The one phrase which ought to make your blood run cold:
"Trust us, we're from the government."
That is what they seem to be saying each year when I get my "Social Security Statement" in the mail.
They seem to be presenting the situation as good new/bad news.
Let's start with the good news.
If I keep earning what I am earning now and keep paying into social security at the current payroll tax rate, I will be eligible for payments of $2,150 a month at my full retirement age of 67.
Being an analytical kind of person, I want to know how that compares to saving the same amount of money in my own account. I worked up a spread sheet which determines how much I would accumulate if I saved that payroll tax at a given interest rate, and how much income I could draw from that when I retire. Then I found the interest rate which would result in the same income that the Social Security Administration is promising to provide. This interest rate is the effective rate of return on my money that Social Security is paying over the course of my lifetime.
The effective rate of return provided by Social Security is -0.426%. Before inflation. In other words, for every dollar I pay in, I am assured to get less than a dollar back, thirty years from now when a dollar won't be worth nearly what it is today. Assuming the inflation continues at a typical rate of 3.5%, the value that I expect to get back from social security is less than one third of what I put into it. They are taking enough to buy three loaves of bread today and promising to give me enough to buy one loaf in 2038.
In real terms, this is roughly a -4% rate of return. Without taking any risk, you can get a +1% real return using inflation indexed treasury bills.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that we already know that the government can not deliver what it has promised.
By 2017, Social Security will begin paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes. This is a problem because Social Security is operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. The money I pay into the system each week does not go into an account to be invested for my future benefit. They take my money, turn around, and hand it to a retired person who is currently collecting benefits. The "Social Security Trust Fund" does not contain real money. It consists entirely of government Treasury Bills, or IOUs the government has written to itself. To understand this concept, pull out a piece of paper and write "I owe myself $1,000,000." Then sign it for good measure. Congratulations! You're a millionaire! The government will have to come up with some real money to make good on those IOUs, and where does the government get its money? From the taxpayers. That means we can expect a higher tax burden in the future.
But that is not the end of it. In 2041, three years after I reach retirement age, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. According to this year's statement, there will only be enough money to pay about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled payments. So the bad news is that they can't possibly deliver on the good news, which really wasn't that good to begin with.
In 1935 the Government asked us to trust them with our retirement. It is clear that they were not trustworthy stewards of the trillions of dollars entrusted to them. Now they want us to trust them with our medical care. Based on their track record, I say hold tight to your wallet and run for your life.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
How to buy a car
For a lot of people, buying a car is a matter of scanning the ads or walking around on a car lot until you find the nicest looking car you can afford. Then maybe you try to talk the smiling salesman down on the price a bit, sign the papers, and drive home. There are several problems with this approach. First, you don't know that you are getting the best car available. Secondly, you are almost certain to pay too much. Maybe thousands too much.
I have gotten the car buying process down to a science, and I am going to share the secrets with you, free of charge.
The first step is research. Start by deciding what your requirements are for your vehicle. Are you looking for a little 2-door, a truck, or an SUV? What are the priorities: comfort, appearance, reliability, cost, fuel efficiency, safety, etc. Scour the Consumer Reports auto issue. I start with the ratings for the category I am interested in. Stay near the top of the ranking. Narrow your selection down to three or four vehicles which meet your needs and fit your budget. Look at what edmunds.com has to say about them, including the road test reviews and the total price to own analysis.
Now go to the dealer and test drive your top two or three vehicles. Tell the salesman up front that you are just looking today and plan to buy on a later day. Don't let the salesman pressure you to buy on the spot. If he does, walk away. Any legitimate deal he can offer today will still be available next week. When you look over the cars and drive them, look for differences which cause you to prefer one vehicle over the other. Take notes.
Based on all of this information, pick two vehicles which best fit your requirements. Decide on the trim level and options you want. Price it on Edmunds.com and write down the invoice price as well as the MSRP, and look for any dealer incentives going on. The invoice minus dealer incentives is the dealer's cost for the vehicle. Your goal is to get the car for as close to that price as possible.
The dealer likes to get you into their "closing room" where they can put the heat on you and strong-arm you into buying. In that room, they are in control and you have to meet their demands to reach a deal. They will play games like "If I could get you this car for sixteen thousand, would you buy today?" He knows that he won't sell it for that low of a price, but he wants to get you negotiating on his terms. We are going to turn the tables on them, using the power of the Internet.
First of all, sign up for a free email account with gmail or hotmail or something like that. I use this email address because I know that I will keep getting email from the dealers for years, and if it is not going to my real address I can just ignore it.
Go to the dealer's web site and look for the car you have decided on. Email the dealer and ask for their best price on that car. Give them the VIN so that they know exactly which car you are talking about. Do this with every dealer within a hundred miles of where you live. When I was buying my last car, I emailed 14 dealers. Take the lowest price and ask all of the others to beat it.
Now instead of playing by their rules, they have to meet your expectations to make a deal. In their closing room they will make you name the price, which turns it into a winning game for them, but now you force them to name a price. You can get all of the dealers in your area bidding against each other. In some cases I have been able to get within $200 of dealer cost with this method. In other cases I got lower than dealer cost.
I like to arrange my financing through my credit union, so I apply in advance.
If the best offer is at the dealer you want to buy from, just go there and buy the car. In my case, the best offer was from a dealer who required that I sign a binding mandatory arbitration agreement, an onerous arrangement in which the buyer agrees to settle any disputes by means of arbitration through a mediator chosen by the dealer. I decided to buy elsewhere. You should ask your local dealer if they require that you sign an arbitration agreement. If they do, ask them why you would do business with a company who requires that you sign away your right to legal recourse if the dealer commits fraud, negligence, or even breaks the law. There is no valid reason for a business to refuse their customers the protection provided by the legal system that we all pay for.
Before you go to the dealer, have your approach in mind. When I went to the Honda dealer to buy our Odyssey, I told the salesman, "I really liked the new Sienna better, but the Toyota dealer wouldn't work with me on the price." The message was clear: this car isn't my first choice, I'm not tied to it, and I'll walk away if you don't give me a good deal. He accepted my first offer without any argument.
Once you have picked the dealer you would like to do business with, take your best offer to them and ask them to match it. In my experience, they usually will match it. They might grumble a bit about selling a car at such a thin profit margin, but remember that the dealer will not sell a car if it is not in their interest to do so. If they won't match the price, go somewhere else. I walked out of a dealer when I was buying my last car, and an hour later the salesman called me back and accepted my offer.
Don't let them talk you into a lease. For almost everyone, a lease is the most expensive option in the long term. If the dealer pushes it, he is not looking out for your best interest -- they make more money on leases than they do on sales. Their cost comparison is misleading because it doesn't account for the time value of money. If you want to see the flaws in their math, ask me and I'll explain it.
Once you have agreed on a price, the dealer will try to pad their profit through financing and other worthless add-ons. You don't need their paint protection package, underbody protection, fabric protection, or VIN etching. Don't be fooled into paying for it. They'll want hundreds for those things, but a can of Scotch Guard costs about $4. Don't pay more than that for any of these rip-offs. Look at the bill of sale and make sure that you know what all they are charging you for, and double check their math. They are notoriously bad at addition, and mysteriously, the errors are always in their favor.
Then there is the extended warranty. The dealer would not push this so hard if it was not a major profit item for them. If the dealer is making a profit and the underwriter is making a profit, it can't be a good deal for you. They use scare tactics to get you to buy it: what if the transmission goes out, repairs are expensive these days. If you have done your homework and picked a vehicle with good reliability, this should not be a concern. Ask the salesman if his vehicle is really so unreliable that it requires an extended warranty.
Don't let them talk you into using their financing, unless it really will save you money. Most importantly, don't take delivery on the vehicle until the financing is approved. I've heard of cases where the dealer called the buyer back a week after they took delivery on their new car and told them that the financing was not approved, and they had to bump them up to a much higher interest rate. You can avoid that kind of problem and prevent the dealer from hiding extra dealer profit items in your loan by financing with a credit union rather than the dealer.
You may feel ruthless and stingy doing this. Never forget that the salesman is far more ruthless than you'll ever be. He will happily bilk you out of thousands of dollars, smiling and patting you on the back as he picks your pocket. The process is heavily rigged in his favor, and you can never win, but you can come out significantly better than you would if you walked in uninformed and bought the shiny car for MSRP.
I have gotten the car buying process down to a science, and I am going to share the secrets with you, free of charge.
The first step is research. Start by deciding what your requirements are for your vehicle. Are you looking for a little 2-door, a truck, or an SUV? What are the priorities: comfort, appearance, reliability, cost, fuel efficiency, safety, etc. Scour the Consumer Reports auto issue. I start with the ratings for the category I am interested in. Stay near the top of the ranking. Narrow your selection down to three or four vehicles which meet your needs and fit your budget. Look at what edmunds.com has to say about them, including the road test reviews and the total price to own analysis.
Now go to the dealer and test drive your top two or three vehicles. Tell the salesman up front that you are just looking today and plan to buy on a later day. Don't let the salesman pressure you to buy on the spot. If he does, walk away. Any legitimate deal he can offer today will still be available next week. When you look over the cars and drive them, look for differences which cause you to prefer one vehicle over the other. Take notes.
Based on all of this information, pick two vehicles which best fit your requirements. Decide on the trim level and options you want. Price it on Edmunds.com and write down the invoice price as well as the MSRP, and look for any dealer incentives going on. The invoice minus dealer incentives is the dealer's cost for the vehicle. Your goal is to get the car for as close to that price as possible.
The dealer likes to get you into their "closing room" where they can put the heat on you and strong-arm you into buying. In that room, they are in control and you have to meet their demands to reach a deal. They will play games like "If I could get you this car for sixteen thousand, would you buy today?" He knows that he won't sell it for that low of a price, but he wants to get you negotiating on his terms. We are going to turn the tables on them, using the power of the Internet.
First of all, sign up for a free email account with gmail or hotmail or something like that. I use this email address because I know that I will keep getting email from the dealers for years, and if it is not going to my real address I can just ignore it.
Go to the dealer's web site and look for the car you have decided on. Email the dealer and ask for their best price on that car. Give them the VIN so that they know exactly which car you are talking about. Do this with every dealer within a hundred miles of where you live. When I was buying my last car, I emailed 14 dealers. Take the lowest price and ask all of the others to beat it.
Now instead of playing by their rules, they have to meet your expectations to make a deal. In their closing room they will make you name the price, which turns it into a winning game for them, but now you force them to name a price. You can get all of the dealers in your area bidding against each other. In some cases I have been able to get within $200 of dealer cost with this method. In other cases I got lower than dealer cost.
I like to arrange my financing through my credit union, so I apply in advance.
If the best offer is at the dealer you want to buy from, just go there and buy the car. In my case, the best offer was from a dealer who required that I sign a binding mandatory arbitration agreement, an onerous arrangement in which the buyer agrees to settle any disputes by means of arbitration through a mediator chosen by the dealer. I decided to buy elsewhere. You should ask your local dealer if they require that you sign an arbitration agreement. If they do, ask them why you would do business with a company who requires that you sign away your right to legal recourse if the dealer commits fraud, negligence, or even breaks the law. There is no valid reason for a business to refuse their customers the protection provided by the legal system that we all pay for.
Before you go to the dealer, have your approach in mind. When I went to the Honda dealer to buy our Odyssey, I told the salesman, "I really liked the new Sienna better, but the Toyota dealer wouldn't work with me on the price." The message was clear: this car isn't my first choice, I'm not tied to it, and I'll walk away if you don't give me a good deal. He accepted my first offer without any argument.
Once you have picked the dealer you would like to do business with, take your best offer to them and ask them to match it. In my experience, they usually will match it. They might grumble a bit about selling a car at such a thin profit margin, but remember that the dealer will not sell a car if it is not in their interest to do so. If they won't match the price, go somewhere else. I walked out of a dealer when I was buying my last car, and an hour later the salesman called me back and accepted my offer.
Don't let them talk you into a lease. For almost everyone, a lease is the most expensive option in the long term. If the dealer pushes it, he is not looking out for your best interest -- they make more money on leases than they do on sales. Their cost comparison is misleading because it doesn't account for the time value of money. If you want to see the flaws in their math, ask me and I'll explain it.
Once you have agreed on a price, the dealer will try to pad their profit through financing and other worthless add-ons. You don't need their paint protection package, underbody protection, fabric protection, or VIN etching. Don't be fooled into paying for it. They'll want hundreds for those things, but a can of Scotch Guard costs about $4. Don't pay more than that for any of these rip-offs. Look at the bill of sale and make sure that you know what all they are charging you for, and double check their math. They are notoriously bad at addition, and mysteriously, the errors are always in their favor.
Then there is the extended warranty. The dealer would not push this so hard if it was not a major profit item for them. If the dealer is making a profit and the underwriter is making a profit, it can't be a good deal for you. They use scare tactics to get you to buy it: what if the transmission goes out, repairs are expensive these days. If you have done your homework and picked a vehicle with good reliability, this should not be a concern. Ask the salesman if his vehicle is really so unreliable that it requires an extended warranty.
Don't let them talk you into using their financing, unless it really will save you money. Most importantly, don't take delivery on the vehicle until the financing is approved. I've heard of cases where the dealer called the buyer back a week after they took delivery on their new car and told them that the financing was not approved, and they had to bump them up to a much higher interest rate. You can avoid that kind of problem and prevent the dealer from hiding extra dealer profit items in your loan by financing with a credit union rather than the dealer.
You may feel ruthless and stingy doing this. Never forget that the salesman is far more ruthless than you'll ever be. He will happily bilk you out of thousands of dollars, smiling and patting you on the back as he picks your pocket. The process is heavily rigged in his favor, and you can never win, but you can come out significantly better than you would if you walked in uninformed and bought the shiny car for MSRP.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
One Nation Under God
Do you know the Preamble for your state Constitution? The Constitution of 46 states mentions God in the preamble. The remaining four mention Him elsewhere in the Constitution.
Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Arkansas ,grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble . We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance...
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..
After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe the ACLU is wrong about the whole "Seperation of Church and State"
fraud!
Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Arkansas ,grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble . We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance...
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..
After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe the ACLU is wrong about the whole "Seperation of Church and State"
fraud!
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Does anyone know the Texas Two-Step?
Last night my dad and I went to the Democrat precinct caucus. It was supposed to start at 7:15. We got there just before seven, and got in line. There were probably a hundred people in front of us, and the line grew rapidly.
We discovered that the precinct chairman was in line next to us. He had two sign-in sheets, enough to handle 40 people, and I would guess that by 7:30 there were ten times that many people there.
No one knew who was supposed to be in charge, and the precinct chairman was just standing there in line, so we all just stood there until eight o'clock. Finally someone took charge and sent the precinct chairman running around looking for a copy machine to make more sign-in sheets.
Someone from the Obama campaign was handing out little “Obama” stickers to stick on your shirt. She ran out just before she got to us in line, but she had a few buttons, which are much nicer than a throw-away sticker, so I got one of those, which I will treasure forever.
They set up one table for precinct 1349 and another for 1119. It turns out that not a single person was from precinct 1349, so they started signing people in one at a time, while the second table sat idle. Finally someone had the bright idea to use both sign-in tables, and that made things go slightly faster.
I signed in and indicated that I was supporting B. Hussein Obama, just as I had done in the primary. My dad and I sat in the front row of the church.
When the sanctuary was mostly filled up, someone came in and said "Obama supporters on the right, Hillary supporters on the left." Well, they can't BOTH be on the left, so what does it matter? We got up and moved, along with almost everyone else on Hillary's side. Soon Obama's side was standing room only, and Hillary's side was mostly empty. It did look like Hillary did well among her core constituency: angry women over the age of 45 who wear combat boots.
Then someone else came in and yelled out "Obama supporters on the left, Hillary supporters on the right." A bunch of people started moving, and others yelled out that it was the other way around, and pandemonium broke out. The seats in the sanctuary were divided up into six sections, and eventually someone asked the Hillary people to move into the two sections on the left, to give Obama people four sections. Well, they were not at all happy with that request.
It was past nine o’clock by the time everyone was signed in. The temporary chairman called for nominations for caucus chairman, and people started yelling out names. After several names had been called out, someone suggested that maybe the nominees stand up and their name be recorded. We ended up with three nominees, including the precinct chairman who had been next to us in line with 2 sign-in sheets.
My dad asked if I wanted to be nominated for chairman. I started to plan out my nomination speech. I would talk about how we want change and we are sick of the Clinton duo and their corruption, sick of Monica Lewinski and cigars and perjury, sick of Clinton voting for the war and then claiming to oppose it, sick of Whitewater and Vince Foster and bimbo eruptions, sick of double-talk about driver's licenses for illegal aliens or about NAFTA (oops, that was Obama). Then I would promise Obama supporters that if they elected me I would take Clinton's delegates and redistribute them more fairly to Obama. But then I decided that I wanted to walk out of the room alive, so I declined.
The lady who had taken charge (it turns out she was not an election official, just someone who saw the need and stepped up) started to tally the votes. She said that it had to be a voice count, so she told us to number off if we were supporting the first candidate for caucus chairman. She started working down the aisle of the first of six sections, pointing at each person. If they wanted to vote for that candidate, they would call out the next number. Counting is a difficult concept for many liberals, so this resulted in a lot of confusion.
It immediately occurred to both me and my dad that they could tally each of the six sections in parallel and save a lot of time, but that involves addition which is even harder than counting.
It took ten minutes to tally the votes for one candidate from one of the six sections of seats, and there are still five sections to go, and two more candidates, and then we needed to elect a secretary. And don’t forget 39 delegates and 39 alternates. It started to look like a long night.
When they had finished tallying the vote for the first candidate for chairman, it was clear that he had more than half of the vote, but they still tallied votes for the other two nominees. You know, you’ve got to count every vote.
So eventually we got a chairman, but it quickly became apparent that he had no idea how to run a caucus. He called for nominations for secretary, and the lady who had spent the last half hour electing a chairman was nominated unanimously. What a relief.
Suddenly, they realized that it was important to actually tally the Obama and Clinton supporters on the sign-in sheets. They might have had someone doing that while people were signing in and we were electing a chairman, but that idea had not crossed their mind. So they had a Clinton representative and an Obama representative tally each sheet, and after a lot of very difficult mathematics and a couple of calls to the Democrat Party Headquarters, they had a tally.
The chairman was standing over by us, so we asked him how we would go about selecting the delegates. He said “they are trying to figure out how to apportion the delegates, but it takes a mathematician to figure it out.” They should have asked if there were any Republicans in the room. Proportions are even harder than adding.
While the math geniuses were hard at work on that problem, my dad and I decided to facilitate the delegate selection process. We walked around and asked who wanted to be a delegate, and then made sure that someone would nominate them – usually the person sitting next to them.
The chairman stood up and announced the results. Obama 84%, Clinton 24%. Sounds like the math was done by the same people who think Gore won Florida in 2000.
Eventually they sent the Obama supporters to pick 33 delegates and the Hillary supporters to pick 6 delegates. The Hillary people thought that was completely unfair. We quickly had 25 people nominated, and after some convincing got up to 33. With a unanimous up or down vote we approved those 33 people to be delegates, and we were done.
And these are the folks who want to run the country.
We discovered that the precinct chairman was in line next to us. He had two sign-in sheets, enough to handle 40 people, and I would guess that by 7:30 there were ten times that many people there.
No one knew who was supposed to be in charge, and the precinct chairman was just standing there in line, so we all just stood there until eight o'clock. Finally someone took charge and sent the precinct chairman running around looking for a copy machine to make more sign-in sheets.
Someone from the Obama campaign was handing out little “Obama” stickers to stick on your shirt. She ran out just before she got to us in line, but she had a few buttons, which are much nicer than a throw-away sticker, so I got one of those, which I will treasure forever.
They set up one table for precinct 1349 and another for 1119. It turns out that not a single person was from precinct 1349, so they started signing people in one at a time, while the second table sat idle. Finally someone had the bright idea to use both sign-in tables, and that made things go slightly faster.
I signed in and indicated that I was supporting B. Hussein Obama, just as I had done in the primary. My dad and I sat in the front row of the church.
When the sanctuary was mostly filled up, someone came in and said "Obama supporters on the right, Hillary supporters on the left." Well, they can't BOTH be on the left, so what does it matter? We got up and moved, along with almost everyone else on Hillary's side. Soon Obama's side was standing room only, and Hillary's side was mostly empty. It did look like Hillary did well among her core constituency: angry women over the age of 45 who wear combat boots.
Then someone else came in and yelled out "Obama supporters on the left, Hillary supporters on the right." A bunch of people started moving, and others yelled out that it was the other way around, and pandemonium broke out. The seats in the sanctuary were divided up into six sections, and eventually someone asked the Hillary people to move into the two sections on the left, to give Obama people four sections. Well, they were not at all happy with that request.
It was past nine o’clock by the time everyone was signed in. The temporary chairman called for nominations for caucus chairman, and people started yelling out names. After several names had been called out, someone suggested that maybe the nominees stand up and their name be recorded. We ended up with three nominees, including the precinct chairman who had been next to us in line with 2 sign-in sheets.
My dad asked if I wanted to be nominated for chairman. I started to plan out my nomination speech. I would talk about how we want change and we are sick of the Clinton duo and their corruption, sick of Monica Lewinski and cigars and perjury, sick of Clinton voting for the war and then claiming to oppose it, sick of Whitewater and Vince Foster and bimbo eruptions, sick of double-talk about driver's licenses for illegal aliens or about NAFTA (oops, that was Obama). Then I would promise Obama supporters that if they elected me I would take Clinton's delegates and redistribute them more fairly to Obama. But then I decided that I wanted to walk out of the room alive, so I declined.
The lady who had taken charge (it turns out she was not an election official, just someone who saw the need and stepped up) started to tally the votes. She said that it had to be a voice count, so she told us to number off if we were supporting the first candidate for caucus chairman. She started working down the aisle of the first of six sections, pointing at each person. If they wanted to vote for that candidate, they would call out the next number. Counting is a difficult concept for many liberals, so this resulted in a lot of confusion.
It immediately occurred to both me and my dad that they could tally each of the six sections in parallel and save a lot of time, but that involves addition which is even harder than counting.
It took ten minutes to tally the votes for one candidate from one of the six sections of seats, and there are still five sections to go, and two more candidates, and then we needed to elect a secretary. And don’t forget 39 delegates and 39 alternates. It started to look like a long night.
When they had finished tallying the vote for the first candidate for chairman, it was clear that he had more than half of the vote, but they still tallied votes for the other two nominees. You know, you’ve got to count every vote.
So eventually we got a chairman, but it quickly became apparent that he had no idea how to run a caucus. He called for nominations for secretary, and the lady who had spent the last half hour electing a chairman was nominated unanimously. What a relief.
Suddenly, they realized that it was important to actually tally the Obama and Clinton supporters on the sign-in sheets. They might have had someone doing that while people were signing in and we were electing a chairman, but that idea had not crossed their mind. So they had a Clinton representative and an Obama representative tally each sheet, and after a lot of very difficult mathematics and a couple of calls to the Democrat Party Headquarters, they had a tally.
The chairman was standing over by us, so we asked him how we would go about selecting the delegates. He said “they are trying to figure out how to apportion the delegates, but it takes a mathematician to figure it out.” They should have asked if there were any Republicans in the room. Proportions are even harder than adding.
While the math geniuses were hard at work on that problem, my dad and I decided to facilitate the delegate selection process. We walked around and asked who wanted to be a delegate, and then made sure that someone would nominate them – usually the person sitting next to them.
The chairman stood up and announced the results. Obama 84%, Clinton 24%. Sounds like the math was done by the same people who think Gore won Florida in 2000.
Eventually they sent the Obama supporters to pick 33 delegates and the Hillary supporters to pick 6 delegates. The Hillary people thought that was completely unfair. We quickly had 25 people nominated, and after some convincing got up to 33. With a unanimous up or down vote we approved those 33 people to be delegates, and we were done.
And these are the folks who want to run the country.
Monday, March 03, 2008
It's 3AM
It's 3AM and your children are sleeping peacefully.
But in the White House there's a phone, and it is ringing.
Somewhere in the world, something is happening. Somewhere, Bill is calling to say, "Hey! Hillary, it's me, the First Lady's Man. Heh heh. I'm working on a speech with an intern, Bridgit. I'll be out late."
But in the White House there's a phone, and it is ringing.
Somewhere in the world, something is happening. Somewhere, Bill is calling to say, "Hey! Hillary, it's me, the First Lady's Man. Heh heh. I'm working on a speech with an intern, Bridgit. I'll be out late."
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Buckley
It is sad to hear the William F. Buckley has died at the age of 82. I always enjoyed his columns. But the most brilliant column he ever wrote was the one in which he plagiarized me.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Who is more unelectable?
Several people have asked why I would vote for Obama in the Texas primary instead of Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife.
For one thing, this may be my only chance to vote AGAINST Hillary, and I don't want to miss such a historic opportunity.
But in addition, I think that B. Hussein Obama will be a weaker opponent in November.
I am well aware that the polls say that Obama does better against John McCain. These are the same polls which can't predict a 16-point Obama win the day before the Wisconsin primary. In fact, the polls have been consistently wrong about the primaries all year. Hillary's negatives are out in the open, and have been known for a decade. Obama's will come out over the course of the next months, and they will more than erase the edge he currently has over Hillary.
The left is currently having an Obama love-fest, and compared to Hillary, he looks pretty good. By any other measure, he is a lightweight with little experience, no significant legislative accomplishments, and vague policy proposals. He has gotten as far as this because he has never been in a race where his liberal ideology has been questioned. Running in Illinois is far different from most places in the country, and running against Clinton and Edwards, where there is little distinction in policy matters, Obama's far left ideas are accepted rather than torn apart and revealed for the garbage that they are. That leaves personality as the only distinction in the primaries, and Obama beats Clinton in that category hands down. People hoped that Hillary would be Bill Clinton part 2, but she is not at all like her husband. Sure, they are both liars, but when Bill Clinton lies, he looks straight in your eyes, shakes his finger, and makes you believe that he is being completely honest. When Hillary lies, everyone knows she is lying. The inability to lie believably is a fatal flaw for a Democrat candidate.
Obama has managed to be the leading contender for the Democrat primary without ever specifying what he would do as President. Instead, he has present himself as an empty shell into which any person can pour their hopes and dreams, and somehow believe that he is the answer to their individual problems. By framing the debate in terms of "change" and "hope" he allows each person to define those terms in any way they wish. He offers us empty rhetoric and expects a blank check in return. Obama has not been forced to lie much, as Hillary has, because he hasn't said anything at all. But in the end, hope does not come from the government, and "change" is a constant, and it is not always good. Eventually, Obama will have to specify what change he will make, and most people will not like it. The reality of surrendering the War on Terror, raising taxes, and putting your health care under government control will not be nearly as appealing as his vague but flowery speeches.
As the campaign transfers from the primaries to the general election, Obama's opponent will change from Hillary to John McCain, but his target audience will change as well. Now he will be fighting for the swing voters in the middle of the political spectrum, and they won't be satisfied with his empty leftist platitudes. They want substance, and Obama doesn't have it. John McCain has substance, and he's got it in spades. They will want to know what the candidate's experience is, and what are his qualifications for the job. In that category, McCain is a heavyweight, Obama is a featherweight. As voters watch the debates, they will want to know who has the knowledge and judgment to deal with the complex issues facing our nation. John McCain will absolutely eat Obama's lunch on specific policy issues.
Another clear distinction is in the area of patriotism. This goes way beyond Barack Hussein Obama's name and his connection, through his father, to Islam. Obama's essential message is on of running down America. He talks about "hope" as if without him America is hopeless, and "change" as if anything would be better than the way things are now. His wife let slip their central outlook on America -- it is something to be ashamed of. These Ivy-League educated, wealthy and successful people sound like whiny elitist brats. Compare that to John McCain, who turned down an offer for early release from his captors in the Hanoi Hilton base on the principle of "First In -- Last Out". He would not accept release until his fellow POWs were also released. McCain is undeniably an American Hero -- he is what John Kerry can only pretend to be. There was talk of an attempt to "Swiftboat" McCain. I say bring it on. In the face of McCain's true record, the backlash will carry him straight to the Oval Office.
I believe that John McCain could beat Hillary or Obama in November, but Obama will be much easier than Hillary. Barack peaked on February 4. It's all downhill from here, baby.
Options
Over the weekend I was brainstorming with my dad about slogans for the upcoming election. I was just playing around with various associations and rhymes and came up with a pretty good one. My dad designed a bumper sticker on zazzle.com based on the slogan and listed it for sale. In the past three days he has sold four copies of the sticker, earning $1.52.
It's good to know I have a fallback position if I should lose my job in the coming layoffs.
It's good to know I have a fallback position if I should lose my job in the coming layoffs.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Lots to be proud of
Michelle Obama, wife of Democrat Presidential Candidate B. Hussein Obama said that this is the first time in her adult life that she has been proud of America.
Michael Kinsley quipped that a gaffe is when a politician says what he really thinks. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democratic politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.
And after decades of finding nothing in America worthy of pride, it was her husband winning some primaries that finally inspired pride in Michelle Obama?
Personally, I am proud of America and proud to be an American on a daily basis. There is a lot to be proud of as an American:
Michael Kinsley quipped that a gaffe is when a politician says what he really thinks. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democratic politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.
And after decades of finding nothing in America worthy of pride, it was her husband winning some primaries that finally inspired pride in Michelle Obama?
Personally, I am proud of America and proud to be an American on a daily basis. There is a lot to be proud of as an American:
- America won the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
- America built the Space Shuttles and flew them a hundred times or so, landed rovers on Mars, and studied the reaches of the universe with the Hubble telescope.
- The Berlin Wall fell, due in large part to American pressure.
- Michelle has lived through decades of peaceful election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about change, both good and bad.
- Michelle has witnessed and benefited from unbelievable advances in technology, communications, science, and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs.
- Patients lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies which have flourished under the best economic system in the world.
- What about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony?
- Has Michelle never attended a welcome-home celebration for our troops?
- Does her liberal disdain for the military prevent her from taking pride in the honorable service of our soldiers and the sacrifice they make around the world to bring freedom to those who are oppressed by evil tyrants like Saddam Hussein?
- Has Michelle never attended a naturalization ceremony where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, embracing the opportunity that America offers?
- Did Michelle not find any reason to be proud when millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia?
- Or when citizens rushed to their churches, the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina?
- How could America's response to the attacks of 9/11 not make her proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor, and determination displayed in New York and Washington DC after that horrific attack.
Michelle Obama's own success is evidence of the opportunity available to every American, which ought to be another source of price. Michelle has achieved enormous professional success, political influence, and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League educated, she has been recognized by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World's Most Inspiring Women, and named one of the "Harvard 100" most influential alumni. She has had an amazingly blessed life, which flies in the face of her ungrateful rhetorical claim that America does not offer opportunity.
Anyone who has trouble finding numerous reasons to be proud of America has no business in the White House.
If you are reading this, please leave a comment telling me why YOU are proud of America.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Kids are a blessing
I hear a lot of really jaded people complaining about what a bother kids are.
After all, they take up your time and money, and there are a lot of other things you would rather be doing. You know, things for yourself. Instead of raising kids, you could be going out to eat a lot more, seeing all of the wonderful movies that Hollywood makes, staying out late at the bar, or playing a lot more golf. Yeah, that would make life so much more rich and purposeful.
Meanwhile, I am home with my three boys. They like to play games, and they beat me if I don't watch out. Don't underestimate Mark just because he is only six. I can't tell you how many fun evenings we have spent playing Blokus, or Qwirkle, or Rat-a-tat-cat.
Mark and Caleb like me to read to them, as well. We finished the second book in C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia last week, and started in on the third. They love the movie, but a while back, one of them said, "Wow, dad, the book is a lot better than the movie." I read the books when I was a kid, but I'm finding a lot more depth in them now, re-reading them as an adult. If I ever forget to read a chapter, they remind me.
We gather around the kitchen table and do our Bible Study Fellowship lessons together. We are studying Matthew this year. Last week we read about Jesus asking Peter the central question of life: "Who do you say that I am?" It is the greatest joy I could experience to hear them answer in faith, as Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
There are many moments which make a parent's job worthwhile. This morning, Caleb brought us a piece of paper cut into a heart shape, on which he had written:
Dear Mom & Dad,
I wouldn't trade that for fifty years of seeing movies and hanging out in bars.
After all, they take up your time and money, and there are a lot of other things you would rather be doing. You know, things for yourself. Instead of raising kids, you could be going out to eat a lot more, seeing all of the wonderful movies that Hollywood makes, staying out late at the bar, or playing a lot more golf. Yeah, that would make life so much more rich and purposeful.
Meanwhile, I am home with my three boys. They like to play games, and they beat me if I don't watch out. Don't underestimate Mark just because he is only six. I can't tell you how many fun evenings we have spent playing Blokus, or Qwirkle, or Rat-a-tat-cat.
Mark and Caleb like me to read to them, as well. We finished the second book in C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia last week, and started in on the third. They love the movie, but a while back, one of them said, "Wow, dad, the book is a lot better than the movie." I read the books when I was a kid, but I'm finding a lot more depth in them now, re-reading them as an adult. If I ever forget to read a chapter, they remind me.
We gather around the kitchen table and do our Bible Study Fellowship lessons together. We are studying Matthew this year. Last week we read about Jesus asking Peter the central question of life: "Who do you say that I am?" It is the greatest joy I could experience to hear them answer in faith, as Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
There are many moments which make a parent's job worthwhile. This morning, Caleb brought us a piece of paper cut into a heart shape, on which he had written:
Dear Mom & Dad,
Happy Valentine's Day, the day of great love.
You are a wonderful sight to me, being my parents.
You are one of the people I like to be with.
I will love you forever and ever.
Thank you for keeping me safe all these years you had me.
Your Son,
Caleb
I wouldn't trade that for fifty years of seeing movies and hanging out in bars.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A gift from the heart
Valentine's Day, Hallmark's favorite holiday, is really not one of my favorites. As far as I can tell, it was a holiday made up by the greeting card and flower industry for the purpose of obligating people to buy stuff.
I have a different way of celebrating Valentine's Day -- something I believe that Saint Valentine, the Christian martyr who restored sight and hearing to the daughter of his jailor before being beheaded for refusing to denounce Christ, would find more fitting.
Each Valentine's Day that I am able to, I give blood. I've been doing that since I was twenty. Of course that is not the only time during the year that I give blood, and some years I can't do it exactly on February 14 because I'm not feeling well, or it falls on a Sunday, or I'm not elgible yet.
I have given thirteen gallons of blood so far -- typically once every two months. I don't know who has benefitted from any one of those 104 units, but it is a simple thing that can save lives. Only about 10 percent of the population gives blood regularly. This Valentine's Day, you ought to think about starting to give a gift from the heart.
I have a different way of celebrating Valentine's Day -- something I believe that Saint Valentine, the Christian martyr who restored sight and hearing to the daughter of his jailor before being beheaded for refusing to denounce Christ, would find more fitting.
Each Valentine's Day that I am able to, I give blood. I've been doing that since I was twenty. Of course that is not the only time during the year that I give blood, and some years I can't do it exactly on February 14 because I'm not feeling well, or it falls on a Sunday, or I'm not elgible yet.
I have given thirteen gallons of blood so far -- typically once every two months. I don't know who has benefitted from any one of those 104 units, but it is a simple thing that can save lives. Only about 10 percent of the population gives blood regularly. This Valentine's Day, you ought to think about starting to give a gift from the heart.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
No Giant
Moments after the Giants upset the Patriots on Sunday night, my dad and I were wondering how Hillary would capitalize on the win. We were both quite sure that she would claim the mantle of the winning Giants. Of course, if her adopted hometown team had lost, she would not have mentioned it. It is odd for Hillary to be seeking to be seen as the underdog or the long shot. She came into this election as the Presumptive President Elect, and if she is now the underdog it is because she botched the job and squandered her seemingly insurmountable lead.
CNN recaps Monday night on Letterman:
CNN recaps Monday night on Letterman:
That rough, husky tone to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's voice didn't come from the campaign trail.
"Every New Yorker has a sore throat after last night," Clinton told talk-show host David Letterman during her appearance Monday on "The Late Show." She said she had been rooting for the New York Giants while watching the Super Bowl in a Minneapolis sports bar.
Clinton said she was modeling her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president on the Giants' last-minute, 17-14 victory over the undefeated New England Patriots.
"I took a lot of heart from that, Dave," said Clinton, who is neck-and-neck in many polls with rival Barack Obama on the eve of the 22-state nomination contest. "The fourth quarter before Super Tuesday, you've got to keep going."
Hey Hillary -- you are no Giant.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Marketing
The Super Bowl advertisements are always hyped incredibly as being at least as good as the game, and maybe better. I am sure that the networks who want to charge $2.7 million for a 30 second spot are mainly responsible for the hype.
I was entirely underwhelmed by the ads.
The talking spot was pretty good, and we all laughed at the Doritos mouse trap.
But a lot of them just didn't make any sense. Using sex to sell stuff has been a standard practice forever, and selling an image or a promise that some product will make you cool is a time-tested marketing ploy as well. Humor is a common tool to make ads memorable, but I didn't think that many of the ads were all that funny. Some I couldn't even figure out what they were advertising. What the heck is Under Armour? I couldn't tell if it was deodorant or adult diapers or what? There was one with two stereotypically asian pandas which was not only offensive, it was also ineffective because I have no idea what they were advertising. The Bud Light ad with Bill Ferrell was picked as the forth best by CNN, but I thought it was horrid. The moment he started talking about putting sweat into beer he lost me. I've never seen one of his movies, and it is pretty safe to say that I won't any time soon. And I don't think I'll ever eat a pistachio again in my life.
So was it just this year, or are the advertisements that bad all the time?
I was entirely underwhelmed by the ads.
The talking spot was pretty good, and we all laughed at the Doritos mouse trap.
But a lot of them just didn't make any sense. Using sex to sell stuff has been a standard practice forever, and selling an image or a promise that some product will make you cool is a time-tested marketing ploy as well. Humor is a common tool to make ads memorable, but I didn't think that many of the ads were all that funny. Some I couldn't even figure out what they were advertising. What the heck is Under Armour? I couldn't tell if it was deodorant or adult diapers or what? There was one with two stereotypically asian pandas which was not only offensive, it was also ineffective because I have no idea what they were advertising. The Bud Light ad with Bill Ferrell was picked as the forth best by CNN, but I thought it was horrid. The moment he started talking about putting sweat into beer he lost me. I've never seen one of his movies, and it is pretty safe to say that I won't any time soon. And I don't think I'll ever eat a pistachio again in my life.
So was it just this year, or are the advertisements that bad all the time?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Will the real executive please stand up?
It has been 48 years since a sitting Senator has been elected President. Since then, each and every President has either been a former Governor or Vice President.
Our current President, George W. Bush was governor of Texas.
The Presumptive First Lady Elect, Bill Clinton, was governor of Arkansas.
George HW Bush was VP under the great Ronald Reagan for eight years.
Obama's hero, Ronald Reagan was governor of California.
The Hapless Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia.
Ford (who was never elected President or VP) was appointed Nixon's VP.
Nixon was VP under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Johnson was VP under Kennedy.
That takes us back to 1960 when JFK, sitting Senator from Taxachusetts, was voted President.
There is a good reason for this clear preference of the voter.
Governors, Presidents, and Vice Presidents are part of the Executive branch of government, while Senators are Legislators. Congress sets budgets and makes laws, while Governors and Presidents run the government. The two skill sets are very different, and it is hard to know how much value experience as a legislator has in being an executive.
So you think that the public likes Legislators better than Executives? The media loves to discuss how unpopular the President is right now, but George Bush beats the approve/disapprove spread of Congress by twenty points.
So, which of the front runners in the current election has executive experience?
Hillary has seven years experience as a carpetbagging Senator from New York. She will surely try to claim that she should get credit for riding the coat-tails of her husband into the Arkansas Governor's Mansion and then on to the White House. By that criteria, Laura Bush ought to be equally qualified to be our next President. Ah, but Hillary was actively involved in policy-making during Clinton's term, you know, White Water, the health care debacle, Vince Foster, and so on. She was, in effect, co-president. If that were really true, the Constitutional term limit ought to exclude Hillary from being elected again. And if Hillary wants us to consider her accomplishments as co-president, she needs to release the records of what she did in that position. Doesn't it only stand to reason that if she wants credit for the experience she claims, we ought to be able to scrutinize her record and determine if it demonstrates the kind of leadership we want in a President? Every other candidate's record is public. Shouldn't she be eager to let us marvel at the brilliance of her tenure as First Lady? She has been asked to provide those records, and claimed that they are sealed in the National Archives until 2012. It turns out that when Bill Clinton was busy packing up the silverware, pardoning hundreds of convicted felons, and otherwise preparing to vacate the White House, he appointed two people to handle the archiving of the records from his term, including those relating to Hillary. Those two people put the records into the National Archive with instructions to not release them until 2012. Those two people were Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger. Maybe the records are in Hillary's underpants.
B. Hussein Obama can't even claim proximity to executive experience. He has been a legislator, serving three years in the US Senate and eight years in the Illinois State Senate. He makes Hillary's padded resume look robust. He will surely try to spin his lack of experience into a positive, presenting himself as "a new, fresh face." But in the long, brutal battle to the White House, being able to point to experience of actually running something would be a tremendous advantage, and he just doesn't have it. Name just one major accomplishment. Can't do it, huh?
John McCain has served twice as long in the US Congress as Hillary and Obama combined. Compared to either of them, he is a heavyweight. The voters might like McCain’s record on national security, or Hillary's health care proposal, or Obama's oratory prowess, but not a one of them has any record running anything.
Then there is Mitt Romney. All his life he has been running things. He is most often noted as the governor of Massachusetts, where he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus, primarily by cutting spending. After the unrestrained spending of Bush and Clinton, this is a real positive. While Obama was experimenting with drugs at his high school in Hawaii, Romney was Vice President of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston. Romney left that position to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm which he ran for 14 years. During that time, the internal rate of return on realized investments of his company was an astonishing 114%. Warren Buffet is turning green with envy. Meanwhile, Bain & Company was floundering in his absence. They brought him back, and he turned the company around dramatically, returning it from the brink of financial collapse to profitability in one year without resorting to layoffs. Romney served as President and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Games. When Romney took this position in 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmark, plagued by corruption, and facing a scaleback due to lack of funds. During his term, the Games faced additional challenges due to security concerns arising from the 9/11 attacks, just months before the event. In spite of the initial fiscal shortfall and these increased security costs, the Games ended up with a $100 million profit. Romney donated his $825 thousand salary to charity. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to run things, which is the most crucial skill for a President. This sets him apart from the rest of the field, and clearly makes him not only the candidate with the best ideas and policy positions, but the candidate with the best qualifications for the job.
McCain, reverting to his habit of adopting the rhetoric of the left, uses anti-business slurs to criticize Romney as "managing for profit." Senator, don't you realize that America is great because people actually produce things and make a profit, not just sit around and pass bills?
Our current President, George W. Bush was governor of Texas.
The Presumptive First Lady Elect, Bill Clinton, was governor of Arkansas.
George HW Bush was VP under the great Ronald Reagan for eight years.
Obama's hero, Ronald Reagan was governor of California.
The Hapless Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia.
Ford (who was never elected President or VP) was appointed Nixon's VP.
Nixon was VP under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Johnson was VP under Kennedy.
That takes us back to 1960 when JFK, sitting Senator from Taxachusetts, was voted President.
There is a good reason for this clear preference of the voter.
Governors, Presidents, and Vice Presidents are part of the Executive branch of government, while Senators are Legislators. Congress sets budgets and makes laws, while Governors and Presidents run the government. The two skill sets are very different, and it is hard to know how much value experience as a legislator has in being an executive.
So you think that the public likes Legislators better than Executives? The media loves to discuss how unpopular the President is right now, but George Bush beats the approve/disapprove spread of Congress by twenty points.
So, which of the front runners in the current election has executive experience?
Hillary has seven years experience as a carpetbagging Senator from New York. She will surely try to claim that she should get credit for riding the coat-tails of her husband into the Arkansas Governor's Mansion and then on to the White House. By that criteria, Laura Bush ought to be equally qualified to be our next President. Ah, but Hillary was actively involved in policy-making during Clinton's term, you know, White Water, the health care debacle, Vince Foster, and so on. She was, in effect, co-president. If that were really true, the Constitutional term limit ought to exclude Hillary from being elected again. And if Hillary wants us to consider her accomplishments as co-president, she needs to release the records of what she did in that position. Doesn't it only stand to reason that if she wants credit for the experience she claims, we ought to be able to scrutinize her record and determine if it demonstrates the kind of leadership we want in a President? Every other candidate's record is public. Shouldn't she be eager to let us marvel at the brilliance of her tenure as First Lady? She has been asked to provide those records, and claimed that they are sealed in the National Archives until 2012. It turns out that when Bill Clinton was busy packing up the silverware, pardoning hundreds of convicted felons, and otherwise preparing to vacate the White House, he appointed two people to handle the archiving of the records from his term, including those relating to Hillary. Those two people put the records into the National Archive with instructions to not release them until 2012. Those two people were Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger. Maybe the records are in Hillary's underpants.
B. Hussein Obama can't even claim proximity to executive experience. He has been a legislator, serving three years in the US Senate and eight years in the Illinois State Senate. He makes Hillary's padded resume look robust. He will surely try to spin his lack of experience into a positive, presenting himself as "a new, fresh face." But in the long, brutal battle to the White House, being able to point to experience of actually running something would be a tremendous advantage, and he just doesn't have it. Name just one major accomplishment. Can't do it, huh?
John McCain has served twice as long in the US Congress as Hillary and Obama combined. Compared to either of them, he is a heavyweight. The voters might like McCain’s record on national security, or Hillary's health care proposal, or Obama's oratory prowess, but not a one of them has any record running anything.
Then there is Mitt Romney. All his life he has been running things. He is most often noted as the governor of Massachusetts, where he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus, primarily by cutting spending. After the unrestrained spending of Bush and Clinton, this is a real positive. While Obama was experimenting with drugs at his high school in Hawaii, Romney was Vice President of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston. Romney left that position to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm which he ran for 14 years. During that time, the internal rate of return on realized investments of his company was an astonishing 114%. Warren Buffet is turning green with envy. Meanwhile, Bain & Company was floundering in his absence. They brought him back, and he turned the company around dramatically, returning it from the brink of financial collapse to profitability in one year without resorting to layoffs. Romney served as President and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Games. When Romney took this position in 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmark, plagued by corruption, and facing a scaleback due to lack of funds. During his term, the Games faced additional challenges due to security concerns arising from the 9/11 attacks, just months before the event. In spite of the initial fiscal shortfall and these increased security costs, the Games ended up with a $100 million profit. Romney donated his $825 thousand salary to charity. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to run things, which is the most crucial skill for a President. This sets him apart from the rest of the field, and clearly makes him not only the candidate with the best ideas and policy positions, but the candidate with the best qualifications for the job.
McCain, reverting to his habit of adopting the rhetoric of the left, uses anti-business slurs to criticize Romney as "managing for profit." Senator, don't you realize that America is great because people actually produce things and make a profit, not just sit around and pass bills?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Stimulus
The "Economic Stimulus Package" being rammed through Congress today might better be called "The Pay Voters to Re-elect Me Bill."
Thank goodness we have Congress to rescue us as the economy teeters precariously on the brink of less aggressive growth. Before it is over, you can count on the Democrats to load up the bill with more spending items which would not pass on their own merit.
The "Stimulus Package" is founded on one of the great ideas which brought down the Soviet Union: the notion that the centralized government has a big panel of buttons and dials before it, that simply need to be manipulated in the proper sequence in order to "jump start" or "stimulate" the economy.
The best thing Congress could do for the economy is get out of its way. Make the tax cuts permanent, cut government spending way back by eliminating all spending items outside of the scope of the Federal Government as specified in the Constitution, cutting corporate taxes, reducing regulation, and letting the free market generate wealth without the encumbrance of an overreaching government.
Will it happen? Not a chance. So you might as well send me my $600 check.
Thank goodness we have Congress to rescue us as the economy teeters precariously on the brink of less aggressive growth. Before it is over, you can count on the Democrats to load up the bill with more spending items which would not pass on their own merit.
The "Stimulus Package" is founded on one of the great ideas which brought down the Soviet Union: the notion that the centralized government has a big panel of buttons and dials before it, that simply need to be manipulated in the proper sequence in order to "jump start" or "stimulate" the economy.
The best thing Congress could do for the economy is get out of its way. Make the tax cuts permanent, cut government spending way back by eliminating all spending items outside of the scope of the Federal Government as specified in the Constitution, cutting corporate taxes, reducing regulation, and letting the free market generate wealth without the encumbrance of an overreaching government.
Will it happen? Not a chance. So you might as well send me my $600 check.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Why not Huckabee?
I have gotten a number of inquiries in response to my endorsement of Mitt Romney. Most of them are of the form: "Why are you not supporting [some other candidate]?"
Liberals tend to ask why I am not supporting John McCain. That fact speaks for itsself.
But by far the most common response was "Why are you not supporting Mike Huckabee?"
I like Mike Huckabee. I think that he has brought a lot of interest to the race, and has had a positive impact on the debates and the candidates, forcing them to raise issues which might never have come up if he was not present. He is smart, eloquent, funny, and says a lot of the right things.
However, his record is not nearly as stellar as his rhetoric. Based on what he actually did as governor of Arkansas, it is hard to describe him as a conservative. Conservatism is based on principles of limited government, the rule of law, and seperation of powers. Huckabee seems to see government as the solution to every problem.
Huckabee's economic policy was best described as populist. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee repeatedly increased or expanded the sales tax; hiked the corporate income tax; imposed an income-tax surcharge on individuals and domestic and foreign corporations; raised the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel; taxed admission to theme parks and other tourist activities; taxed snuff, cigarettes, mixed drinks, private clubs and retail sales of beer; and so on. Now, in fairness to Huck, part of the tax increases were forced due to a court order to balance the budget and increase school funding. But a large part was used to increase the wealth redistribution programs that liberals love so much.
Huckabee is not only weak on foreign policy, he has said some dangerously ignorant things on the subject, leading me to question the wisdom of putting him in charge of the State Department and the US Military. Huckabee's talk about the War on Terror sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's policy during his eight years: If we are nice to them and talk with them and appease them, they will be nice back to us. It was disasterously misguided then, and it is even moreso now. Read this article as an example.
Huckabee's record on illegal immigration is also wrongheaded. As governor, Huckabee supported government-funded scholarships for illegal immigrants. To be very clear about what this means, Mike Huckabee not only wants people who are breaking the law by being in this country to be able to attend state universities, he wants to force law-abiding taxpayers to subsidize their tuition.
The case of rapist and murderer Wayne DuMond who was released from Arkansas prison with Huckabee's approval, and went on to kill two more women, has gotten some attention, but it is not the only case. Huckabee earned a reputation among Arkansas criminals as an easy mark: if you get a pastor to vouch for you, Governor Huckabee will pardon you.
Huckabee's Christianity is his strongest selling point. I appreciate his boldness and unequivocal answers to questions about evolution and his faith in God. However, it seems to me that Huckabee fails to grasp the distinction between Christian principles applied by individuals and the policy of a nation's government. Huckabee applies principles of grace, forgiveness, and charity by pardoning violent criminals, subsidizing college educations for lawbreakers, and dialoging with terrorists.
In a number of cases, Huckabee talked about "forgiveness" as he pardoned criminals. Aren't Christians supposed to forgive? Seventy times seven and all. But Huckabee is not the one who needs to forgive a murderer or rapist, because he was not the one who was wronged. Forgiveness means that I decide to not hold the fact that you hurt me against you. It does not mean that all consequences are removed. That was a key mistake in the impeachment of President Clinton: liberals in the media kept saying "Shouldn't we forgive President Clinton?" As if forgiveness meant that the consequences specified by the law would no longer apply. The job of a President or Governor is to uphold the law and protect society, not to act like a priest dispensing forgiveness.
Huckabee appealed to the idea of charity to support his policy of subsidizing the college tuition of illegal immigrants. This is not much different from liberals who want us to be beholden to their kindness and generosity for funding wealth redistribution programs. The problem is that generosity and charity ought to be with your own money, not with someone else's.
I wouldn't mind having Mike Huckabee as a pastor. I think I would enjoy sitting down and having lunch with him and discussing various topics. I'd happily go to hear him speak on current issues or on spiritual topics. But I don't think that he would make a good President.
Liberals tend to ask why I am not supporting John McCain. That fact speaks for itsself.
But by far the most common response was "Why are you not supporting Mike Huckabee?"
I like Mike Huckabee. I think that he has brought a lot of interest to the race, and has had a positive impact on the debates and the candidates, forcing them to raise issues which might never have come up if he was not present. He is smart, eloquent, funny, and says a lot of the right things.
However, his record is not nearly as stellar as his rhetoric. Based on what he actually did as governor of Arkansas, it is hard to describe him as a conservative. Conservatism is based on principles of limited government, the rule of law, and seperation of powers. Huckabee seems to see government as the solution to every problem.
Huckabee's economic policy was best described as populist. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee repeatedly increased or expanded the sales tax; hiked the corporate income tax; imposed an income-tax surcharge on individuals and domestic and foreign corporations; raised the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel; taxed admission to theme parks and other tourist activities; taxed snuff, cigarettes, mixed drinks, private clubs and retail sales of beer; and so on. Now, in fairness to Huck, part of the tax increases were forced due to a court order to balance the budget and increase school funding. But a large part was used to increase the wealth redistribution programs that liberals love so much.
Huckabee is not only weak on foreign policy, he has said some dangerously ignorant things on the subject, leading me to question the wisdom of putting him in charge of the State Department and the US Military. Huckabee's talk about the War on Terror sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's policy during his eight years: If we are nice to them and talk with them and appease them, they will be nice back to us. It was disasterously misguided then, and it is even moreso now. Read this article as an example.
Huckabee's record on illegal immigration is also wrongheaded. As governor, Huckabee supported government-funded scholarships for illegal immigrants. To be very clear about what this means, Mike Huckabee not only wants people who are breaking the law by being in this country to be able to attend state universities, he wants to force law-abiding taxpayers to subsidize their tuition.
The case of rapist and murderer Wayne DuMond who was released from Arkansas prison with Huckabee's approval, and went on to kill two more women, has gotten some attention, but it is not the only case. Huckabee earned a reputation among Arkansas criminals as an easy mark: if you get a pastor to vouch for you, Governor Huckabee will pardon you.
Huckabee's Christianity is his strongest selling point. I appreciate his boldness and unequivocal answers to questions about evolution and his faith in God. However, it seems to me that Huckabee fails to grasp the distinction between Christian principles applied by individuals and the policy of a nation's government. Huckabee applies principles of grace, forgiveness, and charity by pardoning violent criminals, subsidizing college educations for lawbreakers, and dialoging with terrorists.
In a number of cases, Huckabee talked about "forgiveness" as he pardoned criminals. Aren't Christians supposed to forgive? Seventy times seven and all. But Huckabee is not the one who needs to forgive a murderer or rapist, because he was not the one who was wronged. Forgiveness means that I decide to not hold the fact that you hurt me against you. It does not mean that all consequences are removed. That was a key mistake in the impeachment of President Clinton: liberals in the media kept saying "Shouldn't we forgive President Clinton?" As if forgiveness meant that the consequences specified by the law would no longer apply. The job of a President or Governor is to uphold the law and protect society, not to act like a priest dispensing forgiveness.
Huckabee appealed to the idea of charity to support his policy of subsidizing the college tuition of illegal immigrants. This is not much different from liberals who want us to be beholden to their kindness and generosity for funding wealth redistribution programs. The problem is that generosity and charity ought to be with your own money, not with someone else's.
I wouldn't mind having Mike Huckabee as a pastor. I think I would enjoy sitting down and having lunch with him and discussing various topics. I'd happily go to hear him speak on current issues or on spiritual topics. But I don't think that he would make a good President.
Monday, January 21, 2008
"None of the above" isn't an option
This is the moment you have been waiting for. The historic announcement, anxiously awaited with hushed anticipation, of my endorsement for President.
I've got to start out by saying that there is no candidate who is 100% to my liking.
But some are significantly better than others. There are several candidates who I seriously considered supporting, most notably Huckabee and Thompson.
Huckabee is an interesting candidate. His Christian principles appeal to me a lot, and the guy is very likeable, funny, and eloquent. But his policies on taxes, spending, crime, immigration, and foreign policy convince me that he is not the right person to lead our nation. He staked a lot on winning South Carolina, but couldn't pull it off. In addition, he has failed to attract voters from outside the evangelical Christian community, so I don't think that he could win the election.
Thompson, on the other hand, is a true blue conservative. His positions are spot-on, across the board. From taxes to immigration to foreign policy, I can't think of anyone better grounded in conservative principles of limited government and separation of powers. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to still be in the race by March 5 when Texans have our primary. He has yet to win a primary, or come close for that matter. I believe that people gave up on him too soon, and for all the wrong reasons, due largely to media influence. We criticized Bill Clinton for being too slick. Fred's downfall was not being slick enough.
There are also a number of candidates who I believe would be particularly harmful to elect President. At the top of that list, of course, would be the two Democrat candidates, Mrs. Bill Clinton and B. Hussein Obama. The good news is that I don't consider either of them to be electable. Neither one has any experience actually running anything. Both are real rookies with just a few years in the Senate, making them some of the least qualified candidates in recent history. Hillary points out that she spent 8 years in the White House. Yeah, well so did Clinton's pastry chef. Obama can't even claim proximity to executive leadership. Hillary is dearly beloved by those Democrat party loyalists who thought that Bill Clinton was god on earth. This may be a large enough block of voters to secure the nomination, but it won't carry her to victory in November. Among the general voting public, Hillary has a 51% negative rating. No one whose negatives were higher than 45 in January of election year has ever been elected President. So I really hope that the Democrats pick Hillary as their man.
Moving over to the "Republican" side, there are several candidates who I would strongly oppose in the primaries. If one of these candidates got the nomination I would hold my nose and vote for him, because any one of them would be better than Hillary. Rudy is a pro-abortion, pro-gun control New York liberal Republican. He did a good job as mayor of New York City, but I could not support him in the primaries. Fortunately, his candidacy seems to be self destructing.
John McCain, on the other hand, seems to be on the up-swing. I voted for McCain for Senate back when I lived in Arizona, but since then he has decided to chase after liberal votes. This has made him every Democrat's favorite Republican, but it makes us see him much as Democrats see Joe Lieberman. He always seems to be teaming up with liberal Democrats to undermine conservative principles in one way or another: infringing on free speech, blocking originalist judicial nominations, opposing tax cuts, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, drinking the hysterical global warming alarmism Kool-Aid, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR, and the list goes on... McCain seems to be gaining traction, propelled by a fawning media and their myth that he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary.
The race for the GOP nomination seems to be coming down to a long, drawn-out battle of attrition, in which the outcome may not be clear until very late, possibly even until the convention. I find this to be delicious. The last thing I want is a coronation where the outcome is determined by New Hampshire and a few other early primary states. I expect that soon it will be clear that this is a fight for delegates between Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Which brings me down to my endorsement. As a matter of principle, I will support the most conservative viable candidate. There is no question in my mind that Mitt Romney is that man. His track record, both in the private sector and as governor of Massachusetts, indicates that he is capable both of winning the election and serving as an outstanding President. I am not bothered by the allegation that years ago he took a "pro-choice" position on abortion, because he clearly corrected that mistake a decade ago. His business experience and his economic policy indicate that he is more than up to the task of countering the Democrat's strategy of running on the economy. His track record proves that he will not appoint liberal activist judges, but will instead appoint judges who will stick to their duty of interpreting what the Constitution actually says. I even hold out some hope that he will bring some fiscal restraint to Washington. As the only candidate to use the term "War on Islamofascism" I believe that he understands the importance of defeating Islamic extremists who seek to murder and destroy in their quest to spread lawlessness and tyranny.
I hesitated to support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, and we have vast differences in what we believe about God and who Jesus Christ is. But I have come to recognize that we can disagree on that without it making him any less capable of being a great President.
So today I proudly announce that I support Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
I've got to start out by saying that there is no candidate who is 100% to my liking.
But some are significantly better than others. There are several candidates who I seriously considered supporting, most notably Huckabee and Thompson.
Huckabee is an interesting candidate. His Christian principles appeal to me a lot, and the guy is very likeable, funny, and eloquent. But his policies on taxes, spending, crime, immigration, and foreign policy convince me that he is not the right person to lead our nation. He staked a lot on winning South Carolina, but couldn't pull it off. In addition, he has failed to attract voters from outside the evangelical Christian community, so I don't think that he could win the election.
Thompson, on the other hand, is a true blue conservative. His positions are spot-on, across the board. From taxes to immigration to foreign policy, I can't think of anyone better grounded in conservative principles of limited government and separation of powers. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to still be in the race by March 5 when Texans have our primary. He has yet to win a primary, or come close for that matter. I believe that people gave up on him too soon, and for all the wrong reasons, due largely to media influence. We criticized Bill Clinton for being too slick. Fred's downfall was not being slick enough.
There are also a number of candidates who I believe would be particularly harmful to elect President. At the top of that list, of course, would be the two Democrat candidates, Mrs. Bill Clinton and B. Hussein Obama. The good news is that I don't consider either of them to be electable. Neither one has any experience actually running anything. Both are real rookies with just a few years in the Senate, making them some of the least qualified candidates in recent history. Hillary points out that she spent 8 years in the White House. Yeah, well so did Clinton's pastry chef. Obama can't even claim proximity to executive leadership. Hillary is dearly beloved by those Democrat party loyalists who thought that Bill Clinton was god on earth. This may be a large enough block of voters to secure the nomination, but it won't carry her to victory in November. Among the general voting public, Hillary has a 51% negative rating. No one whose negatives were higher than 45 in January of election year has ever been elected President. So I really hope that the Democrats pick Hillary as their man.
Moving over to the "Republican" side, there are several candidates who I would strongly oppose in the primaries. If one of these candidates got the nomination I would hold my nose and vote for him, because any one of them would be better than Hillary. Rudy is a pro-abortion, pro-gun control New York liberal Republican. He did a good job as mayor of New York City, but I could not support him in the primaries. Fortunately, his candidacy seems to be self destructing.
John McCain, on the other hand, seems to be on the up-swing. I voted for McCain for Senate back when I lived in Arizona, but since then he has decided to chase after liberal votes. This has made him every Democrat's favorite Republican, but it makes us see him much as Democrats see Joe Lieberman. He always seems to be teaming up with liberal Democrats to undermine conservative principles in one way or another: infringing on free speech, blocking originalist judicial nominations, opposing tax cuts, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, drinking the hysterical global warming alarmism Kool-Aid, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR, and the list goes on... McCain seems to be gaining traction, propelled by a fawning media and their myth that he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary.
The race for the GOP nomination seems to be coming down to a long, drawn-out battle of attrition, in which the outcome may not be clear until very late, possibly even until the convention. I find this to be delicious. The last thing I want is a coronation where the outcome is determined by New Hampshire and a few other early primary states. I expect that soon it will be clear that this is a fight for delegates between Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Which brings me down to my endorsement. As a matter of principle, I will support the most conservative viable candidate. There is no question in my mind that Mitt Romney is that man. His track record, both in the private sector and as governor of Massachusetts, indicates that he is capable both of winning the election and serving as an outstanding President. I am not bothered by the allegation that years ago he took a "pro-choice" position on abortion, because he clearly corrected that mistake a decade ago. His business experience and his economic policy indicate that he is more than up to the task of countering the Democrat's strategy of running on the economy. His track record proves that he will not appoint liberal activist judges, but will instead appoint judges who will stick to their duty of interpreting what the Constitution actually says. I even hold out some hope that he will bring some fiscal restraint to Washington. As the only candidate to use the term "War on Islamofascism" I believe that he understands the importance of defeating Islamic extremists who seek to murder and destroy in their quest to spread lawlessness and tyranny.
I hesitated to support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, and we have vast differences in what we believe about God and who Jesus Christ is. But I have come to recognize that we can disagree on that without it making him any less capable of being a great President.
So today I proudly announce that I support Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Still too many
The Guttmacher Institute, the propoganda branch of Planned Parenthood, America's biggest abortion provider, reports today that the number of abortions performed in 2005 was 1.2 million, the lowest level since 1974, and down 25% from the peak of 1.6 million in 1990.
To put this number in perspective, 1.2 million people is roughly the population of Dallas, Texas, the ninth largest city in America.
It breaks down to 3,287 abortions a day. In other words, abortion kills more people here in America each and every day of the year than the 19 terrorists killed in the worst terror attack in history, when they crashed airliners into the two towers of the World Trade Center, and into the Pentagon.
Every 26 seconds another baby is killed, sucked into a garbage disposal, and thrown away.
In the 36 years since the Supreme Court invented a "right to privacy" making abortion legal, 54 million babies have been aborted in America.
While 1.2 million is somewhat better than 1.6 million, it is still 1.2 million too many.
To put this number in perspective, 1.2 million people is roughly the population of Dallas, Texas, the ninth largest city in America.
It breaks down to 3,287 abortions a day. In other words, abortion kills more people here in America each and every day of the year than the 19 terrorists killed in the worst terror attack in history, when they crashed airliners into the two towers of the World Trade Center, and into the Pentagon.
Every 26 seconds another baby is killed, sucked into a garbage disposal, and thrown away.
In the 36 years since the Supreme Court invented a "right to privacy" making abortion legal, 54 million babies have been aborted in America.
While 1.2 million is somewhat better than 1.6 million, it is still 1.2 million too many.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Georgia on my mind
Last week the boys were out of school so we went to Atlanta to see family.
Going to Georgia means driving through Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. At some points in there I thought I was in a different country. You can’t throw a rock without hitting a Waffle House, and most of the billboards are for casinos or other gambling establishments. I stopped at a gas station in Alabama, and as I was going in, a redneck with 3 teeth and a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon was coming out. He eyed me and my wife suspiciously and said “Ya’ll ain’t from ‘round here, is you? [multiple sic]” I’m not sure what gave us away.
Atlanta is a contradiction of a city. Huge, jammed with traffic far worse even than Dallas, loaded with history and culture. They have the best aquarium I have ever been to. They are rightfully proud of Martin Luther King Jr. We visited his home and Ebenezer Baptist Church.
They are proud to have hosted the 1996 Olympics. They are also inexplicably proud of Jimmy Carter. I stood outside of the Carter Library and tried to get people to sign a petition to require that any sentence containing Jimmy Carter’s name also include the word “hapless.” It didn’t go over well. I guess that if you only have one president from your state, you take what you can get. Kind of like Arkansas, only they kicked the guy out.
But for all their pride in MLK, if you drive 15 miles east from downtown Atlanta you come to Stone Mountain, where the 90-foot-high figures of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E Lee, and Jefferson Davis are carved into the side of the mountain.
The carving was started by members of “The United Daughters of the Confederacy” in conjunction with the Klan (who regularly hold rallies there), and completed by the “Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Advisory Committee” with the stated purpose of “honoring our heroes and preserving our legacy”. I never did figure out what is honorable or heroic about guys who divided a nation and fought a war which claimed 620,000 American lives in their attempt to perpetuate and expand slavery, but one certainly gets the feeling that they can't wait for the South to rise again and win the rematch in the Northern War of Aggression.
They would do better to honor their liberators: Grant, Sherman, and Lincoln.
In fact, there are plenty of people from Georgia worthy of honor: George Washington Carver, Eli Whitney, Clarence Thomas, and of course Newt Gingrich. I would certainly applaud a decision to dynamite the existing statue and replace it with the figure of Martin Luther King Jr.
Either that, or they could add the hapless Jimmy Carter and rename it “Georgia’s Hall of Shame.”
Monday, January 07, 2008
Got some change in my pocket
"We talked about change when we were up; we talked about change where we were down. This change thing must be catching on." -- B. Hussein Obama
"I am the candidate that can bring change." -- Mrs. Bill Clinton
"With Bill Richardson, you get change and you get experience. You have to have experience to change things." -- Bill Richardson
"My friends, I am most proud of the change that I brought about..." -- John McCain
"There's a tide of change sweeping New Hampshire and America" -- Mitt Romney
I can change my clothes.
I got change for a twenty.
"I am the candidate that can bring change." -- Mrs. Bill Clinton
"With Bill Richardson, you get change and you get experience. You have to have experience to change things." -- Bill Richardson
"My friends, I am most proud of the change that I brought about..." -- John McCain
"There's a tide of change sweeping New Hampshire and America" -- Mitt Romney
I can change my clothes.
I got change for a twenty.
Hey buddy, got some spare change for a cup of coffee?
My change can beat up your change!
We got some changin' goin' on over here.
What the heck does "change" mean?
It is a worthless platitude. Any politician who uses it automatically drops a couple of notches in my book. It is a way of playing on people's fears that things are going the wrong direction without having to name anything specific that you would do differently.
What are you going to do? Change!
What does that mean? Anything different than what we are doing now.
Didn't Hitler change Germany? What makes you think that change is automatically a good thing? More importantly, what makes you think that any kind of change is equal to any other kind? Are we supposed to be impressed by your arguing about who is "the candidate of change?"
My change can beat up your change!
We got some changin' goin' on over here.
What the heck does "change" mean?
It is a worthless platitude. Any politician who uses it automatically drops a couple of notches in my book. It is a way of playing on people's fears that things are going the wrong direction without having to name anything specific that you would do differently.
What are you going to do? Change!
What does that mean? Anything different than what we are doing now.
Didn't Hitler change Germany? What makes you think that change is automatically a good thing? More importantly, what makes you think that any kind of change is equal to any other kind? Are we supposed to be impressed by your arguing about who is "the candidate of change?"
In 1992, Bill Clinton used the mantra of "change" extensively, but after 8 years as VP, Clinton clone wannabe Al Gore also campaigned on a "change" platform. I fully expect to see the incumbent proclaiming herself to be the candidate of change in 2012.
Don't hide behind this empty word!
Come on, give me some substance. Tell me specifically what you are going to do. What is your vision for America and what policies are you going to implement to get us there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
