Why Can't Hip Hop Sing "Songs About Me?"

L.Z. Granderson is an opinion writer on CNN.com that my wife and I occasionally read. Today he wrote a piece called “Why can't country music deal with race?” It’s an interesting question. But is it a valid one? I really don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I believe Mr. Granderson errs on several levels and his column reveals some prejudices of his own.

Granderson recounts how he learned about a particular battle in Vietnam, not in school or from a textbook but rather from a country song by Big and Rich. He lists several popular artists that he enjoys but laments, “…that so few artists will sing about the one glaring aspect of life in the country that greatly defines how many Americans view the genre -- and that is race.”

As I read Granderson’s words, the lyrics to the Brad Paisley song “Welcome to the Future” immediately came to mind.


     I had a friend in school,
     Running-back on a football team,
     They burned a cross in his front yard
     For asking out the home-coming queen.

     I thought about him today,
     Everybody who's seen what he's seen,
     From a woman on a bus
     To a man with a dream.

     He-e-ey...
     Wake up Martin Luther.
     Welcome to the future.

     He-e-ey...
     Glory glory hallelujah.
     Welcome to the future.


Then a few minutes later, I received an email from my wife with a link to the column. She wanted to make sure that I had seen it. We discussed it later when I got home and she said that she had also thought of the Paisley song.

Granderson argues the point that it would be very useful for country music to find the courage to take on the issue of race. He writes,


     I've met some amazing people in the country
     music field: Good folks without a racist bone in
     their body. But they have seen and heard and
     lived through some disturbing things. They, too,
     have a point of view, a story. I wish the music
     would tell it. Not just for the sake of the artists,
     but for the millions of white Americans who come
     from small towns, listen to country music and
     should not be viewed as social pariahs by the rest
     of the nation because of it.

     Acknowledging racism does not perpetuate it but
     rather exposes the disease where it festers and
     hides. And just as "The 8th of November" taught
     me something about the Vietnam War, country
     music can remind people not to allow the
     stereotypical few to unfairly define the whole.

Unfortunately for Granderson, he is guilty of the very thing of which he accuses country music. Apparently he holds some significant stereotypes of his own regarding the South, small town America, and country music. Country music fans are “…viewed as pariahs by the rest of the country…” Really? What an elitist thing to say!

The problem is that today’s country music artists are young and, unlike Mr. Granderson and others who continue to view the world through the prism of race, they have moved on. They feel no need to atone for sins that they didn’t commit.

In his chart topping hit, Songs About Me, Trace Adkins answers the question “Whatever makes you want to sings stuff like that?” by saying, “Cuz they’re songs about me. Songs about lovin’ and livin’ and good-hearted women, and family and God. Yeah they’re songs about me.” Instead of asking why country music doesn’t discuss race and racism, I think L.Z Granderson’s considerable talent as a writer would better serve African Americans and indeed the nation as a whole by asking the question, “Why won’t rap and hip hop artists sing about the things Trace Adkins sings about?”

Reader's comments are welcome and automatically enter you in a drawing to win an all expenses paid trip for two to beautiful Bayonne, New Jersey. - Just kidding!

Hopefully Less Than 1% of the 99%

If you watch the mainstream media or listen to what the Occupy Wall St (OWS) protestors say about themselves, OWS is the 99% as opposed to the riches %1 of Americans. They would also have you believe that they are more representative of ordinary America than the Tea Party Movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Left’s main accusation against the Tea Party is that they are racist. Unfortunately, we either have to believe the opinions of such “notables” as Janeane Garofalo and Sean Penn or blindly accept the interpretation by liberals that any sign that opposes the policies of President Obama is due to the fact that he is an African American. A poster depicting Obama as Hitler or The Joker is unmistakably racially motivated, right? Likewise, liberals tell us that when Tea Partiers say they are for lower taxes and less government, what they really mean is, “We want this black man out of the White House.” Then there was the infamous gauntlet incident where African American representatives were reportedly spat upon while walking through the Tea Party crowd on their way to a meeting on Capitol Hill. Amazingly, despite ubiquitous cell phone cameras and a $100,000 reward offered by blogger Andrew Breitbart, not a single picture or video has ever been produced to prove the charge. Lucky for us, we have an easier time knowing the nature of the OWS crowd because we know who is behind the protest and the protestors themselves tell us in their own words.

On the surface, we might be tempted to simply write this group off as nouveau-hippie and anti-banking types. We might even feel the need to interpret their anti-Wall St banker rantings as code words for “Jew.” However, there is no need since the original organizer of the protest, Adbuster Media Foundation, has a well-documented history of anti-Semitism and several OWS protestors have made it clear in taped interviews that they believe Wall St, banking, and the Federal Reserve are controlled by the “Jews” who send their money back to Israel. Additionally, one of the self-identified leaders in Zuccotti Park said his goal is the violent overthrow of the US government. Nice huh? And what about the appearance that this group are the average folks against the rich? Well ironically several of the protestors have revealed on video that they are actually well-to-do. Some are Ivy League graduate students while others have “Come into quite a bit of money.” Just average “Joes”, right? One of the truly amusing aspects of their demands is that they want government paid tuition and they rail against Wall St for making unfair profits. What they don’t seem to have a problem with is the fact that their schools’ endowments made on average 20+% last year. Funny how it is a problem for Wall St to make big profits but they don’t have a problem with their Ivy League universities doing the same thing. Apparently, it has never occurred to them to demand free tuition from their schools.

Another endearing quality of the Occupy Wall St protestors is their hygiene practices which include not bathing and relieving themselves outdoors, occasionally on the hood of a police car. Just like the Tea Party rallies – not!

Last but certainly not least is the respect the OWS has for the law. Just like the Tea Party, none of the OWS protestors have been arrested. Well that’s half true. The Tea Party has had no arrests. On the other hand, the OWS has had hundreds. And both groups have been completely non-violent. Though this is true, OWS sympathizer groups overseas have rioted.

So who is actually the 99%? Is the OWS crowd really like the average American? Are they like you or are you more like the Tea Party rally attendees? My guess is the latter and the Occupy Wall St crowd is less than 1% of the 99%. For the future of America, I really hope so.

Insight From Guido the Killer Pimp

Following the shooting of Congresswoman Gaby Giffords, President Obama implored the nation for a return to civility. Liberals will try and make the argument that since the President's call to tone down the rhetoric, both the Left and the Right have been equally guilty of less than civil language, however, the speech from the Left has been far more extreme. Here are just a few examples. At a community summit in her district, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said, "As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell." Speaking at a Labor Day address to union members, Vice President Biden, told the AFL/CIO audience, "You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates." So, in VP Biden's mind, anyone who is in favor of "Right to Work" laws is a barbarian. While speaking to a group of Hispanics, the President urged them to "Punish their enemies." He was referring to their "fellow Americans" who want immigration laws enforced.  At a Labor Day union event prior to President Obama addressing the crowd, Teamsters President, Jimmy Hoffa said, "President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march." and referring to Tea Party supporting lawmakers, Hoffa also said, "Let's take these son of a bitches out." Did the President remind Hoffa to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric? Well no. As a matter of fact, when Republicans called for Mr. Obama to denounce Mr. Hoffa's words, the White House released a statement later saying, "The President isn't going to be the language police." Maybe Hoffa merely meant take out as in, "to a nice suburban Detroit steak house like the one where his father was abducted and never seen again." Um, no wait that's no good.  Lastly, Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN) said, “Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me — I’m sorry, Tamron — hanging on a tree.” Carson is an African-American.

So where does all this vitriol come from? A keen bit of insight comes from an unlikely source - Guido the Killer Pimp from the movie "Risky Business." In the movie, Guido, a Chicago pimp, (played by Joe Pantoliano) gives aspiring Princeton University student, Joel, (played by a young Tom Cruise) some sage advice: "Let me give you a little advice so you know. In times of economic uncertainty, never ever f**k with another man's livelihood." And there you have it! We are definitely in times of economic uncertainty and by pushing for lower taxes and limited government, the Tea Party is messing with the livelihood of liberal Democrats and their paid for constituents.

Democrats of course would counter that conservatives and Republicans who mainly make up the Tea Party give tax breaks to the "rich" and "big business" so they also have their paid constituency. Here is where the comparison falls apart. In the case of Democrats, they pay-off their voters with government largess which mainly means other people's money - the socialist redistribution of wealth from the so-called rich to those they believe deserve it more - past and future Democrat voters. Republicans, on the other hand, want Americans to keep more of their own money - the money they earned. Understanding the difference is critical to the survival of our nation.

In the end, socialism will fail as it always has because the Democrats, like all the others who have tried it before them, will eventually run out of other people's money. Given our current debt situation, eventually is already here. Conservatives and Republicans must take back the White House and the Senate in 2012 in order to put a stop to the Democrat Party's socialist agenda and force them and their hand-out constituents to find a new livelihood.

Reader's comments are welcomed.

Junk News; Junk Science

Doctors are scientist so I was troubled when I saw a video clip of Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the NBC chief medical editor, discussing the recent study that rated the United States 41st in infant mortality rate - behind Cuba. It was, to say the least, very short on science.

A somber-faced Snyderman told the equally somber-faced NBC anchor Brian Williams that despite spending more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, our infant mortality rate is worse than that of Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Poland and even Cuba. Further, she reported than the US dropped from 29th place just five years ago. She went on to say that while some states like Washington, Iowa, and Vermont (which she pointed out has universal health care) are doing pretty well, other areas like DC, Maryland, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina are not. So the only metrics this scientist discusses are per capita health care spending and the infant mortality rate. Does she go on to explore other potential factors such as drug and alcohol abuse among pregnant women in the US, American women giving birth later and later in life (which is more risky), more multiple births with corresponding premature delivery and low birth weights as a result of infertility treatment? These are just a few that came to mind to this non-medical scientist. No, she just went on to talk about how we have "taken our eye off the ball" when it comes to newborn health and how intervention is so important. These are both very nice platitudes but hardly science. What she does do is imply that American medicine is bad because we spend too much money and based on this one particular measure, get poor results in return.

So if we "read between the lines" Snyderman believes: 1) All of America should be like Cuba or the state of Vermont and have universal health care; we would spend less money and be so much better off. and 2) The solution to poor performance of a private system is to convert it to a government run system. Using this type of analysis and logic, since we spend the second highest amount per capita of any country on education (behind Switzerland) and our public school students score at the bottom of the list of developed nations in math and science, the solution should be to privatize all primary and secondary education in the US. In neither case would I argue that per capita spending and any one particular outcome are sufficient to draw clear conclusions nor would I propose a 180 degree change of course as a solution.

Dr. Snyderman is a smart woman and she certainly knows that this situation is far more complex than she lets on from her report. This is junk news; junk science and purely political - not something worthy of the chief medical editor of a major news organization. With journalism like this, is it any wonder the public is watching less and less evening news and viewing other scientific news reports from the major media outlets on topics like man-made climate change with an increasingly jaundiced eye? I think our public understands science a bit better than the test scores would have you believe. 

Reader comments are welcome.

The Misconception of Compromise

There is a troubling misconception being propagated by the press and politicians lately that compromise is always a desirable goal and that it is the American way. As a result, many Americans have voiced their opinion that they want the government to work together to get things done. They say they want compromise and that the government is dysfunctional when it can’t come to an agreement. The negotiations over raising the debt ceiling brought these complaints to a crescendo even to the point where Cokie Roberts implied on ABC’s “This Week” that somehow our Constitution is flawed because it makes it difficult for Congress and the President to accomplish anything. I would make the exact opposite argument. The Constitution was precisely crafted to make it difficult to do things and the checks and balances were established for that very purpose.



First, our federal government only has a limited number of Constitutional powers which are referred to as the enumerated powers. According to the Tenth Amendment, everything else is left up to the individual States. Therefore, anything that isn’t one of the enumerated powers or that is controversial is supposed to have a difficult time becoming law due to the checks and balances. Compromise has made it possible to circumvent the checks and balances and enact legislation that Congress has no business acting on. As a result, look where we are today. Instead of the powerful but unobtrusive central government envisioned by the Founders, we have a meddling government that imposes itself into nearly every aspect of the lives of the citizenry and threatens our sacred liberty.



Next, some would argue that America has a long tradition of compromise. However, if you think back to your grade school history or research compromise in US history, you will find that there are really only 3 compromises that occupy a place of prominence in our 235 year history – The Great Compromise that established the two houses of our Congress; The Missouri Compromise which admitted Missouri to the Union as a slave State and Maine as a free State, and The Compromise of 1850 that established which new States added to the Union would be free and which would allow slavery. In these examples, two out of the three compromises were not good and to the contrary were arguably evil. Therefore, to maintain that we have a tradition of compromise and that compromise is a good thing is not supported by the facts.



Lastly, Congress continues to pass bills that are thousands of pages long that no one has read, regarding subjects that they are unqualified to make decisions about, or even have the capacity to anticipate the unintended consequences these bills may have. The most recent and perhaps most egregious example, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care) should have been prevented from becoming law by the system of checks and balances but they were thwarted by compromise and ultimately parliamentary dirty tricks and pay-offs. Fortunately, the checks and balances may have the last word when the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of this legislation and it is overturned.



The ideas that compromise is an unqualified good or that the mechanism of checks and balances preventing bad bills from becoming law is a problem with our Constitution is supported by neither history nor current experience.

Liberal Ideology Undeterred by Reality

Why should we trust the president and the Democrat-controlled Senate when it comes to our current debt/debt ceiling situation? At every turn, Mr. Obama and his liberal allies in Congress place ideology ahead of everything …including reality.

In the depths of our recession, the president said we needed his spending package of nearly a trillion dollars in order to stimulate the economy and keep unemployment below 8%. The result? Today unemployment stands at 9.2% and economic growth is a weak 1.8%. Should anyone be surprised? No, since every time it has been tried, the Keynsian government spending approach doesn’t work. It failed under FDR during the Great Depression; it failed for Japan in the 1990’s and caused its “Lost Decade” and predictably it failed for President Obama.

Moreover, in 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, with the president’s blessing, pressed to raise the minimum wage. Once again, the liberals’ ideology of fairness caused them to ignore warnings that even a first year economics major understands – raise prices (wages are simply the price of labor) above their equilibrium price and the result is a surplus i.e. unemployment. According the US Bureau of Labor, the youth unemployment rate (the unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds) prior to the in July 2009 minimum wage increase was 18.5 percent. By June 2011, that had increased to 21.4%. And who suffered? The very same people the liberals wanted to help – young people and entry-level employees. Once again when ideology takes precedence over reality, the results are predictable. If they bother to report it, the liberal media usually accompanies news like this with the word “unexpected.” Is it really?

To be sure, we are in the midst of a crisis with regard to the debt ceiling but instead of working in good faith with the Republicans to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, the president has used the opportunity to frighten the elderly, demonize the so-called rich and continue to attack American business. Remember “Never let a crisis go to waste?” While the House Republicans have proposed 3 plans now that not only raise the debt ceiling but also help rein in spending in order to actually help solve the underlying problem, the president and the Senate have yet to put a plan on paper. Instead, Mr. Obama advocated a “balanced” approach that called for tax hikes now, an increase in the debt ceiling now and spending cuts in the future. There isn’t a single economic school of thought that prescribes raising taxes in the middle of a recession or during an anemic recovery. In fact, in 2009 President Obama himself said that raising taxes in a recession is irresponsible and come to think of it, while he was a senator, he also called raising the debt ceiling a failure of leadership. Nor does any serious person believe that spending cuts promised for the future will ever materialize. Additionally, the Democrats resorted to the same time pressure tactic that enabled them to push the stimulus package. They established an arbitrary August 2^nd date that the government would potentially have to default on its financial obligations. In order to heighten the anxiety in the country, the president implied that the government might not be able to pay social security benefits or make Medicaid and Medicare payments. Here he is either being deliberately disingenuous or unconsciously admitting that these are his lowest priorities since when forced to cut back, most Americans start at the bottom of their priority list.

Now that it appears that a compromise is unlikely by the artificial deadline, miraculously the Treasury announced tonight it has found enough money to postpone default until the 10th of August. Is it any wonder the public is losing confidence in Mr. Obama and his administration?

I agree with those who are calling for our politicians to act like adults. Where I disagree with liberals is when they contend that Obama is the adult in the room. Allowing one’s ideology to triumph over reality, trump the facts and lead one to deliberately exacerbate a serious situation are not what I consider hallmarks of grown-up behavior. On this, I guess my liberal friends and I will have to agree to disagree.

The Saber Tooth Tiger, the Mammoth, and the Debt Ceiling

What? How can I possibly connect those three disparate items together in an opinion piece? Allow me to explain.

When I was a boy, I loved to read about animals and like many kids, I found prehistoric animals particularly fascinating. For the last several weeks, the debate about raising the debt ceiling has left me with a nagging feeling that I have seen this situation before but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.  As I listened to the various senators, congressmen, Administration officials and political pundits discuss the situation, slowly an image from my boyhood began to come into focus in my mind’s eye. The more conservatives tried to make the case for fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce the size of government and the more their liberal opponents called for raising the debt ceiling and increasing taxes to pay for it, the more our dire economic situation reminded me of a drawing I had seen as a boy. Finally, I had an epiphany and I realized that the image that I was thinking of was of a woolly mammoth suck in a tar pit and on its back is a saber tooth tiger. The picture may have been from the stamp book of prehistoric animals I had or maybe it was from an article about the La Brea Tar Pits. Regardless of the source, I now remember how the mammoth appears to be slowly sinking into the tar and is obviously doomed. The saber tooth tiger is so intent on getting an easy meal, he doesn’t appear to recognize the danger he is in and one gets the impression he eventually becomes a victim of the tar just like the mammoth.

Now getting back to the debt ceiling. Our current economic situation is like the mammoth stuck in the tar. Even though our economy is huge, like the prehistoric pachyderm, it is slowly sinking into a sticky pool of economic tar - $14 trillion in debt – which will eventually completely engulf it and suffocate the life out of it. The liberal Democrats in Congress want to raise the debt ceiling so that they can continue to spend money we don’t have on programs that in many cases, we don’t need. Like the mighty prehistoric cat, they are so focused on getting what they want in the near term that they are ignoring the long-term fate.

Hopefully this is as far as the analogy goes. If conservatives are successful at getting our spending under control and resist raising the debt ceiling, perhaps the United States can avoid ending up in the “La Brea” museum of economic history.

What Was Newt Thinking?

Whether one loves or hates the guy, most would agree that former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is a truly brilliant man. So when I heard that Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday and seemed to characterize Rep Paul Ryan’s budget reduction proposals as right-wing social engineering, I was dumbfounded. I immediately thought, what was he thinking? Not because he was breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment: Thou shall not criticize a fellow Republican but because in an effort to appear to be “fair” by criticizing his own side, he committed a rookie error and was factually incorrect to boot!

By definition, social engineering is a proactive measure where, through the use of laws, taxes, regulations, etc., the government tries to manipulate the behavior of individuals or the population. Therefore, budget cuts that reduce the size, scope and influence of the government cannot legitimately be labeled social engineering.

By bobbling this routine “political ground ball to second”, Speaker Gingrich handed the Democrats a juicy “Two for” – he damaged his own presidential campaign and provided them with a powerful weapon to use against conservative ideas in the future. To be sure, we will see this clip of Gingrich on Meet the Press again and liberals will say, “See! Even Mr. Conservatism himself, Newt Gingrich, calls these cuts right-wing social engineering.”  

Right now the race for the Republican nomination is wide open and there is still a long way to go. The candidates need to avoid future, self-inflicted, gunshot wounds to the foot and concentrate on promoting a positive, pro-growth agenda. They should contrast their proven ideas against President Obama’s failed liberal ideology. And when given the opportunity, they should praise their fellow Republican candidates and point out that any one of them will make a better president than Barack Obama. The nomination will take care of itself!

Whether or not Newt Gingrich’s campaign for the Republican nomination is irrevocably damaged remains to be seen. One thing that is certain is that back-biting among the Republican candidates will leave any potential nominee bloodied and weakened and return the profoundly beatable, Barack Obama, to the White House where he can continue his mission to shepherd the decline of America.

Representative Ryan had it right when asked about his friend Newt’s comment and said, “With friends like that, who needs liberals.”

Moral Development, Taxes, and the Liberal

When I was a midshipman at the Naval Academy, I was required to take a psychology course as part of my leadership training. One subject I found particularly interesting was Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. According to Kohlberg, humans reach their level of moral development by progressing through six identifiable stages. The first stage is characterized by obedience to authority; children understand right and wrong based on what adults (e.g. parents, teachers, etc.) tell them to do. As we mature, most of us move on to the second stage characterized by acting in one’s own self-interest. This is sometimes described as doing what feels good and avoiding what feels bad. The third level is where one seeks to gain the approval of others; often meaning bowing to peer pressure. The fourth stage which Kohlberg believed is the highest level attained by the majority of people is characterized by abiding by the law and living up to one’s duty. Stages five (doing what is best for society and the welfare of others) and six (following higher universal principles and one’s own individual conscience) are attained only by a relative few. From listening to liberals, especially when it comes to their profession that they are willing to pay more in taxes, one would come to the conclusion that they are all operating on level five or six. However, in practice their actions paint a very different picture. This year, April 18^th presented liberals with their annual opportunity to demonstrate their advanced level of moral development and once again they fell short.

I used to be fond of saying if liberals really want to pay higher taxes all they have to do is write an extra check to the US Treasury and I guarantee it won’t be returned. Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that paying more of their “fair share” is actually even easier than that. One pays taxes based on adjusted gross income or AGI which is the sum of all sources of income minus all legitimate deductions. Legitimate deductions are those expenses or activities authorized by the tax code to be itemized and thus used to reduce the amount of taxes one pays. Authorized means allowed not required, so all a patriotic liberal need do in order to pay more of their “fair share” is simply not claim all their deductions. But this causes a real dilemma for liberals. Do they do what is legally right or do they follow their conscience?

Nothing demonstrates this better than the tax return information released by President and Mrs. Obama. The Obama’s reported a combined income of $1,795,614 in 2010 and paid $438,949 in federal income taxes which equates to an effective tax rate of 24.5%. This is far less than the maximum rate of 35% they could have paid had they not taken all their deductions. Did they do anything wrong? No, they obeyed the law! But they also didn’t take the opportunity to do what the president says he believes i.e. that since he is wealthy; he should pay more in taxes.

I was brought up to believe that you “Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.” and that “True character means doing what is right even when no one else is watching.” These ideals were reinforced during my years at the Academy.  So if wealthy liberals feel they should pay more in taxes, they shouldn’t need the laws to be changed in order for them to do what they say is the right thing to do. They should strive for that higher level of moral development, follow their individual conscience and pay the higher taxes they say they believe they owe without having to be coerced by the law.

And while we conservatives will never agree that paying more in taxes to a wasteful government is the right thing to do, we will all certainly applaud our liberal friends’ personal growth.

AMF Osama

Well done to President Obama, the US Military JSOC- especially the Navy SEALS, and the US Intelligence Community!

Bring the Boys (and Girls) Home

Now before you jump to the conclusion that I have suddenly become some sort of anti-war protester, let me explain. I'm talking about EUCOM - the U.S. European Command. We have continued to station thousands of troops in Germany since World War II. Until the demise of the Soviet Union, this was critical because there was a real danger that Russian tank divisions would come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Today though that scenario is highly unlikely. So why do we still have approximately 50,000 troops in Germany? In our current economic situation and considering Germany's reluctance to support the NATO effort in Libya, I assert the money we spend keeping troops in Europe could be better spent elsewhere - like in our own country.

An Internet search reveals that the annual budget for EUCOM is about $3 billion and if the military is a true representation of the American population as a whole, then using the 2008 average annual salary of $54, 124 means the 50,000 military personnel cost another $2.7 billion a year in pay. So we pump about $6 billion a year into the German economy. Why? We have an expeditionary military force which means it is intended to be deployed to fight abroad, not be permanently stationed there. The reality today, especially the political reality, is that any benefit gained by being closer to some potential hotspot is more than countered by the time it takes to make a political decision, build a coalition, or get a UN resolution passed. Once the political challenges have been met, our Navy and Marine Corps (or depending on the situation our Army airborne troops) can be on scene anywhere in the world in two weeks securing ports, landing zones or airfields for follow-on forces. Therefore, troops in Europe are unnecessary.

Instead, let's station the troops we bring back along our border with Mexico or at a minimum, have them perform their field training there. After all, in the last 30 years, our troops have been overwhelming deployed to places that resemble our desert southwest rather than the forests and fields of Germany. Moreover, we have a serious illegal immigration and drug trafficking problem that is concentrated along the Mexican border that requires additional manpower to resolve. 50,000 troops would certainly be very useful in assisting our beleaguered Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Drug Enforcement Agency perform their duties. This is especially true given the fact that the Mexican Drug Cartels are becoming more heavily armed and resemble a military force rather than a criminal organization.

Now before you throw posse comitatus in my face, let me say that this proposal would not violate the law prohibiting the military from performing law enforcement duties as long as the troops are accompanied by law enforcement personnel who would do any actual detaining or arresting if required. However, if confronted by narco-terrorists equipped with military-style weaponry, our personnel would finally have the firepower to respond effectively.

Redeploying our military personnel from Germany to the border areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas makes sense from an economic, political, military and homeland security perspective. For once, let's make a decision that would solve several of our problems at once in a straight forward, common sense way.

Will Lincoln Get An Extra Paragraph?

A few years ago there was a controversy over the content of history books used in the California public school system. Seems that while the text contained pages devoted to the Ku Klux Klan, there was only one paragraph on Abraham Lincoln. This preposterous lack of proportion was an obvious effort by those who have contempt for the country and love to portray America as a terrible, racist place. Since the left controls most of the education establishment in not only California but most of the country, it is clear who was responsible.

Now there is a new controversy regarding how history will be taught in California. The State legislature is considering a law making it mandatory to teach "gay history" in the public schools. The excuse is this will help teach tolerance and stop bullying. Once again, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to figure out what end of the political spectrum is championing this brilliant idea.

Look, I don't think the fact that some figures from history may have been gay should be ignored but I also don't believe that is reason enough for it to be a major part of the curriculum, mandated by law - acknowledge it "yes" but don't highlight it. This action in California may have far reaching consequences. Because California is usually a bell weather State for the rest of America, if this left coast proposal ends up becoming law, expect other States to follow.

There is an up side to all this though. Periodically, one historian or another revisits the rumors that Lincoln may have been either bi-sexual or secretly gay. So who knows? Maybe as a result of California's actions, Abraham Lincoln will end up with two whole paragraphs in new history books!

Cartoon Time



What Has Saddam Been Up to Lately?


 

 

Jamie Gorelick? Please Not Again!

I had been working on several other topics for this blog when I learned about this news so I immediately shifted gears. The term of Robert Mueller, the longest serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover, will end this fall and the Obama administration is assembling its list of possible successors. Rumor has it that one of the names being considered is Jamie Gorelick and if true, it would demonstrate a stunning lack of judgement even for this administration.

If the name Jamie Gorelick doesn't ring a bell, let me refresh your memory. Gorelick is a longtime Washington Democratic insider and political interloper who has moved back and forth between high profile government and private sector positions for years. As a Justice Department official, Gorelick was the co-author of a memo that resulted in restrictions known as "The Wall" which prevented government agencies from sharing information. As a consequence, the FBI and the CIA were unable to share critical intelligence regarding the activities of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attack that may have helped our government "connect the dots" and quite possibly prevent the single largest attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 Commission cited "The Wall" as one of the most significant factors contributing to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11.

If that isn't enough, Ms. Gorelick was a Vice Chairmain of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored entity responsible to Congress for maintaining stability, liquidity, and affordability in the housing and mortgage markets. Under her leadership for which she received a reported $26 million dollars over a 4 year period, Fannie Mae was the subject of a multi-billion dollar accounting scandal that made it appear to be financially sound when in fact it was in serious trouble. Ultimately, these troubles contributed to the housing crash in 2006. Amazingly, Ms. Gorelick receive a nearly $800,000 bonus for her performance!

As a result of these two catastrophes, Gorelick has been dubbed "The Mistress of Disaster." Personally, if I found out that Jamie Gorelick was booked on the same cruise or flight as I was, I'd change my reservation. But don't misunderstand, I'm not saying she shouldn't be involved with the FBI. I just think she should be the subject of one of its investigations, not a candidate as its director.

The Biggest Joke of the Week!

At the beginning of the week, I was sure I had heard the best joke that I was going to hear all week. The joke goes like this.

                   Question: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
                   Answer: Enough to kill Two and a Half Men.

Turns out I was wrong. Though I find this joke to be pretty funny, there was an even bigger joke waiting to be told: Congresses' budget cut proposals. What were the proposals?

Well, House Republicans sent a proposal to cut $61 billion from the budget which the Democrat-led Senate  promptly rejected. Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), bemoaned the mean-spirited and draconian cuts that would defund such things as National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) and the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Reid went on to cited the annual Cowboy Poetry Festival in northern Nevada as, what I can only assume, he believes to be the best example of the kinds of critical programs that would be lost due to the cuts. But wait, that wasn't the joke. The joke is that $61 billion is less than 2% of the $3.7 trillion budget. Now that my friends is a real joke. It gets better though. Then, the Senate Democrats sent their own proposal of "prudent and reasonable" cuts to the House where the Republican majority defeated it. The total amount of cuts the Democrats were able to identify - $4.5 billion which ("Are you sitting down?") is just a little over 1/10th of a percent of the budget. What both of these proposals amount to are essentially "rounding errors" when compared to the total size of the budget.

So, one week - two big jokes. The only problem is that, while the Charlie Sheen joke was at least witty, the big budget joke is nothing to laugh at. Our politicians better get serious! 

Time for a New kind of BRAC - Let's Call It PRAC!

What is BRAC? For those not acquainted with the term, BRAC stands for Base Realignment and Closure and is a government commission that is charged with determining what military facilities can either be closed or realigned in order to save money. The first round took place in 1988 and there have been 5 rounds to date with another planned for 2015. The idea for a commission was to have independent commissioners who would be able to render their decisions without political concerns.

So what do I mean by PRAC? Well we learned last week that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) identified between $100-$200 billion in overlapping, wasteful, or duplicate federal programs. According to the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the report, the GAO found that there are:

• 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws
• more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless 
• 80 programs for economic development
• 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality
• 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation
• 47 for job training and employment; and
• 56 to help people understand finances.

These are just a few examples of our government's bloated bureaucracy. Not only is there all this duplication but many of these programs have never been evaluated to determine their effectiveness!
So by PRAC I mean Program Realignment and Cancellation which would be an independent commission to to identify duplication, determine program effectiveness, and ultimately determine which programs should be eliminated, consolidated or left alone.

Although the goals of many of these programs appear to be noble, it seems very unlikely that the duplication is justified. Even if all that is accomplished by "PRAC" is consolidation, the savings realized from eliminating the administrative costs of so many separate programs would be, without a doubt, substantial and perhaps this could be accomplished while preserving the portion of their budgets that is actually spent helping citizens and improving our society.

We've got to start somewhere because if we don't, our annual budget deficits and national debt will destroy the country and threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Isn't "PRAC" a proposal that both conservative and liberals would agree is the right thing to do?

Fiscal Conservatism Is Enough

A conservative can be a fiscal conservative, social conservative or both. As I reflect on the future of conservatism in America, especially in the run up to the 2012 elections, it occurs to me that the focus of conservatism needs to be on the fiscal aspect of the movement. Our current economic situation demands greater fiscal responsibility so, out of absolute necessity, this is where the emphasis must be. Only through smaller government and more responsible spending will our nation return to a path toward a strong economy and as an intended consequence, bring back a more traditional, socially conservative America.

While working on this entry, I heard Rush Limbaugh during his commentary last Monday criticize those at last week's CPAC convention who were advocating that the conservative movement give up on social conservatism. Though I am not one of those conservatives, I also disagree with Rush. I strongly feel that we need those of all conservative stripes in the movement but we must chose our strategy carefully. In the arena of ideas, the path toward conservative victory, both fiscal and social conservatism, is via fiscal means. It is the power of the purse strings that will ultimately guide the country back to its conservative roots.

Liberals depend on taxes and government spending to further their agenda and government largess is the lifeblood of their ideology. Without it, their social engineering policies will be starved of the "oxygen" they need to survive. If conservative candidates for office in 2012 focus on limited government and controlling government spending but do so without alienating social conservatives, they will stand a much better chance of being elected. They can do this by campaigning on a platform that calls for limiting the role of government to those functions enumerated in the Constitution which is a far less emotionally charged approach and will make conservative candidates more appealing to a broader swath of American voters.

Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, conservatives will be able to retake control of the Senate and White House in 2012 and along with their counterparts in the House, will begin passing responsible legislation that will restore America's economic health and by doing so, realign the nation's moral compass - a win-win for both fiscal and social conservatives.

Chris Matthews' Knowledge of US History is PowerPoint Thin

MSNBC's Chris Matthews used Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) address to an Iowa Tea Party group as an opportunity to, not only bash her personally, but to provide the perfect capstone to the Left's several week long campaign mocking the new Republican House majority for their show of reverence for the US Constitution. Matthews called Bachmann a "balloon head" for her assertions that the Founders worked to end slavery and the Constitution gave the nation the ability to eventually do away with its "original great sin." In typical "enlightened" liberal fashion, he pointed to the clause in the Constitution counting Negro slaves as 3/5th of a person as evidence of the racist nature of America and the Civil War as proof of how inadequate the document was for dealing with the problem of slavery. In doing so however, Matthews demonstrated more than just his contempt for Bachmann, the country and its history: he showed his inability to analyze anything beyond the simple facts.

When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.

While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.

To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.

The Return of the Dodo

In the late 16th century, European sailors visiting the island of Mauritius encountered a flightless bird called the dodo. It was said that the dodo was so stupid and so lacking in the instinct for self-preservation that it would waddle up to the sailors who easily killed them for food. By the middle of the 17th century, the dodo was extinct. Over the years, the word "dodo" has become synonymous with being dim-witted and it has only been recently that scientists and historians, examining the accounts of the bird, have determine that, contrary to popular belief, the dodo was actually a swift runner that fled into the jungle to escape their foreign human predators. In reality, it was what came along with the humans - dogs, cats, rats, and pigs - that preyed upon the birds and especially their eggs and young in their ground nests which ultimately led to the demise of the dodo.

Today there is an animal that deserves the reputation unjustly given to the dodo - the modern American liberal. The American left is constantly on the lookout for any group bent on the destruction of the United States and our way of life. Beginning with the Communist Revolution in Russia, American liberals have embraced ideologies that are antithetical to the ideals of their own country and this continued with the rise of Nazi Germany when many prominent Americans such as Joseph Kennedy Sr and Charles Lindbergh seemed to sympathize with the Nazis. The liberal fondness for all things anti-American was sustained throughout most of the late 20th century by the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Overlapping the last ten years or so of Soviet communism,  anti-American radical Islam began a rapid ascent which came to the forefront of the American psyche with the horrific events of September 11th. America was blissfully unaware that we were at war with an ideology that is wholly incompatible with our society and way of life. In hindsight, we were terribly naive as there were plenty of indicators and in fact, the radicals made their intentions known to those paying attention.

Unfortunately, American liberals, out of a sense of misplaced fairness, inexplicable national self-loathing  or blind political correctness, refuse to acknowledge radical Islam for the deadly serious threat to our way of life that it is. They insist that the political right or "radical Christianity" pose the same threat to the country as radical Islam.  In their minds, it makes sense to expend scarce resources to give the same level of scrutiny to an eighty-five year old woman from Iowa when she boards an airplane as it does a twenty-five year old, male, Yemeni exchange student.

These tendencies have resulted in a serious defect in the instinct for self-preservation in liberals and one that, if not corrected will lead them, if not our entire nation, down the same path to extinction as the dodo. This time around however the word "dodo" would be aptly applied.

Amazing Coincidence?

Yesterday I began listening to the audio book, "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis which is about the subset of America's Founding Fathers - Adams (John and Abigail), Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington during my morning commute. Just as I inserted the first CD in my car stereo, I looked up and saw a bald eagle fly over the road leading into my neighborhood. An amazing coincidence? I'd like to think of it as a sign.

Gas Prices on the Rise! Surprised? You Shouldn't Be!

According to the AAA, the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has risen from $2.86 less than two months ago to $3.06 today. What is going on? Traditionally, gasoline prices fall after the summer driving season and bottom out in mid-winter. Why then have prices been going up?  The answer is QE II. No, not Her Majesty the Queen of England but the second round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve.

On November 3rd, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would begin buying long-term Treasury bonds from the government in an operation called quantitative easing in order to increase the money supply and thus spur the lagging economy. Since this was the second time the Fed was trying this, it was dubbed QE II. But where does the money to buy the bonds come from? The answer is nowhere or in other words right out of thin air! The news media sometimes refers to this as "printing money" but in reality, the Fed doesn't actually print the money it just changes the balance in its checkbook and ... poof, like magic, more money. Don't we all wish we could do that!

Wait! What does this have to do with the price of gasoline? Glad you asked! Gasoline is one of the most price sensitive commodities so the price of gasoline gives us the first signs of inflation. But how does the increase in the money supply cause inflation? Another excellent question! A rise in the general price of goods and services is what most of us understand as inflation. However, this doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't give us the how or why. Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, the value of money decreases and consumers have to pay more for the same items.

In June of 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the misery index (unemployment rate + the rate of inflation) peaked at nearly 22 and it is currently hovering around 11. (http://www.miseryindex.us/) Will one of the legacies of this flailing presidency end up being a return to a Carter-era misery index level? With the help of this Fed and its chairman, it just might!