Ideology, Principles & Common Sense

I believe in clinging to an ideology; I believe in strict adherence to one's principles. But I do not believe either tenet should defy common sense. Here are some examples I have watched:

Ideology. Fox New channel has completely swamped all the other cable news channels in ratings. Why? Because Fox insists on giving air time to both Conservative and Liberal voices. People are eating it up. But CNN & MSNBC continue to sneer at Conservative views and dominate their program schedule with angry, snarkey liberal voices. Where's the common sense in that? They prefer to hurt their bottom line, rather than bend on their Liberal ideology.

Principles. in a Washington Post column, distinguished pollster Andrew Kohut wrote that the GOP is estranged from America: You can review it here. And, Kohut is but one of many voices declaring the Republicans to be extreme in their principles, their policies.

If that is true, why are urban centers which adhere to GOP policies so successful and cities which follow liberal Democrat policies such failures... as pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article by Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore?

Where is the common sense is continuing to demonize successful policies while advancing failing policies?

And, where is the common sense in prominent Republican spokesmen insisting that the GOP should become more like the liberal Democrats if they want to win elections? Thomas Sowell recently called them 'me too' Republicans and pointed out the fallacies of their ideas.

I am a Conservative. I watch Fox News Channel. I would love for FNC to dispense with Alan Colmes, Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. But that would be wrong. Even though these men are argumentative, they interrupt, they filibuster and they are often proven wrong. A broadcast entity, or a printed publication, cannot call itself a news medium, if they fail to present both sides of an argument.(even in their opinion sections).

Besides, it is just common sense to let some of these Liberal voices destroy their own ideology. Thanks Alan, Juan, Bob.

There oughta be a law!

Yes, I've said that many times, but I never really meant it. There are already too many laws. What I've really meant is that I observed a behavior so offensive to me, I wish that behavior could never again be observed.

I suppose it is all in the eye, or ear, of the beholder, but a behavior that most often offends me is the tendency of people to promote their position on a topic over which they apparently have no knowledge. Or, very limited knowledge. I love reading opinions of people who are truly knowledgeable. I learn from one of these people nearly every day.

Then there are the idiots. The most offensive are the idiots who advance some hair-brained idea and push it as a brilliant, new revelation. The current push for gay marriage is an example. First, they say, homosexuality is not choice... it is predetermined at birth. So, surely homosexuality existed in ancient times? If it did, do they think that no one ever considered gay marriage in the past?

British Historian, Paul Johnson said, "It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

Tradition is not tradition because our ancestors were too dumb to know better. It is tradition because people experimented with ever-blossoming new ideas - kept the ones which 'worked', discarded the ones which did not.

Should we continue such experimentation? Absolutely! That is what has advanced civilization. But, when a new idea seems to counter a long standing tradition, examine it carefully before replacing what our ancestors have practiced over the millennia.

So soon?

The 2012 election ended and many of us, no matter the results, looked forward to a respite from political bickering. No such luck! The 2016 fighting is already upon us.

The national news media is partly to blame. By keeping a horse race going, they build tomorrow's audience. Every time any political figure does anything that attracts attention, it starts a buzz that he or she is seeking some political office. Maybe it is true. I am still sick of it!

Then, there is the continued re-hashing of last election's news. Didn't we cover that adequately in the nearly four years of the 2012 presidential campaign? During the campaign, opponents, or opossing groups, would take a candidates' utterings out of context, distort and embellish them, and scream it from the rooftops. Now, in the post mortem rehashing, they embellish and distort things even more than during the first time around.

It will be a long four years!  

Another Constitutional scrap in Congress.

 This time in the Senate Judicial Committee hearing on a bill introduced by CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein. seeking to ban certain firearms.

TX Sen. Ted Cruz wondered if the CA Senator would support the same selective application to the 1st and 4th amendments, as is being proposed for the 2nd amendment.

Senator Feinstein got all snarky and reminded Cruz that she had been on this committee for twenty years.
My first thought was that that was 14 years too long. It is time for the lady to retire and return to California.

Cruz, after all, was the attorney who successfully argued the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller Case before the U.S. Supreme Court, overturning the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., . Feinstein, like many politicians, believes that holding a political office trumps all.

What angered me most was when, following a mention of the free speech protection of the First Amendment, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin asserted that none of the Constitutional Amendments are absolute. Well, that argument has been around longer than me! In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge said "When we say, 'All men are created equal', that is absolute".

But, back to the recent hearing, someone yelled that the First Amendment did not protect pornography as free speech. Really?Does anyone with half a brain think the framers wrote the First Amendment protection for free speech to permit pornography? Or, that other bit of idiocy about falsely yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater.

That is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


Certainly, the Framers were moral and religious people. Not the kind, as perhaps would be some of our current United States Senators, who believe it is a constitutionally protected right to cause panic in a crowded theater, or engage in the distribution of pornography.

That could never happen!  Or, could it?

The Second Amendment, protecting American's right to bear arms, has nothing to do with shooting sports, or even personal protection. If you are in doubt, check Dr. Walter E. Williams evidence here.

No, we old-fashioned Americans believe we need protection against the possibility of a tyrannical government. This is where we are called foolish. First, they say, a citizenry armed with sporting weapons, even the semi-automatic rifles currently being described as 'assault weapons', could never match the firepower of a modern military organization. Tell that to Syria's President Assad.

Second, they say the United States military would never use force against its own people. That would give pause to the Holocaust survivor who may have felt the same way about the shiny-faced young German boys who became part of the brown-shirted Hitler Youth.

There is an old maxim to remember: Never say never! And, as Mark Steyn reminded us in a recent column, "...while the notion of unmanned drones patrolling the heartland may seem absurd, lots of things that seemed absurd a mere 15 years ago are now a routine feature of life."

Sixty-Seven years ago I was undergoing U.S. Army Infantry basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama. I've forgotten the details, but during the course of that training, some pretty serious rioting broke out somewhere in the United States. Serious enough that our standard infantry training was suspended and we engaged in riot control training.

I mostly remember that we were formed into a 'wedge' of soldiers, shoulder to shoulder in a V-shaped formation, marching down a simulated event of a street filled with angry rioters. Soldiers filled the width of the street, building edge to building edge in full combat gear, rifles held straight out in front of us with bayonets fixed. Behind the 'wedge' marched additional troops, ready to instantly fill any gaps that may develop in the front line. It was a formidable force, to say the least.

I was seventeen at the time. I doubt if any of the troops were older than nineteen. We had only recently taken an oath to obey our orders, and we were filled with determination to be good soldiers. We were fully capable of carrying out any orders our commanding officer issued.

I can promise you that if we were ordered to clear a street, we would have cleared the street, American citizens ahead or not.

Of course, it seems ridiculous to think we would have held firm if actual killing began. But, who knows? Once real trouble starts, it is impossible to predict how events will unfold. The Kent State/National Guard confrontation of 1970 is convincing evidence that things can go horribly wrong. In that incident, the guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others. Mind you, these were unarmed college students the guardsmen confronted.

Could it happen? Who knows. I certainly don't think so. But surely it is better to be prepared - even for the unthinkable.

Dow Jones Industrial Average hits all-time high!

Really?  Not really.

My, how we are misled. Bernanke and company, at The Fed, keep printing money, worthless paper dollars. You and I could do the same with our ink jet printers and our paper money would also be worthless - but we could go to prison for doing it.

Today the DJIA hit $14,330.91, the vaunted new high. That's what it would cost to buy one share each of the 30 industrial stocks tracked by Dow-Jones. But remember, that's Bernanke Bucks. Imagine if we were to buy those shares with gold, money with real value. The average price of gold for 2013 stands at $1,578.00 per ounce. That means, it would take about nine ounces of gold to buy those thirty shares.

Back in 1929, the year of the great stock market crash, the DJIA averaged $381.17. That same year, the price of gold was $20.63. That meant it would have taken almost 18.5 ounces of gold to equal the DJIA. In other words, the DJIA in 1929 was over twice as high as today.

In America, we are so conditioned to believe that the value of a dollar is consistent, that when the dollar price of something increases, we think it has actually increased in value. If we still had those good old Silver Certificates of yore to spend, that would be true. Not so with Bernanke Bucks - officially known as Federal Reserve Notes.

Take back our country?

Recently, journalist Sam Donaldson said the thing that angered him most during the 2012 presidential campaign was the Tea Party adherents insistence that they wanted to "take back their country'. It is no longer your country, Donaldson insisted.

That caused mixed feelings of anger and frustration among many of us. But now, thanks to the insight of Arnold Ahlert, we realize that the correct feeling should be one of pity.

To understand, please take five minutes from your life to read Ahlert's column: "Too many Americans will never know what they missed."

The problem with Donaldson's point of view is that he just doesn't understand what we considered "our country". But, Ahlert sees Donaldson's position as widely shared, and pleads: "How do you explain to these people that America was once a nation with a largely intact and understandable sense of right and wrong? How do you tell them there was once a time when most men were real men, not oh-so-sensitive self-absorbed metrosexuals? How do you tell them most women were once strong enough to handle themselves, as opposed to being the angry/helpless creatures that feminism and/or sexual harassment laws turned them into?

Surprisingly, age is not at play here. Donaldson is scarcely five years younger than I. Nor is his life experience all that different from my own. He was raised in the Southwest, not in the liberal bastions on the East or West Coast. He did have a college education, which I did not. He was attracted to a career in radio broadcasting. He worked as a volunteer in Dwight Eisenhower's 1956 presidential campaign, and later enlisted in the U.S. Army. I fairly closely mirrored that path, though my Army experience was before Eisenhower's political career.

What happened? Did Donaldson become so steeped in the Washington scene that he missed what was happening? Or did he just forget?

Ahlert speaks of younger Americans who never knew and probably will never know the America we so loved. But Donaldson is as far removed from our understanding of what America should be as are any of the 'Occupy' crowd.

I feel sorry for Sam, and all those unwashed kids who camped out in city parks across the nation, demanding, who knows what?

But mostly, I feel sorrow for my own grandkids and great-grandkids who will likely be deprived of  the wondrous life we lived... when it was 'our country'.

Humans or Beasts?

Have you ever watched a cat play with a live mouse? The cat playfully swats the mouse around. If the mouse tries to escape. the cat secures it with one paw, then releases it and swats it around some more. Eventually the tiny creature succumbs... perhaps to physical injuries. Perhaps to a heart attack.

Have you ever watched video of an Orca swim close to shore, grab a live seal and swim back out to deep water. There the orca playfully tosses the seal into the air and catches it. Eventually consuming its prey.

At least these beasts are driven to food. Apparently not hungrily, or they would quickly devour their catch. Humans don't do such things.

Yes, they do!

In the early years of World War II, Japanese soldiers in occupied Nanking, China, reportedly tossed Chinese babies into the air and caught them on their bayonets. The catching soldier in return removed the infant from his bayonet by tossing the bleeding child into the air again for one of his comrades to catch. When they tired of the game, they left the tiny carcass lying in the street.

Equally, or perhaps in an even more grotesque accusation, Japanese soldiers, upon spotting a pregnant Chinese or Korean woman, placed bets on the sex of the unborn child. They then slit the pregnant mother's abdomen, ripped out the fetus, determined its sex and collected on or paid off their bets.

Inhuman? Yes, but is it more so than the abortionist who clinically does essentially the same thing? Not placing a bet on the unborn child's sex, but perhaps because of it?

Now we hear of another act of inhumanity by humans, this from the halls of academia. At Hunter College in Manhattan, the most populated school in the CUNY group, students (identified as 'mostly boys', so apparently some girls participate) have devised an 'abortion game'. Opposing players inflate a balloon and stick it under their T-shirt. Each player is armed with a plastic fork, and the objective is to pop your opponent's balloon.

As two players dance around, stabbing at each others 'belly', onlookers chant "Kill that baby." If you have the stomach, you can watch it here.

Even the most ardent pro-choice Liberal has to shudder at this story.

Thugs in the White House - Cowards in the media

For over 75 years, I've been aware of thugs among labor union spokesmen. The most recent example being when Rev. Charles Williams II, a Detroit-area pastor and liberal activist, at a pro-union rally warned Michigan Governor Rick Snyder: "Just know one thing, Rick Snyder. You sign that bill, you won't get no rest. We'll meet you on Geddes Road. We'll be at your daughter's soccer game. We'll visit you at your church. We'll be at your office."

Now a senior White House Spokesman has threatened a reporter for reporting and later commenting on a news event which we now know to be true.

"It was said very clearly, 'You will regret doing this,’” the reporter told CNN last night. This was no cub reporter at some obscure media outlet, it was Bob Woodward, a serious, veteran journalist with a major Washington newspaper, The Washington Post.

Then, to make matters worse, several notable voices in important media outlets, piled on, criticizing Woodward for daring to express disapproval of their beloved president. I find it incredulous that media luminaries would criticize a fellow journalist for reporting the truth, with no criticism of the bullying tactics from the White House!

Long ago, Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson, First Lady of the United States during the presidency of her husband Lyndon B. Johnson, headed the first major legislative campaign launched by a first lady: the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Declaring advertising billboards to be eyesores, she sought to have them prohibited by federal law.

In radio broadcasting at the time, we broadcasters believed we could do without the competition for advertising sales posed by the billboard industry. But we believed more intensely in the First Amendment protection of free speech, and freedom from government intrusion in general. We vigorously opposed the proposed Highway Beautification Act.

How things have changed!

While past presidents have largely done their bullying below the radar of media scrutiny, they now do it openly in government email channels and are joined by media 'watchdogs'.

We are witnessing what Victor Davis Hanson, classicist and military historian, today called 'the American recessional'.

Farewell February

The months seem to fly by. Now we see another relegated to the past. Good riddance February, from a weather perspective. Winter took one last, severe swipe at America in its waning days. But there are February anniversaries I would rather forget.

One hundred years ago on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to The Constitution was ratified, creating income tax. The same month, The Federal Reserve was born. Thanks, President Wilson!


In the state of Oregon, the first tax on retail sale of gasoline was instituted: 1¢ a gallon! Who could object to 1¢ a gallon? Even though that may have been near 10% at the time. Today, in California, gasoline tax is about 68¢ a gallon, more like 15% of gasoline's now highly inflated price.

But, on February 3, 1870, there was a blessed event as the 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing voting rights to all citizens regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude! Can you today imagine that that prohibition ever existed? Especially in light of the 9th Amendment which sated that the inclusion of enumerated rights shall not deny or disparage other rights, and the 10 amendment which stated that powers not prohibited by The Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution never prohibited voting rights based on race or color.

February also brings us Valentine's Day, an observation of the gift of personal love!

Hope your March arrives as a lamb. We'll worry about the nature of its exit next spring... in 31 days!

Women in Combat

Women are different from men in many ways. I know that, still, I like women. As boys mature, they develop muscles, hence strength, and they search for ways to use that advantage. Women, generally of more delicate frame, usually lose out in physical encounters, so they learn to finesse the situation... as boys grow muscles, girls grow brains. Boys learn to push. Girls learn to maneuver.

I am speaking generalities, of course. There are women who can push very hard. There are women too dumb to outmaneuver a turnip. But those are exceptions.

Now there is talk of putting women in military combat roles. Some women consider that an opportunity to advance their careers. Perhaps. It is terribly unfair to deny women equality at any level. But remember, women are not always equal. Only women, throughout all of recorded history, have been targeted for sexual exploitation and abuse. Only women can develop a fetus, carry it to maturity, and give birth to our next generation. Only women have the breasts to suckle their infant. And, women add a certain quality to human life which seems to be their exclusive ability. Isn't that enough? Must we also ask them to fight for our defense?

Women already serve in many vital military roles. Until now, they have been roles a bit less likely to lead to their capture by truly evil people. They fly our aircraft, and fly on our spacecraft. They serve in many command and intelligence positions. The nearest military installation to my home, White Sands Missile Range is commanded by a Army General who is, yes, a woman. Isn't that enough? Do we have to send women crawling through the mud with rifle and bayonet?

A noted college president once explained that a man is sometimes chosen over a women to fill an important job, because the man graduated from a more prestigious university. Never mind that, at the time, women had been refused admission to that particular university. That is cheating. Declining to send women into 'boots on the ground' combat roles, is not.

Why do Progressives win elections?

Yes, they have the majority of the black vote. They have the majority of the Hispanic vote. They have the majority of the Asian vote.

But why?

That early-on Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was elected as a Republican, but he was a solid Progressive. A despicable little wimp, Roosevelt first appeared in the legislature wearing a purple velvet suit which caused snickers all around. But Teddy was a smart, conniving politician, so he created a bogus macho image for himself. The public bought it. After the Filipinos successfully overthrew their Spanish conquerors, Roosevelt turned his back on them, refusing promised independence and called them "our little Pacific Negroes". Why do Hispanics vote for Liberal Progressives today?

In the 1940s, another Progressive Roosevelt, Franklin D., rounded up innocent, patriotic Japanese Americans and threw them all into 'Concentration' camps. No trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence. Just blatant discrimination. Why do Asians vote Democrat today?

In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower, fought hard to get Civil Rights legislation passed. He was only partly successful due to the vicious opposition of Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.

Yet, when Johnson himself became president, (like Teddy Roosevelt, upon the assassination of the elected president, William McKinley before Teddy, John F. Kennedy before LBJ). Johnson saw a political opportunity. A steward on Air Force One at the time, reported hearing Johnson declare "I'll have them Niggers voting Democrat for 100 years."

Now, to cut Johnson a little slack, any political observer of his Presidency will recall that dark-skinned Americans of African descent were still being called Negroes at the time. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that expression in his 'I Have A Dream' speech. Given Johnson's Texas drawl, he pronounced the word "Niggras", which could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, it was apparent to all that his great Civil Rights efforts were toward a single goal: assuring the Black vote for Democrat politicians. Why do Blacks vote Democrat today?

I believe the Progressives learned their lesson from Teddy. A New York dandy (and one-time Governor) Teddy simply became what turn-of-the-20th century Americans admired, a rugged, individualistic he-man. If you ain't got what the people want, create for yourself that image. If your opponent does have what the people admire, do whatever it takes to destroy their image.

Granted, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney offered what Sarah Palin called "set our hair on fire" rhetoric, but either man was infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign succeeded in destroying the image of both opponents.

When I took Infantry training in the Army, I was taught that you have to prepare for the way your enemy is going to fight you. Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply in military hand-to-hand combat. Your enemy wants to kill you: know that, understand that and prepare accordingly.

The Progressive Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the news media. They have infiltrated academia. Even with those institutions solidly on their side, they will still break every rule to win. Republicans should not engage in rule-breaking, but they must understand how the Dems are going to fight, and prepare.

Violence,
a natural behavior.

I enjoy nature films and have seen many depicting violent behavior among wild beasts. Animals fight over food, territory and, most often, for mating rights. Humans are no different. We know the biblical story of Cain and Abel and their fatal encounter. That behavior has continued to this day.

Along the way, humans gained the ability to think and to reason. They learned ways to co-exist and developed codes of behavior. "Thou shall not kill" scorned violence. But the trait remained.

Violence and killing are okay under clearly defined circumstances, like war. Periodically, entire nations have been outraged at the behavior of citizens of other nations, sometimes for rather trivial reasons. Declaring war, they engaged in wholesale killing. The most effective killers being deemed heroes. Terrible and ever more sophisticated weapons have developed to aid in that cause - or to defend against it.

Violence in humans is often attributed to some abnormality, specifically a mental disorder. Actually, violence occurs in humans any time one or more humans abandon the ancient codes of peaceful co-existence.

They reach this point in many ways. We have seen and heard many 'experts' explain the possible reasons for individual acts of human violence. But, as Hillary Clinton famously said, "What does it matter?" Someone exceeds the bounds of acceptable human behavior and violence occurs. A victim may still be dead, regardless of what cause is finally attributed.

In my unlearned opinion, there is a way to prevent it. We must somehow strengthen those bounds. I believe it must start early in one's life. For example, I grew up with four sisters. Like all siblings, we squabbled over petty things, but, early on, I was taught that a boy does not hit a girl. Call her names, throw an earthworm in her lap, but never strike her. As an octogenarian, I am still tightly bound by that rule. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would hit a girl.

So, where do we start? My lesson about not hitting girls was learned from my family. From a loving, caring father who sought to teach me to become a man, a real man, not a grown-up boy. From a loving mother whose entire life was wrapped up in Christian principles. And, from my squabbling sisters, who may mistreat me, but were always there for me when needed.

So, family is where we start. We must end abortions and teach a deep respect for all human life. We must curtail divorce by making it harder to marry. Young people must be required to think long and hard about that life changing decision. No more rushing to the altar because hormones are popping.

Using DNA if necessary, we must always hold men responsible for the care of children they sire. No way out of it... father a child and you will support that child until adulthood, like it or not. And, somehow, we must enforce responsible parenting. Yes, that is a tough one, but we must at least create a climate that fosters loving parental care.

Strengthen the family and you may erect bounds of behavior that can withstand anger, greed, jealousy, or even some real or imaginary mental disorder.

Thoughts

I keep hearing opinions about President Obama's approval. He is said to be likeable. Highly intelligent.

He is the former. He is not the latter. The likeable part is a hangover from his demeanor before he announced as a candidate for President.

Just a few years ago, when George W. Bush was president, the Congressional Record shows that Senator Obama said this: "I rise, today, to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government's reckless fiscal policies."

The most ardent Conservative would like that attitude. Today, with the debt doubled, he says we do not have a debt problem. Not "no longer have a debt problem", as though the bills had been paid.

I think Barack Obama started out as a likeable guy. But his handlers, advisers, consultants - whatever you wish to call them - have completely taken over and he is now a sock puppet.

One can imagine him being told: "We got you elected and re-elected. Now shut up and read the teleprompter."

As for the intelligent part, his "misspeaks", unlike those by W. are not just mangled pronunciations, but displays of ignorance. Like, "57 states". Has he never looked at a U.S. flag?

Then the other day he said Hillary Clinton was "one of the best secretary of states we have ever had." Really? What would those states be?  

At this point,
what difference does it make?

Hillary Clinton shouted at a Congressional Committee hearing on Benghazi.

In that particular case, the reference was to honesty in government.

Mark Steyn has written brilliantly on the subject. A quick read, well worth your time, here.

Steyn suggested we use Hillary's declaration in the oath sworn to by persons chosen for federal office:
 
"Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
"Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?"


I've thought much about this event, and, like Steyn, considered applying it to other events. It can drive you crazy!

I remember a time when I had great respect for "the Federal government". I held the FBI and the CIA, for example, in awe. They were so competent, so smart, so skilled as to be unmatched. As a teen during WW II, if "the government" had instructed me, to paraphrase Col. Allen West, to walk through hell with a can of gasoline, I would have rushed to comply.

In the early 1950s, as a new broadcast engineer, I had great respect for the FCC Field Officers; skilled, devoted engineers, striving to keep our industry first class.

It wasn't until 1959 that my faith in the Federal Government waned. That year I participated in a hearing before an FCC examiner in Washington. There I witnessed the incompetence, the bias, the ignorance of the industry they regulated, the arbitrary nature of decisions, by FCC Washington personnel.

ABC News icon Sam Donaldson recently expressed his irritation with people saying they "wanted to take our country back." Sam doesn't understand what is meant by "our country". He is probably too young to remember when government could be trusted. When, if a candidate was elected to office, you had full confidence in that official, whether you voted for or against them in the election.

Donaldson said "It's not your country any longer", and he was right.

At this point, what difference does it make?

To those of us old people who remember when "our country" stood for truth, honesty, justice, it makes a great deal of difference and we are still determined to take our country back.

The biggest waste

of government time has to be Congressional Committee hearings. In 1959, I was a witness in a hearing before an FCC Examiner in Washington. I was on the stand for two days. (The Washington definition of a day is four hours... 10:00 am until noon and 2:00 pm until 4:00 pm.) I was grilled by lawyers, not Congressmen, and it was a tough experience.

Congressional Committee hearings do not work that way. Each committee member gets five minutes to question the witness. If they take 30 seconds for the question, the witness will ramble for 4 1/2 minutes and their turn is over. So, they take four minutes to cover all the things they would like to ask; the witness takes 30 seconds to dance around and not answer any questions, and that member's time is up.

Too bad Congress can't figure out what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, protecting the right to legal counsel. If you want answers, you better get someone who knows how to ask questions. Instead of giving each member five minutes, let them pool their time, hire an expert and give him an hour.

Yes, I know, that would keep the members from getting time before the TV cameras.

This past week,

as often before, the news has been loaded with some sort of transgression on the part of a sports figure. Too bad there isn't more emphasis on the cheating of politicians.

The football player is charged with some sort of emotional entanglement. Did that story gain him more coverage by sports writers? By TV cameras? Probably. Did it give him more smarts, more quickness, more strength for all those brilliant plays on the field? Get real.

The cyclist, who had best overall time in 147 days of racing in winning the Tour de France seven times has admitted to some kind of blood enhancement. Did that give him the edge? Apparently he thought so or he would not have expended the time, effort and money to do so. Without it, may he have come in second or third in one of those races? Possibly. Would it have made the difference between being a champion and a complete loser? Again, get real.

We are not very tolerant of cheating, to any degree, in our beloved athletes. Cheating has, however, become routine in politics.

Football coach Vince Lombardi said winning is the only thing. Lombardi meant to always strive for excellence. No one ever believed the great coach meant for his players to cheat.

When I ran a broadcast station, I used to tell our announcers that there is no such thing as an unimportant broadcast. Every time you throw a switch to open your microphone, it is the most important moment in your broadcast career.

When athletes have reached the professional level, it is because they have learned to be prepared, alert, and ready to respond professionally every time a ball is snapped, or thrown, or the starter's gun is fired. We don't like it when they cheat, or behave less than professionally. Not just "doping", we don't want spit balls in hands of a pitcher, or sticky gloves on the hands of a wide receiver. But we give politicians a bye.

On a news program this morning, I watched a top political adviser/consultant/whatever, dance around the answers to every question he was asked. Never directly and truthfully answering, but repeating again and again his favored talking points.

In broadcasting, we used to talk about "lite listeners", people who don't listen carefully to what is said, but believe what they thought they heard.The consultant's answers seem to have been tailored to the lite listener. Rhetoric that sounded plausible on the surface, but actually had no substance.

I kept wishing the interviewer would have said, "Sir, you have given me that response three times. Now would you kindly answer my question?"

As with some athletes, politicians now want to win at all costs. Unlike athletes, however, politicians are permitted to cheat. They endlessly stress some irrelevant incident from their opponent's past, to cast doubt about his/her credibility. Lite listeners eat it up. Newscasters refuse to challenge.

Is it any surprise that our government, at all levels, often seems broken?

The Right To Bear Arms

I keep saying it, but no one seems to join me. The United States Constitution is a very simple legal document, fashioned in a way that every American can read and understand. Still there is widespread controversy as to the meaning of certain passages.

The Second amendment is 27 words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Only the Ten Commandments use verbiage more sparsely "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Justice Scalia has suggested we seek to understand the framers intentions at the time of the drafting. Such good advice. But doing that requires digging through old texts to find clarifying statements. Where to start?

Happily there are people like Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams is a member of the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. His is an amazing American story. While I was born on the eve of the Hoover Administration, Dr. Williams was born on the eve of the second Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Born in Philadelphia in those extremely difficult times, he was raised in a housing project, but literally grabbed his bootstraps and pulled himself "Up From The Projects" - which happens to be the title of his autobiography.

Dr. Williams  has done the research for us, and collected  the Second Amendment opinions of our most distinguished founding fathers. Find them at:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Go to the site, bookmark it, and review it often. I promise you will love reading the quotes.

For example, people often charge that the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to a "militia". Very well. Check out what George Mason said, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


For those (including the low-information governor of New York) who now clamor for the confiscation of all American's privately owned guns, Dr. Williams included this ominous quote:


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

A Forgotten Anniversary

I have not watched a lot of news this New Year's Day. What little TV I have seen, beside the Parade of Roses in Pasadena, CA, has been re-runs, substitute anchors, and a little fiscal cliff talk.

In fact, had it not been for a column by Ken Blackwell, I would have not remembered that it was exactly 150 years ago today, on January 1, 1863, that President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation! Some may argue that the important date was December 6, 1865, nearly three years later, when the 13th Amendment to The Constitution was ratified, making slavery unconstitutional.

But President Lincoln's proclamation got the ball rolling and is the event most indelible in the minds of Americans. Most people would respond with a blank look if you referenced the 13th Amendment. But, say "Emancipation Proclamation" and everyone knows what it means.

It happened on New Year's Day, 150 years ago! Could not the theme of the Parade of Roses been dedicated to the commemoration of that most significant event in American history, instead of the puzzling "Oh, The Places You'll Go!"?

Does anyone care about 'oh, the places we've been'?

Immigration from Mexico.

Why does there seem to be so much opposition to immigration from Mexico? I don't see strong feelings against Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, or any other group of foreign nationals. Why Mexicans? Some say it is because we once fought a war with them. But we fought wars (hot or cold) with others, and those memories are faded.

My opinion:

I have spent some time in Mexico. Acapulco, Mexico City, Cozumel, Cuernavaca, Columbus, and many trips to Ciudad Juarez. I have some familiarity with Mexico and Mexicans. Mexico is a beautiful country. Spectacular mountains. Beaches that are the envy of the world. A gentle, pleasant climate.

Mexican people offer much to be admired. I have found them universally a warm, friendly people. Strong family values, strong religious faith. I go to Mexico and stumble through my broken Spanish, always to be met with patience and understanding. I once translated a Spanish saying for a granddaughter and was congratulated by an elderly Mexican woman for having translated correctly. And, Mexicans are most often hard-working, industrious people.

But, in Mexicans there is an interesting dichotomy. One that is deep-rooted and slow to change.

It all began with the Aztecs. Legend has it that the Aztecs were a tribe located somewhere in (what is now) the southwest United States, or northern Mexico. For some reason they migrated south, settling where they found an eagle, perched on a cactus, devouring a snake. (Honest!) That area is now known as Mexico, D.F. - Mexico City.

The Aztecs were a highly advanced people with one major flaw: their religion. Like the innocents of Jonestown, they let their priests convince them that human sacrifice was required to appease their Gods.

The Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez defeated the Aztecs, but while the Spanish rulers brought much modernity to Mexico, their ways were nearly as harsh as the Aztecs (minus, of course, the human sacrifice). Eventually, the Mexicans overthrew the Spaniards.

Next it was the French. The madman Maximilian was installed as Emperor of Mexico and continued the oppression of the Mexican people until the French, like the Aztecs and the Spanish, were thrown aside.

A purely Mexican (or Indian) government was installed. Sadly, they had learned governing from the Aztecs, the Spanish and the French, and corruption was all they understood.

Then, of course, came the Americans. Mexicans tried to claim all the territory once held by Spain, but the onslaught of western migration in America by European immigrants overwhelmed them. Eventually all territory north of the Rio Grande was lost to Mexico, by force or otherwise.

Fast-forward a century and a half. South American drug cartels, thwarted at delivering their wares to American consumers, through the Bahamas, Florida and gulf cities, or the coast of California, chose to move through Mexico. This brought a wave of violence unequaled even by the Aztecs, plus a flood of cash to tempt the population.

Today, the retiring police chief of Ciudad Juarez estimates that 80% of the population of his city are involved in crime to some degree. Not necessarily what we would consider "serious" crime, but a willingness to be complicit in some degree of corruption if it is of personal benefit. It is all the Mexicans have ever known.

In the United States, we began as a government of the people.We have held respect for our government officials. Despite the tendency of our youth, since the 1960s, to 'question authority', Americans largely respect the rule of law.

Many Mexicans, with good reason, have no such grounding. We often see it in an unwillingness to assimilate. A willingness to accept government largesse, deserved, earned, or not.

Many Americans resent this. But mostly they resent the speaking in Spanish. Generations of immigrants have come to America and have learned to speak English. Imperfectly, perhaps, but they worked at it. Always speaking Spanish is like speaking in code - Americans do not understand. And they greatly resent telephone answering systems that require 'press one' for English.

Yes, there are the youth - the gang-bangers. But that is a stage, inherent in people of most every ethnicity. I have seen virtually no adversarial tendencies in Mexican adults.

Mexicans are good people. They become great Americans. Consider how many persons of Mexican descent have proven their courage and loyalty in the U.S. military. How many Mexican Americans have distinguished themselves as jurists, legislators, educators, entrepreneurs?

Perhaps it will be those outstanding Mexican-Americans who will teach their former countrymen that there is no part-time honesty. That corruption is never acceptable, in any degree. And, that assimilation into American culture and language would be very much appreciated.

My opinion.