WHEN PIGS FLY!

Catching Wild Pigs

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab,
the Prof noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing
his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told
him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting
communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his
country's government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a
strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and
putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday
to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a
fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When
they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put
up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat
again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a
gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start
to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the
gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost
their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are
caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to
it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves,
so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward
Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of
programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income,
tax cuts, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments
not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc....... while we
continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free
lunch and you can never hire someone who offers to provide a service for you
cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Do you see all of this wonderful government 'help' as a problem
confronting the future of democracy in America? If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, God help you when the gate slams shut!

The only thing I can add to this is a question for you......Which
candidates out there are most anxious to spread around the feed corn,
and what might their motives be? Think about it.

Reasons not to vote for John McCain

In both Livonia, Michigan (where he was booed) and in the New Hampshire debate (where he was grossly discourteous to Romney) McCain said he would not “…deport the illegal alien mother or grandmother of a soldier serving in Iraq”. McCain was being completely disingenuous with his glib answers on an important issue. He knows perfectly well that no one has suggested deporting the illegal alien parents of men and women who are serving in our armed forces. He simply used his glib answers to dodge the question of what he would do about all of the other illegal aliens. That’s what the voters really want to know. As Romney put it, “What will you do Senator? Will you send them back?”

On another occasion, the artful dodger, McCain, said the first thing we have to do is deport the two million criminals hiding among the illegal aliens. Sorting them out is a daunting task and McCain has no idea about how to do this. Perhaps he hopes that we can get all the criminals to sew a scarlet letter C on their clothing so we can easily identify and deport them. He should know that these miscreants will be back across the border within 24 hours after they have been deported. Therefore, they must be photographed, fingerprinted, DNAed, and do hard time before they are deported and if they return, they must be treated as habitual criminals.

McCain also seems to be hung up on semantic arguments about what is and what is not “amnesty”. His opponents have conceded that, according to the legal definition, if any sort of penalty is imposed, even if it is only a slap on the wrist, it is not amnesty. In spite of the legal definition, the common understanding of the term amnesty is any policy that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in this country without returning to compliance with the immigration laws as they existed at the time they violated our borders. It doesn’t really make any difference whether they are required to pay back taxes, pay a fine and/or learn English, they are still being given the object of their illegality -- the opportunity to stay and work in America.

McCain needs to acknowledge the common understanding of the term “amnesty” and get on with a discussion of the issues involved and the merits of a mass amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens versus the merits of mass deportation. So far McCain has been equivocating on this issue. (At the same time he accuses Romney of equivocating on the issue of a definite date for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.)

McCain is a legitimate American hero so why has he chosen to betray those who believe in secure borders and the rule of law, the very foundation of civilized societies? He doesn’t understand that there’s more to secure borders than improvements in physical and electronic barriers, and more border patrol agents, and more broken promises of government. He doesn’t understand that, regardless of improvements at the border, any amnesty for illegal aliens, however you define it, will constitute an open invitation for more border violations.

Communists in America in the 1930s

They joined because the depression made them think communism was the answer. They didn't think they were traitors. They were wrong! Julius and Ethel Rosenberg paid the price.

People still struggle to decide what constitutes the proper devotion to America. The most disgraceful thing about the Hispanics is their silence about the presence of illegal aliens in the U.S. and their failure to support a systematic repatriation process designed to re-assert America's sovereignty and the rule of law, the very foundation of civilized societies. They are sadly in need of an epiphany. They need to think long and hard about where it will all end if we start to tinker with these basic concepts. Without vision the people perish. Without a devotion to citizenship and civic responsibility democracy will fail.

The voice of reason is not the siren litany of "Let's make them legal". The voice of reason is the one that says enforce the law, secure the borders, and expel those who use fraudulent social security numbers.

Global Warming by the Numbers - Economic opportunity and a clean energy future

Global warming is the most serious environmental threat of our time.

As these facts show, affordable options are available. And America cannot afford to fall behind any more in the race to invent clean, renewable energy sources.

Increase in world’s solar generating capacity in 2005: 45%

Ranks of global producers of solar cells: Japan 1st, China 2nd, U.S. 4th

Amount US government spends a year on renewable energy research: $1.5 billion

Exxon Mobil’s daily revenue: $1 billion
mount GE Energy Financial Services invested in wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy in 2007: $2 billion

Amount China has committed to invest in renewable energy sources over the next 15 years: $200 billion

Projected cost of smart cap-and-trade climate policy on US economic output in 2030: 0.74%.

Projected growth of the US economy by 2030: 100%

Projected population growth by 2200: 100%

U.S. average annual production of carbon pollutants : 20 Metric Tons per capita

Number of presidential candidates & congressmen who have addressed the effect of population growth on our ability to rein in green house gases: 0

Number of senators supporting cap and trade legislation: 53

Number of bills passed by Congress to cap and reduce America's global warming pollution: 0

Number of bills passed by Congress to reduce legal immigration, stop chain immigration and curb the number of illegal aliens: 0

Sources: World Watch Institute, Earth Policy Institute, Department of Energy, CNN, GE Energy Financial Services, Reuters, Upcoming Report: Climate Policy and the U.S. Economy. Environmental Defense, 2008, UN.

Ipod needs a few new buttons

What McCain should have said in NH

In the NH debate, McCain said, "I'm not going to deport the illegal alien mother of a soldier serving in Iraq." What he should have said is, "No one wants to deport the illegal parents of soldiers serving in Iraq but all of the others are fair game and should be apprehended, detained and deported systematically based on ssn duplicate and mismatch letters. I am opposed to any form of mass amnesty by any definition" Where are Obama and Hillary on this? Let's ask them to make a forthright statement like this.

No wonder the economy is dead.

Read this woman's story and you will know what Iaccoca was talking about below.
This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus
other federal grants to go to school? One student from the Dominican
Republic told me that she didn't want me to find a job for her after she
finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing
department and she was getting PELL grant which paid for her total tuition
and books, plus money left over.

She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas
to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program for immigrants
and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or
training.

The one student I just mentioned told me she was not going to be a
US citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and
that she 'loves HER country.' I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the
US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she
told me that it doesn't bother her, because that is what the money is there
for!

I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE
a US citizen, you don't qualify for their program. And all the while, I am
working a full day, my son-in- law works more than 60 hours a week, and
everyone in my family works and pays for our education.

Something is wrong here. Right?

Iaccocca Speaks

Lee Iacocca Says: "Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with
what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming
Bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of
State right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind,
And we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when
The politicians say, "Stay the course"

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned
"Titanic". I'll give you a sound bite: "Throw all the bums out!" You might
Think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have.
But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in
Handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and
Nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead
Of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the "America" my
Parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How
About you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not
Outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest "C"
Is Crisis !

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's
Easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send
Someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield
Yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in
Our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell
Of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with
No plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest
Deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge
To Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health
Care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent
Energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership. But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense?

I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us
take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent
billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to
do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina.
Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the
Hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in
The crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers
Crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms
Happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the
next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can
Restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that
There could ever be a time when "The Big Three" referred to Japanese car
companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do
About it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the
Debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem.
The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at
Our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your
Asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked
And our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity What is everybody so
Afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a
Break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough?

Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to
light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America.
In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's
greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the
"Great Depression", "World War II", the "Korean War", the "Kennedy
Assassination", the "Vietnam War", the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles
of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's
this: "You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for
somebody else to take action.

Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our
children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in
this book. It's a call to "Action" for people who, like me, believe in
America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake
off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had "enough."

**********************************************************
Excerpted from "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?". Copyright (c) 2007 by
Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved.

The Pro-Illegal Version of Border Security

Environment, Resources, Quality of Life

The census bureau middle series population projections indicate that our population will double again by the end of this century. How will double the number of Americans treat the environment of their country and the world? Remarkably, as a result of sustained national commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars, many environmental indices are actually better today than at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, in spite of some 70 million more Americans. But we would be fooling ourselves if we thought this progress constituted "sustainable development," or that it "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Much of our economic growth and concurrent environmental progress rest precariously on what environmental visionary David Brower once called "Strength Through Exhaustion."

Our growing energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, farmland and topsoil loss, and endangered species are all symptomatic of a nation headed the wrong way on the path to sustainability. Yet conventional wisdom holds that both population and per capita resource consumption will grow tremendously in the new century.

U.S. energy consumption increased 22 percent from 1973 to 1995, with growing dependence on finite reserves of gas, coal, and imported oil.29 Population growth accounted for about 90 percent of this. The 1991 National Energy Strategy forecasted moderate growth in U.S. energy use in the coming decades, more or less matching population growth. If per capita energy consumption remains constant by dint of ever-increasing energy efficiency, then total U.S. energy consumption will still double along with population over the coming century. But national and world petroleum and natural gas reserves are likely to dwindle to insignificance well before this. Competition for the world's remaining oil, much of it concentrated in the volatile Middle East, will be a source of escalating global insecurity. However, the United States is richly endowed with two other fossil fuels: coal and oil shale. Unfortunately, both are plagued with egregious environmental problems: landscape disfigurement, heavy water demands, acid mine drainage, and high sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Technological optimists argue that growing energy needs could be met with some combination of nuclear fission, fusion, breeder reactors, solar thermal, photovoltaic cells, wind, biomass, and efficiency improvements, but none of these is problem-free. Even the "green" renewables are not panaceas: they are land-intensive, unsightly, and in the case of wind turbines, have even been implicated in bird kills. These optimists never address the question of why we would want to put ourselves in this position by allowing unfettered population growth.

Climatologists generally agree that global warming is underway and that human emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and methane (CH4), are responsible. The UN's conservative estimate of America's per capital annual emissions is 40 metric tons. If this rate remains unchanged, adding 300 million more people will produce 4 billion additional metric tons of pollutants per year. Without controls, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that average global surface temperatures will rise by 2°C (4°F) and sea levels by 0.5 meters (1.7 feet) by 2100. Concern over possible economic and ecological ramifications led to the 1997 signing of the Kyoto Treaty in Japan. As the country with by far the largest industrial CO 2 emissions, the United States must play a major role in any international effort. In Kyoto, the Clinton-Gore administration committed the United States to reducing its CO 2 emissions to 7 percent below 1990 emissions by 2010, an ambitious but attainable goal. Yet a booming population-driven economy — and no firm resolve — have only served to boost our carbon emissions. We are moving away from the target rather than toward it; population growth in the United States almost doubles the required per capita reduction of carbon emissions needed. Why isn't population the principal focus of emission control and reduction discussions?

A continually growing population will also worsen urban sprawl. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the 1990s an average of three million acres per year of rural land was developed. If this rate continues to 2100, the United States will convert an additional 300 million acres of rural countryside. That's 470,000 square miles paved or otherwise built-up, equivalent to 57 percent of the land area of the 24 states east of the Mississippi River. To avoid this outcome through so-called "Smart Growth" initiatives and regional planning would mean drastically raising the density of existing built-up areas, as well as embracing mass transit whole-heartedly to avoid stifling traffic congestion. Overall, one effect of the projected population growth will be to increase government regulation's role in American society.

The combination of relentless development and land degradation will reduce America's productive agricultural land base even as the demands on that same land base from a growing population increase. If current rates continue to 2100, the nation will lose more than 300 million of its remaining 375 million acres of cropland, or 82 percent of it, even as the U.S. population grows from 275 million to 571 million. These trends have led some scientists to conclude that some day America may no longer enjoy a food surplus for export to the world. Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome have argued that the United States could cease to export food by 2025.

Finally, while disappearing tropical rain forests, panda bears, polar bears and gorillas rightly worry Americans, we will have our hands full here with our own biodiversity crisis. Even at present, 371 globally rare terrestrial ecological communities are threatened in the United States. In 1996, the Nature Conservancy reported that almost one-third (32 percent) of 28,000 species and an additional 11,000 subspecies and varieties of plants and animals in the United States were in some danger. As U.S. population doubles and resource exploitation intensifies, pressures on precarious living resources can only increase.

Certainly it is well beyond the "head-counting" mission of the Census Bureau to address such profound questions. Yet one would have hoped for more from the country as a whole. But this is typical. In describing America's lackadaisical approach to energy, historian Otis Graham weighs the evidence that "the inevitable end of the petroleum era will begin to be felt in the first half of the twenty-first century, and the time to prepare for it has been poorly used."

The same might be said about other environmental bills that will be coming due. The nation with the greatest technical and financial means of any in the history of the world is postponing the difficult choices on the path to a sustainable future. Several years ago the President's Council on Sustainable Development advised that the United States move toward population stabilization. The Council's Population and Consumption Task Force added: "This is a sensitive issue, but reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive toward sustainability." These recommendations went largely ignored. That, too, seems to be the fate of the latest projections on the demographic consequences of current immigration levels.

Many futurists have gotten egg on their faces by totally dismissing the prospects for major technological changes. It is less likely that this will be true of population projections and other future developments related to trends easily discernible today.

(major portions of this are taken from Leon Kolankiewicz's paper:
Population Time Bomb

Pandering to the Latinos

New Year's Resolutions

The Clock is Ticking

How many people can the earth support. Answer: we have too many already; it's all down hill from here as finite natural resources are fully expended or committed. Awake America. Reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year; secure the borders; assure effective internal enforcement; reduce illegals numbers to the level needed for jobs Americans won't do if offered living wage.

Mother Earth

Americans are no dummies!

A New Defense Strategy

A new Defense Strategy

More Reasons to Vote Republican

And now the Democrats propose to fix the problems that government has created with more government.

Unlike liberals, conservatives genuinely believe in the abilities of individuals. We believe that even the poor yearn for freedom and opportunity and will thrive in an environment that gives them that.

The Left still believes that, uninstructed and unsubsidized in their daily lives by a benevolent government, the poor cannot succeed in spite of a history of success by the poor. Ask any family of 8 or 10 children raised in poverty during the depression and during WW II and you will find a remarkable record of achievements. Our government schools; our food stamps that tell you what you can buy; our government health care; our job programs, the reverse income tax – how can the poor survive without Washington’s wisdom in deciding for them?

In spite of the total collapse of communism and socialism around the world, we keep lurching to the Left believing that high paid bureaucrats who soak up half the money are smarter than the people who earn it and that government makes better decisions.

They do know as we all know, that the human being dreams – not for one more government program – but for freedom.

Illya Ehrenberg, a Russian poet, wrote, “If the entire world were covered with asphalt, one day a crack would appear, in that crack grass would grow.” That is the dream of the human spirit. That is the dream of freedom.

All this is to say the following: Liberal efforts to replace your decisions with their decisions have been a colossal failure. It has been a failure for the taxpayer, but much more so for the generations of children destroyed in the process. Why is it so difficult in American politics to commit a truth?

This election is going to be the meanest election in your lifetimes. Because there is so much at stake.

Labor unions, trial lawyers and wealthy liberals (who avail themselves of all of the tax loopholes) have committed to spend all it takes to win the White House and to hold on to the Congress. For them it is an investment. If they succeed in removing choices from our communities to Washington, they win. The American people lose.

There is hope. Do you remember Ronald Reagan?

It is important to remember how dark the nightfall was when he began running for president. On the eve of his first run for the presidency in 1975 he spoke of the 20th anniversary of National Review. In a somber moment he quoted something written two decades earlier by Whittaker Chambers.

Chambers wrote, “It is idle to speak of saving Western Civilization, because Western Civilization is already a wreck from within. Those is why we can hope to little more than snatch a fingernail off a saint on the rack or a handful of ashes from the cigarettes and bury them secretly in a flower pot until that day ages hence when a few men would dare to be believe that there once was something else. That something else is thinkable and there were those at the great nightfall who took loving care to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.”

Five years later Reagan was president, promising to rekindle the American dream.

It has been said that the American dream was to own your own home. That’s not the American dream. The dream is to get your kids out of your home, and when Ronald Reagan took office we wondered if we ever could. We had double digit interest rates, mortgage rates, inflation and unemployment.

We were losing the cold war. Between 1970 and 1980 the Soviet Union had increased its influence in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Grenada, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

On top of that a third of our planes were unable to fly for lack of spare parts, one third of our ships were in dry dock, soldiers were practicing with pretend bullets and many of our enlisted corps were on food stamps.

In his first inaugural address President Reagan addressed our challenges at home and abroad. Then he said this: “With reliance on Gods help, and our commitment, we believe we can meet those challenges. And why shouldn’t we believe that we are Americans.”

During the next ten years the American people – not Reagan – not government – you and your neighbors created 4 million new businesses and 20 million new jobs. You doubled the size of the economy from $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion. You doubled your contributions to government from about $500 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1990. And you doubled your contributions to strangers – people you never met – through voluntary charities, from $44 billion in 1980 to $100 billion in 1990.

During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons called it the decade of greed. But most would call it the American decade in the American century. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton thought you were all trading cattle futures like she was, but most of you weren’t. You were starting businesses, going to church, coaching little league, teaching second graders, paying your taxes and giving to charity.

America is a great nation and its people are good and decent. America is a great nation – not because of government policies or political leaders. America is a great nation because in America ordinary people do extraordinary things. And if we keep the burden of high taxes and too much government off our backs by voting Republican we can do it again.

More Reasons to Vote Republican

In Thomas Sowell’s book “The Vision of the Anointed” (You know who the anointed are: the sensitive, the caring, the compassionate, and the humanitarian liberals!) Sowell notes how the critics of the “anointed”, such as Malthus, Burke and Hayek, always spoke generously of the motives of the Left even while questioning their policies.

Milton Friedman criticized the Great Society, but he always said it was born of noble intentions.

However, the responses of the “anointed” to their critics were always personal. The critic’s motives were questioned. They were called mean spirited, hard hearted and cruel. (Sound familiar?)

Read Sowell’s comment: “Malthus attacked a popular vision of his time, exemplified in the writings of Godwin and Condorcet. He said, “I cannot doubt the talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling to doubt their candor.” Yet Godwin’s response was quite different. He called Malthus ‘malignant’, questioned ‘the humanity of the man’, and said, ‘I profess myself at a loss to conceive on what earth the man was made’.

During the welfare reform debate a decade ago, Democrats equated Gingrich and the Republicans in the House to Hitler and the Nazis. (Where have I seen that tactic before?) That was a new low for those who substitute name calling for debate. (The names bigot, nativist, etc. come to mind in this regard.)

Nothing has changed. While attacking conservatives on personal grounds, it is increasingly apparent that liberals have less interest in program beneficiaries (except perhaps for their vote) than in the power to decide. That is what the 2008 election is about. The power to decide. And they will stop at nothing to gain it — including lying.

G.K. Chesterton said, “I believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did. But, oh, there was a happy time when I [also] believed in liberals.”

Oh, there was a happy time. It was between 1948 and 1968 (called the Mayberry period by some) when poverty dropped from 32% to 13% and specifically black poverty dropped from 90% to 32%. We witnessed the largest migration of blacks into management in the history of our country. In 1960 black illiteracy was 16% and the black family was the most conservative, spiritual and family oriented segment of our society.

Then the poverty programs kicked in. After 30 years and 7.5 trillion dollars, illiteracy among blacks is rising. Nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock and the black family is under serious assault. In 1965 a larger percentage of them were poor, and the government helped them the most, helped them to stay dependents of the government so that they could be patronized by liberals.

If you grew up in a small town in northern Minnesota near the Chippewa Indian reservations, you would have seen the Indian children going to the same schools as other children. Every fifth grade class has an Indian child at the top of the class. They were smart and artistic but they didn’t graduate. Teen age pregnancies, crime, alcohol, violence, no fathers in the homes were the mode for the reservation Indians.

For over a hundred years America rounded up the Indians and placed them on reservations. Bureaucrats told them where to go to school, which dentist and doctor to see, where to buy school clothes, and we paid the bill. The influence of the breadwinner was replaced by a bureaucrat with a government check and the breadwinner left, taking with him or her, the remaining vestiges of Indian self esteem.

A pitcher on the Inger Indian baseball team had a curve ball that looked like it was coming at you from third base. He was offered a minor league contract one summer, but he didn’t know if he should take it. The only white guy on the team, the catcher, said, “Look, you’re 26 years old and you have never had a job. Take the contract.”

Six weeks later he was back home. His friend asked him what happened. He said, “I just couldn’t take it. I didn’t know how to get an apartment so the baseball club owner had to help me. I kept forgetting where to change buses. I didn’t know if I should get a black and white or color TV. I just couldn’t make all of those decisions.

At age 17 his friend realized that government paternalism steals from people the ability to make decisions about their own lives.

The other Indians on the team are all dead now. Richie Robinson, Esica Ogema, Tom Bowstring, Frank Rabbit, Johnny Wakanabo, Sammy Goggleye – dead too young - not because government did too little. But because government did too much and in the process robbed them of their initiative, their self esteem, their ability to make decisions and any number of other positive traits that would have enabled them to survive.

Having done so well with the American Indian, government replicated the reservation in every major city in America with the same results: Teenage pregnancies, crime, drugs, violence, gangs, and no father in those homes and not because government did too much.

More Reasons to Vote Republican

The differences between those who want to decide and those who want Washington to decide are deep and fundamental.

What has intensified the debate in the last 15 years is that the millions of dollars being spent on the Left are driving the candidates even further to the left. The proposals coming from the Democrat candidates for president are getting more expensive and more expansive.

The most recent fight was over whether President Bush was “hurting the children” by not agreeing to the recent Democrat proposal to expand another government entitlement program. The program is called the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It was passed in 1997 to help families who made too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but too little to buy health coverage for their children.

The Democrat proposal included “children” up to age 25. They expanded it to include, in some cases, families with incomes three and one half times the poverty level. It included coverage for some illegal aliens and adults without children. (Minnesota currently spends 87% of its SCHIP funds on adults.)

Republicans wanted to limit the program to children and move it toward private sector competition to bring down costs. That proposal attracted no Democrat interest.

Why can’t Democrats pursue private solutions before they turn to an expansion of the federal bureaucracy and the federal entitlement programs? Liberals can’t loosen the federal grip on our choices because if they do, they lose the central organizing principle of liberalism, that bureaucrats and governments make more fair decisions than individuals. Again we have the question: Who decides?

The central organizing principle of conservatism is freedom, and every proposal conservatives pursued when they were in the majority was aimed at increasing personal freedom and individual and community responsibility. This was best outlined in the recently passed Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for seniors. Conservatives believed that drug companies would compete for the millions of patients and that individuals making their own choices would bring down the costs.

In spite of all of the abuse and criticisms heaped on Bush administration, it was right about this. The administration estimated that the cost each senior would be forced to pay would decrease from retail costs to about $37 per month. The Democrats believed that bureaucrats should be hired to negotiate drug prices. Indeed, they proposed an amendment that would set the price at $35 per senior. Fortunately it was defeated. After the first year of the program, the average cost per senior had been driven down by competition, to $22.

The stunning thing was the level of invective from the Left. President Bush was accused of wanting poor seniors to die while he was lining the pockets of wealthy pharmaceutical companies. But nothing surprises me anymore when the Democrats take the microphone. They have a long tradition of negativism. The last time we heard anything positive from them was when Senator Kennedy, of all people, endorsed the “No Child Left Behind” initiative. Otherwise, there has been a constant drone of negative partisan comment and little or no effort to achieve bi-partisan solutions to America’s problems.

Some Reasons to Vote Republican

In 1992 the Clinton victory was the culmination of the liberal dream. He ran as a “New Democrat” and he had me fooled but he moved sharply to the left even before he was sworn in. His promise of a middle class tax cut became the largest tax increase in history. Ending welfare as we know it turned out to be a government job if no other job could be found. And healthcare reform ended up being the largest attempted takeover of the private economy in the history of the nation. He also led off his presidency with gays in the military. It is easy to see why that wasn’t mentioned in the campaign.

Clinton’s approach to governing was best described in a 1958 book by John Kenneth Galbraith entitled, “The Affluent Society”. It essentially said that Americans do not make too little money, they make too much, but they make bad choices with their dollars. Therefore, it is the obligation of an educated government to tax those dollars from them and make better choices on their behalf.

If you look at the five major initiatives of President Clinton’s first two years: the budget, crime, welfare, education and healthcare – all called for increasing taxes and increasing the number of decisions that would be made in Washington. This entire philosophy could be put on a bumper sticker: “Who decides? Washington or you!”

It is important to point out here that the Clintons may be sincere although politics often tend to distort one’s values. They truly do want to shape a future for our children and grandchildren that is warm and safe and secure and fair. What has changed? The only difference is that it is now that Hillary is telling you what she intends to do with your money instead of her husband. For starters, how about a $5,000 savings bond for every child born in America? Do you think this might increase the number of illegal aliens coming here to deliver their children in America? How will this affect anything we might do otherwise to deter border violations? Clearly, it would be just another incentive for the illegals to head north and another step on the road to Mexico Norte.

In a recent interview with the editorial board of the Boston Globe, Hillary said, “I have a million ideas. The country simply cannot afford them all.” The country can’t afford Hillary! Recently it has been reported that the Democrats are going to propose a trillion dollar tax increase. Just the wealthy, of course. They want to control a third of the entire economy in order to redistribute the wealth. Now everyone has an opinion about who is and who is not wealthy. Few would argue that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and others of similar wealth are among the wealthy. We don’t know how far down the economic ladder Hillary is prepared to go. In the recent debate in New Hampshire, a figure of $250,000 per year might be the cutoff point for the tax increase. Can we believe this?

Let’s remember that they are talking about your money and your choices. Again. Who decides? Are Washington’s choices more important than yours?

Why don't conservatives want to shape the future? Because no one knows how, not the conservatives, not the liberals – no one knows how. Most politicians couldn’t satisfy 20% of the people in any given crowd. Each American looks to the future with different hopes, dreams and talents. Politicians could build a future one segment of the crowd would love and another segment would hate. So conservatives want to leave your dollars in your pockets, and you and 300 million other Americans, deciding on your own behalf hundreds of times a week, will shape the future. You will decide, not Washington. I have some ideas on what I would like the future to look like but I do not know what the actuality will be. One thing is certain: I want to be able to make personal choices along with all other Americans. I want to decide.

Critique of 12/5/07 Debate

McCain and Huckabee laid a couple of below the belt punches on Romney. McCain acted with great discourtesy and incivility and did not allow Romney to speak without unwarranted interruptions. Huckabee and McCain both zinged him for flip-flopping as though other candidates had also not done so. McCain himself reversed his ground when he found out the American public found his position unacceptable.

McCain is still hung up on what to do with the 12-14 million illegals. He and others want to quickly deport the 2 million criminals among them but have no idea on how to go about this. I guess they must expect them all to sew a red letter C on their clothes so we can easily identify and deport them. Of course, these criminals are the very people who will be back over the border within 24 hours.

McCain and Giuliani both are also hung up on the legal definition of "amnesty" and are unwilling to admit what they propose is a form of amnesty as commonly understood by the American people -- i.e. any proposal that allows the illegals to stay and work here and/or provides a pathway to citizenship, is clearly a form of amnesty regardless of any penalties or fines that might be imposed. "Going to the back of the line" is a meaningless concept if the illegals are not required to return to their homelands and stay there until their applications are approved or a temporary work permit issued. McCain's and Giuliani's problem is that they simply are unwilling to be up front with the American people. Why don't they both agree that what they propose is a form of what is commonly understood as amnesty and be done with this issue? If Giuliani doesn't think New York is a sanctuary city because of his policies, then he needs to prove it by saying what he did
to rid the city of illegals. Otherwise, he must admit the obvious.

If any candidate has a position somewhere between mass legalization and mass deportation, he or she should make that position clear and indicate what hard and fast criteria should be used to determine who should stay and who should be deported.

The question of the children of illegals came up but no one had the courage to say, "Hey, if they are minors, they must go with their parents if they are deported."

On the Dem side, Richardson talked about an 80% reduction in atmospheric pollution but never addressed how that would be possible at the same time as our population is increasing by 100%. He's a loser who doesn't have a prayer.

Edwards made a telling point when he pointed out that Hillary changed her tune when she lost in Iowa. She zinged him about the Health Care Bill of Rights which did pass the Senate but not the House. He could have had a rejoinder to the effect that that was one step further than her health care plan was able to achieve.

When Hillary touted the election of a female president as a "real change", Obama could have added "the election of a black man would also be a real change.

I liked Thompson insistence that the 12 million illegals would still be here under McCain's agenda.

It's unfortunate the GOP decided to gang up on Romney and that he put himself in the position where he was vulnerable to the old flip-flop criticism. I still believe he is the best candidate but his chances are dimming.

Democrats offer ten new types of insurance

Since every Democrat candidate has some form of socialized medicine or Universal Healthcare plan out there, here's a list of types of insurance I would like to have…I mean if the government can somehow provide effective health insurance coverage for every American citizen in this country at no cost, then these 10 Types of Insurances should be relatively easy and much less complicated for the Democrats to implement:

1. Poor People Insurance. This insurance coverage would allow the government to simply print more money and give it to people who qualify. In order to qualify you must have a pulse and believe that it is unfair to expect a family of 8 to live off of the earnings of one person within the household working full-time at minimum wage.
2. Rich People Insurance. This is actually a rider for Item 1. This policy can be purchased from the government for a reasonably high co-pay (75% tax bracket) and the coverage ensures that if you are rich, then you may be allowed to stay that way….at least until Poor People Insurance devalues your actual cash.
3. Food Insurance. If the government can cover my health cradle to grave, then they can surely feed me along the way…oh and I like fresh Pacific Northwest Salmon and whole wheat hand-made pasta. No more tuna fish and Ramen noddles. Food Insurance would involve a government issued card that reads, “I get hungry. I need food and I don't like to work for it.” This will be paid for by taxing the farmers…you know…like how other government programs work…taxing the actual producer until he can no longer produce anything.
4. Ugly Insurance. There’s nothing worse than standing in the Food Insurance Card Issue line and having to look at a bunch of ugly people. If we have abortion on demand, we should have Botox on demand…they may already have this in CA.
5. Lawn Insurance.= This policy would provide me and my yard a crew of newly legalized workers to use at my discretion. Frankly I am tired of mowing my own yard.
6. Global Warming Insurance.= This is the easiest of all insurance polices to provide. The government will tax the living daylights out of every major industrial business and manufacturing facility until they no longer can produce dangerous by-products like carbon and nitrogen. Therefore once these businesses are out of the pollution business, they will be out of business, then Global Warming will stop. Then the policy will change to the Chinese Global Warming policy. Only the U.S., China and Russia will be allowed to pollute indiscriminately. All other countries must be pollution-free.
7. Britney Spears Insurance.= This policy will ensure my family is no longer infected by this unfortunate disease and the like.
8. Life Insurance.= This is not typical life insurance, where if you die your benefactors get some money, no this is ‘I Screwed-Up My Life and I Need the Government to Bail Me Out Insurance.’ By far it has the longest title, but is the most self explanatory. In fact, a form of this is already in effect in the housing and mortgage industry.
9. Neighbor Insurance.= This policy will ensure that I never have to meet my neighbors, speak to them over the fence, or invite them over so that by not doing so I will ensure that I never make friends, strengthen my neighborhood, or care about anyone else but myself. All the government has to do is pass a law declaring it illegal and that should do it. On second thought, that may not work. The government has already shown a penchant for failing to enforce laws already on the books, ala immigration.
10. Constitution Insurance.= I want to have an insurance policy that will provide for all my basic and luxury needs and wants in case a politician reads the Constitution after I am completely dependent on the government ‘teat’, and realizes that the Constitution doesn’t have a “Nanny” clause.

If the dems have figured out Universal Health Care, then the items above should be pretty straight forward. (paraphrase and modified from ktownlowdown.com)

Recuerdos de Lupita

Recuerdos

Ask these men what happens when you don't secure the border.