Winning: A Lost Strategy

Whatever happened to the will and desire to win. We exhibit those traits at our sports events, but certainly not in the political arena.

This small tribute to Jesse Helms celebrates his conservatism. Jesse was not interested in compromising just for the sake of political gain. He had his principles and whether you agreed with him or not, he could be reliable in the way he dealt with an issue. A proponent of smaller, less oppressive government and individual freedom were his hallmark. He presented his issues with backbone and stuck to his guns to either win or lose. No compromises for Jesse! Other than Ted Kennedy, I cannot think of another with the determination to see his point of view prevail. That mindset is sorely missed today. God speed Jesse, may you come to rest in Conservative heaven.

I cringe whenever I hear the word compromise. No matter if the issue is Republican or Democratic, the spirit and terms of the issue should remain intact. But the process of 'compromise' waters down any hope of letting an issue stand or fall on its merits. Compromise is one of the ways that both sides buy into an idea. It is a way of spreading the blame so that neither party is injured if bad or that both sides can take credit for if the idea is a success.

The problem with the compromising is that we never get to test the issue as first proposed. Sometimes poison pills are inserted into legislation that has the appearance of being a good idea if it appears that one side or the other will be able to claim success. Either way, the American people are cheated out of being able to judge whether their Congressman or Senator is a winner, loser, or just another ambitious politician.

The whole idea of compromises by today's standard are designed to help incumbents win re-election.

Cheers,

-Robert-

We Need a Guest Worker Program Now

The longer we put off instituting a guest worker program; the chances of amnesty for the Illegals in this country go up.

Let us face the fact that we need the workers. What we do not need is granting citizenship to millions of unassimilated migrants. But both of our political parties want the situation to continue. The Democrats see future voters if they can, by hook or crook, pass legislation that would make them eligible. The Republicans, on the other hand, have many supporters that like the status quo because they get cheap labor without having to pay the usual taxes and benefits for them.

I say enough of the political posturing over this issue and think of what is best for the country. American citizens are tired of supporting these Illegal immigrants without them having to pay their share in their upkeep. The American taxpayer pays dearly to educate and furnish health services for these people. Not to mention the security angle of not knowing who is in the country and where they are located.

In a previous article, I stated that there are two things that Congress does exceptionally well and that is 'argue' and 'nothing'. There is no body of Government better at doing those two things. Will Rogers had a line that pretty much sums up the Congress; "When they make a joke, it becomes a law, and when they pass a law it is a joke."

A guest worker program would do a lot:

1.) It would allow us to know who is in the country.

2.) Those in need of laborers would have them legally.

3.) Reduce the tax burden on the American taxpayer.

4.) The now 'Legal' guest workers would have status so that they do not live in constant fear of deportation.

5.) A guest worker program would prevent granting citizenship to millions of unassimilated people.

No, I do not believe that there is a good solution to the problem, but a guest worker program properly organized could be a real benefit to both the worker and the American Citizen.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Stampede to Embrace Global Warming

It seems that everybody wants to get in on the gold rush of 'Global Warming'. Each of the participants has their own reason, none of which really involves global warming.

Global warming is just the vehicle used to skin more money out of the believing public. There's gold in them thar global warming hills.

But most of the gold is going to the foreign energy brokers that have a strangle hold on this nation. Currently we are paying foreign suppliers over $700 billion per year for their oil. That is four times what we are spending in Iraq. These foreign energy brokers then purchase U.S. Securities and now own a significant part of our treasury and private businesses.

It is sad to think that we are selling our country down the river for a plentiful product we have here at home. We cannot develop our resources because of the crusaders who are out to save the world by bankrupting this nation, and all for a bogus supposition.

The disciples all see a benefit in supporting the false theory of manmade global warming.
1.) The scientists who advocate for the theory are rewarded handsomely with research money.

2.) The Government is desperately trying to slow the hemorrhage of money to foreign interests.

3.) Environmentalists want a transition to alternative fuels that are not able to compete with the more efficient and cheaper oil.

4.) The public wants to stop the predicted disasters from global warming.

5.) The traders want to buy and sell carbon credits.

6.) The farmers want to plant and market the bio-fuels that are being hyped.

Only a partial list but you get the idea. On the surface, it all looks like a win-win for everybody. As usual though, it is the details and poor planning that kills you.

First, there is such a thing called air-pollution. It is important to not confuse pollution with global warming. Pollution is real. Is pollution causing the planet to warm? No!

At the present, fuel alternatives are all expensive, and not in sufficient supply to provide this nation's energy needs now or in the foreseeable future. We can phase out fossil fuels but an abrupt cessation of fossil fuel use would be disastrous for this nation. If no fossil fuels were being used in the world, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not change much. Humans are not the big contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere. That dubious honor belongs to the oceans of the world. What do we do, ban oceans?

Those little puffs of white you see in the sky are the valves that turn the CO2 production up and down. Clouds are the natural umbrellas for the earth. They reflect the Sun's radiant energy back into space before it has a chance to warm anything. The less cloud cover, the less shade, and therefore more radiant energy hits the Earth. During periods of little cloud cover, the Earth warms. As the ocean temperature rises, they give off more CO2. The rising ocean temperatures are responsible for the majority of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature; that increase is a result of rising ocean temperature.

But the fix is in to curtail us from using the world's cheap and abundant energy. By not addressing our supply of fossil fuel needs until there is a good alternative, we are putting our nation in grave danger. The issue is not small. We stand a chance to lose this nation if we continue to pursue this faulted notion of manmade global warming and ignore energy independence with regard to our domestic supply of energy.

The bandwagon is filling up with entrepreneurs who see a benefit in embracing the theory of manmade global warming. But the euphoria will not last long after we kill the greatest nation the world has ever known. Because we refuse to develop the energy in our country, we will become just another bankrupt nation. Can you see the day that you will be chasing after animals for dung to burn so that you can have some warmth? Our 'clean energy' will be too expensive to use. Our competitive edge will have been lost along with most of our jobs as we bask in our expensive 'clean energy'. And by the way, the Earth will still have cycles of CO2 rises and falls no matter what becomes of America.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Phasing out God and Christianity

Liberalism cannot exist with the existence of God. Belief in God represents another authority to compete with, so the Liberals have sought to remove God and especially Christianity from the public arena.

On June 17,1963, the Supreme Court of the United States kicked reverential Bible reading and prayer recitation out of the nation's public schools. The Madalyn Murray (O'Hair) Murray v. Curlett decision gave preferential standing to Atheism over Christianity. In Murray's petition they contended that the reading of a verse from the Holy Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer put a premium on belief in God over a non-belief in God. Here is a quote from that decision:

"The petition particularized the petitioners' atheistic beliefs and stated that the rule, as practiced, violated their rights "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith."

More importantly, that Supreme Court decision rejected "majority rule" in favor of rule by edict from the Supreme Court. In one decision, the Supreme Court decided that the American people had no voice as to whether they could give thanks to God within their educational institutions.

The Liberals seized the moment with that decision to outlaw any invocations at school functions, the use of school facilities by neighborhood churches, and any references to God in the classroom.

This new definition of separation of Church and State gave impetus to other Liberal wedges against religion regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments, Nativity Scenes, and the rejection of the name Christmas, a national holiday.

To the extent of Liberal 'tinkering' with what is taught in our public schools, the quote by Patrick Henry is just one example. The "new" textbooks quote Henry's famous line, "give me liberty or give me death", but no longer include the full statement giving context to those words. The full quote, no longer permitted in the History textbooks leaves no doubt as to how the founding fathers felt about their faith.

Quote:
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

The following year, 1776, Patrick Henry wrote this, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

With cool calculation, the Liberals (Democrats) have sought to not only revise history but to replace any authority that dares to compete against them. Their God is the Government (as long as they control it). In their elitist view, people are not competent enough to conduct their lives without the express permission from the government.

Freedom is at stake in this election. Do not be absorbed with the hoopla over the Presidential election. That is only a cape dangled in front of you much as the Matador uses on the bull for distraction. The Liberals do not want you to focus on the more important races for the Congress. The Democrats are more focused on winning a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress than winning the Presidency. They could care less who is the President as long as they get that super majority in the Legislature. With a veto-proof majority, it does not matter who the President is. That super-majority will guarantee passage of the Liberal agenda without any opposition. That super majority does not have to be all Democrats. There are a lot of liberal Republicans who see the world the same as the Democrats and for political reasons will vote with the Democrats on a lot of issues.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrats: Back to Pasture

As long as Barack Obama remains in contention for the Democratic nomination, his presence is helping to create a miracle in the Republican Party. The Gaffs, semi-lucid statements, associations, and the expectations of the Black community combine to reunite the Republican Party as never before. His non-scripted responses are nothing but pure gold for future use by the Republicans. The only fly in the ointment for the Republicans is a weak Republican candidate who will not take the fight to Obama. But he may not have to.

Obama's surrogates are out demeaning McCain and his service, á la General Wesley Clark. This West Point valedictorian has highlighted a mean spirit in the Democrats campaign. With plausible deniability, Obama can disassociate himself from the comments, with no real action to prevent further incidents. It is an old Clinton trick to get others to say what the candidate cannot say. Once the statement is out in the public arena, it becomes a life unto itself. All the candidate has to do is condemn the statement as if he were as pure as the driven snow.

Then there are indications of Black expectations that work against Obama in the general election. One such incident was the episode in Denver Colorado at the start of the State of the State address by the Mayor of Denver. They hired a popular Jazz singer to sing the National Anthem to start the program and she comes out and sings a hybrid version with words from the Black National Anthem. Most people were outraged, and some were downright angry over the incident. The incident only underscores the point that the Black community holds the election of Obama near and dear to their hearts. The race baiters in the Black community thrive by selling Blacks on ideas such as Black Reparations, and government care from cradle to grave. Whenever White people object to this kind of rhetoric, they get condemned as racists. The Black population looks to Obama as the man who will transport them to the Promised Land and have even threatened violence if he is not the Democratic nominee.

The Liberal Left cannot help themselves as they salivate over the prospect of a Democratic victory in November. But more and more Democrats are being turned off by the prospect of an Obama candidacy. The polls also reflect Obama's weakening position. His attempt to move to the center is starting to rile his Liberal base, and if he loses a portion of the liberal base to Ralph Nader, it would be calamitous for Obama. Nader is a Liberal alternative who objects to the war in Iraq.

The Democratically controlled Congress may also be in for a fight. Their stand on energy policy would bankrupt the nation and the public is starting to sense that the Republicans have the clearer vision for energy independence and lower gas prices. One of the stupidest arguments that the Democrats make for not drilling is that it will take 'ten years' for the new oil to come on line. Even if you give them that argument, you would think that ten years from now that Americans will appreciate the fact that we helped with their energy needs. It is certain that we sure could have used the oil development that President Clinton vetoed.

This election cycle does have promises of being a corker. Even the polls for the Congress are not reliable indicators of what is going to happen in November. I for one will enjoy the show.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Indecisive Politicians

Congress does two things well, argue and nothing. The time has come to abandon the crafty indecision that plagues our politicians. Members of Congress and the Senate cannot and will not hunker down and do what is best for America.

If they decide this way, it might offend groups that oppose the issue. If they decide that way, another group is offended. So onto the fence we go. Neither hot nor cold, but the proverbial tepid that gets nothing done. Whatever happened to conviction and real belief in how to do things?

The answer lies somewhere in the motivation of the politicians. They may want to help solve problems, but most are beholding to special interest. Getting re-elected is the main motivator for most politicians. They rely on and cater to those who supply the money for their re-election. Influence pedaling is pervasive in Washington.

Most of what this influence pays for does not amount to much if separated into individual items. But when collected together in one piece of legislation, these small favors amount to a whopping bite out of the taxpayer.

Larger decisions favored by a majority of the people languish in indecision. Powerful Lobbies exert the pressure on politicians about issues they do not support. For most issues, it is the kiss of death. The politicians do not bite the hand that feeds them. For instance, the decision on building new facilities for producing electricity with nuclear power should be a slam-dunk. But the environmentalists oppose nuclear power and their Lobby is powerful in Washington, so the issue languishes. Even though nuclear power is a safe, clean and efficient, the opponents raise the same old questions that stopped nuclear in its tracks in the U.S. many years ago.

From a logical point, you would think that the Congress could set up a panel of experts from the industry mandated to come up with solutions to the issues raised by environmentalists. I for one am not willing to concede that they have no valid point of view. But the issues should not be sitting and gathering dust because the politicians are afraid to address them.

I note that both Presidential candidates endorse the idea of nuclear power. However, Obama only supports it if---. A person with no convictions can always come up with a reason for not doing something, but on the issue of nuclear power; we have had 40 years to solve those problems. There is probably no perfect answer to the problem with the nuclear waste, but there is no perfect answer to most of society's problems. If we keep waiting around for the perfect solution to any problem, we will never progress from where we are now. It is time for the Legislature to act and stop the merry-go-round of endless nothing about this issue.

The nuclear issue is just one of the many problems facing this country that needs decisive action. The social security issue, the ANWR drilling issue, new refineries, and improving our trade agreements are just a few of the issues that need attention.

It is also time to put term limits on the table. If ever a Governing Body needs to flush itself every few years, it is our Legislature. We need to turn on the green light and end the continuous yellow light that plagues Congress.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Unskilled Labor: The Revolving Door

For those among us who want to bestow citizenship on the migrant workers from south of the border, you may want to reconsider. Put yourself in the shoes of the migrant who has entered this country illegally by sneaking across the border.

In the first circumstance with little or no border control, the migrant has no problems and can advance in the job hierarchy. Meaning that he will eventually be able to get ahead and advance from having to do those labor-intensive jobs that brought him here. After all, he is no different from anybody else. Nobody who has ever had to stay bent over working the fields or work in the hot baking sun all day while building roads want to do that stuff for longer than necessary. It is hard, demanding work with very little compensation for the toil involved. But as he moves up, in his wake, he leaves those jobs open and the only way to fill them is for more willing migrants to steal across our borders. The result is a perennially open job market for those who will do those grueling jobs.

Amnesty that allows citizenship also has its downside. Do you as an American really think that these new citizens will choose to not advance into jobs that are more reasonable? What happens to the low pay, hot, hard working jobs that these new citizens vacate? What happens to the families that these new citizens left behind? Would it be fair to deny a man his wife and children? Yes, amnesty is a slippery slope that portends greater consequences than just allowing citizenship to those already here. What I rail against is policies that are short sighted and not carefully considered.

It is incredible that the United States cannot set up work centers along the border to match employees with employers. The employers would be responsible for returning the worker to the employment center at job completion. Each worker would get a temporary work visa clearly delineating the job and the employer. We really need the workers so closing our border to willing hands is not an issue. A sensible guest worker program demands strict policy concerning their stay. Abolishment of Sanctuary Cities, a tamper-proof ID card, and a willingness to enforce the rules for guest workers are all necessary for the worker program to succeed. Even then, loopholes such as employers that try to keep the good workers will be a continuous battle. But with an effort, we could cut way back on the institutionalized fraud of today's system.

In my meandering thoughts, I am beginning to wonder if the American people have the desire to save their country. It seems that more and more are willing to blame America for all of the world's problems. It is just sad to hear some of the comments made for political points.

Cheers,

-Robert-