American who sees a familiar phenomenon in the crowds that gather (and the vicarious hordes of media spectators) to revel it the Obama redeemerhood, with the multitudes of Arabs who have persistently vested their hopes in Arab saviors posing but never delivering. I encourage you to look at Hungarian-born Jew Elias Canetti’s “Crowds and Power” to which Ajami refers in this article. Many have recalled Hitler’s mesmerization of the WWI-broken German public. A few days ago, I heard a European journalist who observed the media distortion and public enthrall in America that seemed even to exceed what was common to the establishment of European social democracies. Others have referred to Obama’s presentation of a Rorschack Test. Ajami calls him a “blank slate” that “devotees can project onto him what they wish.”

Actually, I expect his article was written a few days ago when pessimism about averting an Obama election was rife. Today, only a few polls do not reflect a tightening of the race. And frankly, I wonder if the typical Republican showing which substantially outpaces the polls, might not be even greater this year. Many conservatives have said that journalism died this year, with traditional media not merely favoring but fairly fawning and swooning over Barack Obama. It may also turnout that the art of polling will be uncommonly discredited this year. The world is changing. Many no longer have time to trifle with telephone or even exit polls, anymore. They don’t have time and they trust pollsters and media less. I expect it will be close and that one side or both will challenge the results. Republicans will suspect (not without cause, I think) voter fraud, especially in Ohio and Missouri, particularly St. Louis. Democrats will charge voter suppression if Obama loses, in which case the “crowds” will be heartbroken and probably scandalized and infuriated. I hope there would be no violence.

Particularly among African-Americans and as always – will it actually materialize this year? Maybe – the young, turnout for Obama is expected to be intense and high. I expect it will be. But, it better be. I expect a record turnout on both sides. Traditional direct mail campaigns highlight what some fear as the worst elements of the opposition. This is how passions and donations are generated.

For conservatives in terms of turnout, Barack Obama will act as a walking direct mail piece. Had Democrats nominated a relatively moderate Bill Clinton/Mark Warner type candidate (Heck, even Hillary Clinton the heretofore conservative bogey-man…er…woman), they might have fairly waltzed to the presidency. But, no. In a favorably Democrat year, the dogmatic liberals wet themselves and nominated the most liberal member of both The Senate and party history. And, picked another extreme liberal as his running mate.

Upon his nomination, John McCain’s Republican support was dubious and fragmented. Sarah Palin provided some help in that regard, but I think Barack Obama has mostly put that to rest, I’m guessing. Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin may pull a percent or two. But more than demonstrating purity of some sort, most conservatives will want to STOP OBAMA! Republican turnout will be fervent and high. If the surprise is big enough, McCain could not only win, but unexpectedly comfortably.

Ajami’s article was published today in The Wall Street Journal:

America Under Obama and a Democratic Congress/Pat Buchanan and Immigration

I like him alright, but I was never a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I particularly differ with his longstanding emphasis on the menace of immigration: with typical reference specifically to Hispanics crossing our southern border. Obviously, immigration needs to be legal and orderly: the first lesson to immigrants shouldn’t be that the law is not a very serious matter. Isn’t it a little ironic that those who most indulge illegal immigration are many of the same who seek all manner of virtue in the words of the law: I find that striking.

But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.

But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.

You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).

During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.

Obama's First 100 Days

Black Christian Musician Huntley Brown - Why I Can't Vote For Obama

I am working on filling out the top 10 reasons why an Obama presidency would be bad (now that’s a monumental understatement) for America, both individually and collectively. A friend sent me something written by a black Christian musician explaining why he can’t vote for Obama. Obviously, there is some overlap in subject matter. But, not unexpectedly, there are some matters on which I different somewhat from ordinary reflective sentiment. It’s a disposition I have that some might cal a disorder.

I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.

Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com

Why I Can’t Vote For Obama

This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why I Can't Vote For Obama

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.

I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure

1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:

1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'

Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'

Here is what we know for sure.

God is not schizophrenic

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.

Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings,
Huntley Brown

This Post Also Has Electoral Map Predictions

How polls and results may differ

The Polls Are Misleading, Not Dishonest - How Is That?

Oh, a few wild polls from known biased sources are suspect, perhaps sampling and phrasing questions so as to suit their hopes. But, most polls like Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby for instance, are honest. But, they routinely underestimate the Republican showing in national elections. Just in the last one, Kerry was an average of 6 points ahead on the day of the election. He lost. Republicans always strongly out perform what the polls suggest. Why is that?

I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.

This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).

My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.

My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.

But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.

Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.

The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.

Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma

The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.

Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.

Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.

Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”