Liberals making sense...

If you get too steeped in your ideology, it is easy to arrive at the point where all who disagree seem like idiots. Hold on! That position is idiotic.

Yes, I deplore the fact that most liberals refuse to look at the records of Calvin Coolidge, and later John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. They refuse to believe the proven fact that Keynesian Economics are a failure. I don't know who they trust for economic knowledge, but while that may make them misled, it does not make them idiots.

Consider Bill Maher, in a confrontation with an Islam proponent, Maher said "...there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam."

The fact is, Bill Maher is a brilliant guy. My problem with him is that too many people, especially young people, look to Maher as a serious source of news. True, Maher often reports serious news, but his job is as a Comedian! His primary task is to be funny.

Then, there is Kirsten Powers. A self-identified liberal Democrat, Kirsten's USA Today column was the blow that finally got the news of the trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on the national radar screen. As Star Parker wrote, "This of course, is the horror story of a cesspool in Philadelphia posturing as an abortion clinic, operating without inspection for 17 years. Gosnell, the doctor who ran the place, has been formally charged of murder of one woman and seven infants." But his trial has been largely ignored by mainstream media. Good for Powers.

And, how about Alan Morton Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School Professor. Dershowitz calls himself a proud Liberal, but he was the first one to denounce the Florida prosecutor who charged George Zimmerman with murder in the Trayvon Martin slaying. And, I might add, conservative commentator Bernard Goldberg praised Dershowitz as being one of the fairest persons he has ever known.

Tough as it may sometimes seem, it might do well to learn how to say, "I disagree with you on that point... "  As Erick Erickson recently said, "It is, in fact, possible to disagree without being disagreeable and to dispute without being disreputable."

If Richard Nixon were president today,

what might he do about Korea? A fair question, given that Richard Nixon was Vice-President Elect at the time President Elect Dwight Eisenhower negotiated the Cease Fire which ended the bloody killing of, dare I say, The First Korean War?

In 1960, Nixon ran for president, and despite overwhelming evidence that John F. Kennedy's Democrats stole the election, Nixon valued tranquility above his own career and quietly stepped aside. When Kennedy was assassinated, and Lyndon Johnson, like Harry Truman before him, found himself entangled in a war he could not end, Nixon won The Presidency.

First, however, we have to clear up some things. President Nixon was so vilified that his name has become synonymous with bad politics. That's baloney.

What about Nixon's alleged Enemies List? More baloney. Every Republican political candidate of note faces such a horde of opponents determined to bring him/her down by any means, fair or foul, it is imperative that they keep a record of whom they must watch out for.

Admittedly, the illegal attempt to place a listening device in Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Complex, by Republican Presidential Campaign operatives, was an unnecessary and stupid blunder. Nixon was on track to win by a landslide. But, as we learned from the 1992 Bush 41 re-election campaign, the 1996 Dole campaign, the 2008 McCain campaign and the 2012 Romney campaign, Republican presidential campaign operatives are quite accomplished at doing stupid things.

Instead of just admitting to the illegality and stupidity, Nixon tried to salvage his supporters. The entirety of the media establishment, every Democrat in Washington and, eventually, a majority of Republicans, fearing for their own fragile careers, piled on to end Nixon's presidency.

Once, when Nixon was Eisenhower's vice President, the VP was in Argentina. His motorcade encountered a large group of Argentinian students, protesting some policy of the United States Government.  Nixon, refusing to permit a false accusation against his government go unchallenged, ordered his vehicle stopped, jumped out of the limo, and challenged the students to debate.

Then, in July of 1959, Nixon led Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on a tour of an American National Exhibition in Moscow. Suddenly Khrushchev launched into a tirade against a recent action by the United States Congress. Undeterred, Nixon stood face to face with the Soviet and defended America. Nixon had spine.

During Nixon's Presidency, when the Cold War seemed to be spiraling out of control, Nixon made the unprecedented move to clear the air and went directly to China to meet with Communist Chairman Mao Zedong. It worked, big time.

So, back to my original question. No one knows what Nixon would do today. But I'd like to think he would again go to China. Tell the Chinese President that the American people and the Chinese people have been friends for ages. We are important trading partners. Let's knock off glaring at each other and start working out our differences. So, cool that little North Korean creep who is driving a wedge between us.  

Last week, on Fox News Sunday,

Dan Pfeiffer was interviewed, after having been introduced as a White House Senior Adviser. What??? Pfeiffer was born on Christmas Eve, 1975. He is 37 years old. He did graduate from college with honors. He worked for Al Gore and a few Democrat Senators.

But, Dan Pfeiffer started kindergarten the year President Reagan took office as POTUS. Kindergarten! By then, the Viet Nam War was history. Pfeiffer could have no personal experience of the Carter Administration, and only a teenager's exposure to the Clinton Administration. He was 16 at the time of the first gulf War.

So, who are Obama's Junior Advisers? Malia and Sasha? Here we have a young, inexperienced President being advised by barely-out-of-college kids. Remember when we used to speak of people who "are still wet behind the ears"? When someone's 'experience' was largely obtained from classes conducted by uber liberal college professors, is he qualified to advise our president?

Forgive me, but I remember Bernard M Baruch, park bench adviser to six presidents. But that was long ago when knowledge gained by experience was something worth passing along, and Presidents were smart enough to seek out such advice.

 

To paraphrase Roger Ebert,

I give thumbs down to Barack Obama's job as president. But, I'd give two thumbs down to all those feminists who supported his election and re-election.

At a recent California fundraiser, President Obama commented that California Attorney General Kamala Harris was brilliant, tough, and the 'most attractive Attorney General in the country'. What a nice thing to say. Reminded me of the comments from Alaskans who, in 2008, bragged that, in Sarah Palin they had the best-looking governor in the United States.

Ah, but, the feminists, those same Obama-supporting women, went nuts over the President's comment! Obama, in his usual pandering, phoned AG Harris and apologized.

Recently there have been women complaining that the female reporters on television, specifically on Fox News Channel, dare to dress and look like women! Good grief!

Around the world, the sale of women's cosmetics comprise a massive industry. The women's fashion industry is likewise a major presence. Big bucks are spent on botox, facelifts, and other beautification measures. Women want to be beautiful. Some succeed. But, don't dare tell a feminist they have succeeded! That would be demeaning!

I appreciate intelligent, industrious women. I also appreciate women who care enough about their appearance to control their weight, and see to their general appearance. And, I enjoy looking at pretty women - be they on television, or wherever.

My wife of over four decades is one of those women. She has long followed a lot of simple little rules, like, 'never leave the house without your perfume'. On our 40th wedding anniversary we went to dinner, she wearing the dress she wore when we were married. I so appreciate her for that.... forty years of caring about her appearance! And, looking at her each morning is still the thrill it was the first morning after our wedding.

Some time ago, I saw a video shot of a woman on a New York street. She was wearing a low-cut dress which exposed a lot of cleavage. She would stand in front of a man. If he looked a her, she exploded in a rage, demanding of him, "Were you staring at my breasts?" the embarrassed man usually stammered some feeble reply.

I always wished I would have been one of those men! I would have replied, "Yes Madam, I was. Female breasts are attractive to men, and I enjoy looking at attractive things. If you don't want me to look, wear a burqa!"

As I said, I appreciate intelligent, industrious women. But, I appreciate them a lot more when they succeed at making themselves pretty!

In Cyprus, they were truthful!

The Cyprus government said "You trusted us and put your money in our banks. But we need it, so we are taking it." Despicable. But truthful.

In America, they said "Put your money in American banks and it is guaranteed safe - via FDIC! Truthful?

Then the Federal Reserve prints billions upon billions more paper dollars. Throwing all that paper money into circulation waters down the value of every dollar - old and new. So, while you are assured the return of every dollar you banked, each of those dollars is now worth a little less.

In Cyprus the rule is straightforward. Bank a dollar. Get only 60¢ back. Or, whatever.

In America, bank a dollar and get a dollar back, however it is now worth only 80¢. Or, whatever.

Two stories

caught my attention this week.

First, Rutgers University basketball coach Mike Rice was fired for what many, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie deemed 'unacceptable behavior'. Seems he got too tough with his players.

Then, there was Pope Francis, in St. Peter's Square, lovingly embracing a small American boy disabled by Cerebral Palsy.

How different. Maybe not.

I am reminded of the Bible scripture in Ecclesiastes 3:1..."To every thing there is  season...". Many do not know that that passage includes many words,  all worth reading, and repeating...

"1. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6. A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Coach Rice was charged with building a winning sports team. You do not accomplish that by "being nice" and calling everyone a winner. You do it by being tough and teaching your players to be tough. That means to concentrate every minute of play - striving ever to instinctively do the right thing and do it better than anyone else. So, he was tough as a boot. How did his players, the recipients of his rough treatment, feel? They had no problems with their coach, they 'understood him'. Translation: he was hell-bent on making us the best basketball team and he was succeeding. Or, "...a time to break down, and a time to build up;".

Pope Francis was showing the world that a disabled child is a most worthy human being, worthy of recognition, of compassion, of special love and tenderness. As in, "...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;".

Do you remember General George S. Patton?  He was a warrior to the core. Patton was certainly a force in the defeat of the Axis Powers, during World War II. How many defenseless, innocent lives may have been saved by General Patton's efforts to end that war? At one point in his career, Patton visited some of his soldiers who had been wounded. One soldier apparently engaged in some whining about his condition and Patton slapped the soldier across the face. The General's way of saying, 'You are a soldier, toughen up and handle it.' Indeed, there is "...a time of war, and a time of peace."

Yes, it has been true for thousands of years and still true today. There is a time to be tender, and a time to be tough. It all depends on the task at hand. Pope Francis is a sweet, caring man, the perfect kind to lead a large religious organization. Coach Rice is a tough disciplinarian, the perfect man to lead a winning sports organization. Both are to be lauded!
 

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?