What tax rate are we paying?

One of my handful of faithful readers had a question about my "Productivity Curve" concept. He wanted to know what our current tax rate is. He said that he pays a lot less than 33% in taxes.

He probably pays more than he thinks.

We all pay layers and layers of different taxes to the federal government, state government, and local government. Some are direct and others are indirect. Some are visible and some are hidden. My Federal income tax bill is also quite a bit less than 33% of my income. It is somewhere around 10%. But adding up all of the taxes that I pay is a daunting task. The payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security are about 15%. My property tax bill each year is also quite large. It is not determined as a percentage of my income, but if it was, it would be another 6% or so. That gets us up to 31%, and we have not started to account for sales tax, gasoline taxes, and all of the other tax expenses passed on to me in the cost of the things I buy.

As an example, when I buy one gallon of gasoline at the current price of $2.75, the government takes 53 cents in direct taxation. 18.3 cents goes to the federal excise tax, and the rest goes to the state. But that is not all. The government imposes 43 different taxes on the import, production, and distribution of gasoline. These costs are passed on to me in higher prices. In all, I pay 73 cents in taxes on every gallon of gasoline I buy. But to pay $2.75 in after-tax dollars, I have to earn significantly more than $2.75. At my total marginal tax rate of 40% (including income tax and payroll tax) I have to earn $4.58 to take home $2.75. So to buy $2.02 worth of gas, I must earn $4.58. The government takes the difference: $2.56. My effective tax rate on the money I earned is 55%.

The tax rate varies widely depending on who earns the money and what they do with it. A lower income person pays a lower income tax rate, but a higher payroll tax rate. They also tend to pay more in sales taxes. A higher income person pays a higher income tax rate and lower payroll tax rate. The tax rate is higher if the money is spent on certain high-tax items. It is lower if the money is invested in a tax-sheltered account.

There is one way to determine the national tax rate, including all direct and indirect taxes, and even future tax liabilities created by deficit spending. Total government spending as a percentage of the size of the economy is the ultimate measure of the tax rate. Whatever the government spends, it takes from the economy in some way: either by direct taxation, by borrowing the money obligating them to take it at a later time, or by printing money and diluting the value of the existing money. Each year the Tax Foundation computes the tax rate using this method, and determines the "Tax Freedom Day". Last year, Tax Freedom Day was April 26, meaning that everything we produce and earn from January 1 to April 25 goes to fund the government. This is a 31.8% tax rate. The highest tax rate since World War II occurred during President Clinton's term, when the tax rate hit 33.6%.




As a whole, our government consumes roughly one third of what the private sector creates. There are other countries with higher tax rates. However, the truth remains that no nation has ever taxed itsself to prosperity. America achieves prosperity in spite of government, not because of it. The best thing that the government can do to increase prosperity is get out of the way.

The Productivity Curve

The debate about whether we are undertaxed or overtaxed as been raging for decades, and I doubt that I am going to solve it here, but I am going to pour some more fuel on the fire.

The mathematics of economics and tax policy is not an exact science. Any model is bound to be overly simplistic and not take all factors into account. That being said, there are important principles which can be distilled from a mathematical analysis of tax policy.

The Laffer Curve is a concept promoted by economist Arthur Laffer, which shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. It is not intended to be an exact function relating tax revenues to a single variable, but rather, it shows that increasing tax rates does not always increase tax revenues.

We know that the value of the Laffer Curve is zero at 0% taxation, and we also know that it is zero at 100% taxation. There is not an exact value of the Laffer Curve for all points in between. The tax revenues generated are a function of countless interrelated variables, and tax rate is just one of those determining factors.

While we do not know the exact value of the Laffer Curve, we do know a lot about its shape and properties. It is an arch, skewed towards the lower tax rates. The partial derivative of the Laffer Curve with respect to tax rate is fairly well behaved. In English, this means that if you hold all other factors constant, there is a predictable change in tax revenues resulting from a small change in tax rate. In the example above, a 33% tax rate generates the greatest tax revenues. If the current tax rate is 33%, any change would result in a decrease in tax revenues. If the current tax rate was less than 33%, a small tax increase would increase tax revenues. If the current tax rate was more than 33%, a small tax cut would increase tax revenues.

Remember that the Laffer Curve is not precisely known. In reality, instead of being a single line, it is a band with some thickness, to account for the other factors which affect tax revenues. Instead of having a distinct peak, there is a range which contains the peak, but the precise location of the peak can not be determined because of all of the other factors which affect tax revenues.

There is reason to believe that our current tax rates are close to the peak of the Laffer Curve. This means that Republicans have been successful at achieving their goal of implementing a supply-side economic policy. Democrats argue for a tax rate higher than the rate which maximizes tax revenues. They take this position for reasons that I will go into later.

Republicans have argued for years that tax revenues can be increased by cutting tax rates. This argument was made by President Kennedy when he reduced the top marginal tax rate from 90%, and it was made by President Reagan and President Bush. It has proven to be true in every case. However, I claim that maximizing tax revenues is the wrong goal. Only if you want bigger government and more government and you believe that it is better for the government to spend your money rather than you spending your money should you try to maximize tax revenues. If you recognize that government is too big, too intrusive, and too unproductive, your goal should be to reduce tax revenues and increase private sector productivity.

I suggest that instead of attempting to maximize tax revenues, we should instead maximize productivity. A second curve can be derived directly from the Laffer Curve. I’ll call this the productivity curve. It predicts the relationship between tax rates and productivity of the nation’s economy. It is mathematically certain that the productivity curve peaks at a lower tax rate than the Laffer Curve. For the Laffer Curve to peak, the productivity curve must be sloping steeply downward, indicating that it is past its peak. The standard of living of the country is determined not by tax revenues, but by the production of the economy. Prosperity does not come from the government; it comes from the private sector. If we maximize productivity instead of tax revenues, we will increase our national standard of living.

Recognize that the chart above represents the results in a single year. The long-term results look even better for the maximized productivity tax rate. Economic growth is directly related to productivity, maximizing productivity in the current year also increases economic growth for future years because it results in greater reinvestment in the economy. The longer the term you consider, the better the maximized productivity tax rates look. In fact, if you look long term, more tax revenues will be generated by maximizing productivity than by maximizing current tax revenues.

Considering that it is mathematically certain that our nation would be more prosperous if we maximized productivity rather than tax revenues, why have we spent decades chasing after the wrong goal? Primarily it is because we have let the politicians frame the debate. Republicans have argued for a tax policy designed to maximize tax revenues, while claiming to be the party for smaller government. Democrats have taken an even more incomprehensible position, seeking tax rates higher than the rates which maximize revenues. This increases the power of the government, which means that it increases their own power. The further to the right you go on this graph, the larger the share of the economy that the government controls. Liberals believe that government control of the economy is a good thing. This is clearly a self-serving belief for the politicians, but they convince their constituents to buy into that belief by demonizing corporations and business and portraying government as the solution to every problem. By being further to the right on this graph, they give themselves more leverage to buy votes with government money and services, justified in the name of equality.

Neither approach serves the best interests of our nation. Democrats will say that cutting taxes will benefit the rich and increase the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The reality is that an increase in the prosperity of the country creates more opportunity for anyone to achieve success and share in the prosperity. Democrats don’t like this because it means that they are not the ones providing the wealth redistribution. Government can only transfer wealth. It can not create it. The private sector creates wealth. Government tries to impose equality by changing the way that the “pie” is divided up. The private sector bakes a bigger pie so that everyone can have more without taking it away from someone else. If you prefer the government’s approach, by all means maximize tax revenues. On the other hand, if you prefer unlimited opportunity to equality of outcome, it is time to make major changes to the way we set our tax policy.

The Bible Code

Amidst all of the attention given to the fictional "code" in Dan Brown's fabrication, The Da Vinci Code, another code has gone almost unnoticed.

The Bible, a collection of 66 books writen by dozens of different authors over more than a thousand year's time, contains one cohesive code which runs from beginning to end. The secrets revealed by this amazing code are unknown to most of the world, and carry with them the power to transform lives. To decypher this code, one must analyze a series of ancient symbols arranged according to certain phonetic and grammatical patterns.

Here on this blog I will reveal the secret to break the code and unlock the supernatural power it holds.

First, place a Bible on a table face up, spine to the left. Open the cover to reveal the first page. Carefully examine the text on that page, starting at the upper left and proceeding first from left to right, and from top to bottom. When you reach the end of the first page, turn the page and proceed to the second page. Repeat this process until the secret is revealed.

Dire Warning

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere. Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect. Related to the tsunami which killed 200,000 people in 2004.

Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant,
• in nuclear power plants,
• by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
• by elite athletes to improve performance,
• in the production of Styrofoam,
• in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
• as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
• in abortion clinics,
• as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
• as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
• in cult rituals,
• by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families,
• by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
• by pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here),
• by the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
• historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
• in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
• by the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their ethnic cleansing campaign,
• by many terrorist organizations,
• in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
• in animal research laboratories, and
• in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals, in spray-on oven cleaners, in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products, in bathtub bubble products marketed to children, as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections, in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors, in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad, in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.

One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.

Our children are in peril, and we must act now! Contact your Senators and Representatives! Contact the EPA and FDA! Contact the Sierra Club, Earth First, and Al Gore! Let them know that we must end this assault on our health and our environment today! Before it is too late.

Duh Vinci Code

One of the biggest movies of the summer is sure to be The Da Vinci Code. I read the book, and I could write pages and pages about the mis-information in the book. If you are interested in that, there are plenty of sources which will provide a thorough debunking of the pseudo-historical premise of the book. In the end, it is easier to list the factual content of the book than the misinformation. The facts in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code can be summarized as follows:

1. London is in England
2. Paris is in France
3. Leonardo Da Vinci was a painter

Some people will defend the book and the movie on the basis that it is a work of fiction, and therefore by definition, is not factual. However, Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code, on a page right after the title page asserts that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate." Thus, from the beginning, the book claims to be more than pure fiction. Brown went to great lengths to muddle fact and fiction, leading readers to believe that the premise of the book is plausible and supported by fact. The following is the most recent review on the Amazon web site. It is typical of many of the other reviews:

Once I began this extraordinary book, I could not put it down. "The Da Vinci Code" is so much more than a gripping suspense thriller. Dan Brown takes us beyond the main plot and leads us on a quest for the Holy Grail - a Grail totally unlike anything we have been taught to believe. With his impeccable research, Mr. Brown introduces us to aspects and interpretations of Western history and Christianity that I, for one, had never known existed...or even thought about. I found myself, unwillingly, leaving the novel, and time and time again, going online to research Brown's research - only to find a new world of historic possibilities opening up for me. And my quest for knowledge and the answers to questions that the book poses, paralleled, in a sense, the quest of the book's main characters. What a trip! What a read!

People are looking to this fictional work in their search for truth. It is a sad sign of our times that people will accept a novel as their source of truth, but we should not be surprised. The Apostle Paul said that this would happen:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (II Timothy 4:3-4)

One response is to blame Dan Brown for writing the book, or Hollywood for making the movie. The reality is that these people are simply responding to a need for answers to spiritual questions, and this need exists because the Church is failing to provide those answers. As believers, we are partially to blame for Brown's success at passing off fiction as fact. We, as a group, don't know what we believe and why we believe it, and we are not adequately prepared to offer something better than Brown's myth.

I see this movie not as a cause for outrage, but as an opportunity to address real issues which people struggle with every day. The interest in this book and movie shows that people want to know who God is, who Jesus is, and what He means to their lives. The Church has the only real and lasting way to meet this basic need. The response of the Church will distinguish Christianity from other world religions: we will not take to the street in angry mobs burning cars, hurling stones, and killing people in rage at the perceived indignity. But we must go one step further than simply refraining from these reactions by proclaiming the truth that people are searching for: Jesus offers grace and forgiveness which changes our lives and gives us fellowship with God.

The tag line of the movie is "Seek the truth." If people are willing to honestly seek the truth, I am confident that fiction will be revealed as false, and the truth of the Bible will stand. If this movie causes people to embark on this kind of search, it is a good thing.

But we, the Church, must be ready to address the questions which will arise and help to direct people to the truth of the transforming power of Jesus Christ. Instead of looking for truth in a fictional novel, perhaps they should start in the non-fiction section of the library. Then examine the Bible in the light of historical reality. Most importantly, we need to let them see that Jesus is more than a hisorical figure. He is alive and active in our lives today.

This is how Paul instructed us to respond:

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. ... But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (II Timothy 4: 2,5)

Let's not miss the opportunity that this movie provides, but use every opportunity to let the light of Jesus shine. When we present the truth to the world, they won't need to look to pulp fiction pretending to be fact for their answers.

CBS News hires Moussaoui

(05-08-2006) CBS News today announced plans for convicted terror conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to take the place of Dan Rather as anchor of their evening news. It was unclear when Moussaoui, who "defeated" America by being sentenced to spend the rest of his life in a concrete room instead of dying by lethal injection, would be available to perform his anchor duties.

CBS President Arnold Harbinger said, "Mr. Moussaoui is an ideal replacement for Dan Rather because the two share many common interests, viewpoints, ideologies, and delusions of self-importance. Both exhibit the zeal to advance these viewpoints, using unconventional methods when necessary. Mr. Moussaoui's improvised identification documents prove that he is up to the high standard set by Dan Rather. And we believe that Mr. Moussaoui will bring depth and balance to our news desk. The 'wave the white flag, cut and run, appease the terrorists' crowd is already well represented, and CBS is a bit thin in the 'kill Americans and destroy the Zionist Satan' department."

In related news, an audio tape has surfaced in which Osama Bin Laden can be heard, speaking from his subterranean headquarters, expressing gratitude to America for sparing the life of Moussaoui, and repealing the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 as a token of his new appreciation for the American justice system.

Financial planning

I have been interested in investments and finances for a long time. I have read enough and studied enough to manage my own investments more effectively than a professional financial planner could do, and much less expensively. I have written my own portfolio optimization program and designed an improved system for portfolio distribution. I am well versed in the theory and mathematics of asset allocation, Modern Portfolio Theory, Efficient Market Hypothesis, and various equity pricing models. But occasionally something comes along which revolutionizes the way that I look at finances. When it does, I will pass it along to you, the handful of readers of this blog.

The revolution is a new way of doing lifetime financial planning: consumption smoothing. Larry Kotlikoff, professor of Economics at Boston University, used this concept to create the most comprehensive financial planning tool available today, Economic Security Planner. At $200 it is not cheap, but compared to the ongoing cost of hiring a financial planner and paying his loads, commissions, and fees for the rest of your life, it is a bargain. And the value of the advice from ESP is likely to be far greater than from a member of the financial industry sales force.

The principles behind consumption smoothing are not new. They have been studied by economists for decades. But until now, the computing power and software required to apply the theory to an individual family's financial situation did not exist. Considerations such as the impact of taxes, social security, and uncertain future investment returns make the problem very computationally intensive. Conventional financial planners use one-size-fits-all rules of thumb which typically do more to pad the planner's pocketbook with larger commissions than to serve the needs of the customer. Being off by even a few percent can cost thousands of dollars over your lifetime.

The concept is simple: to create a plan which avoids sudden large changes in standard of living. These changes could take many forms: reaching retirement age without enough in savings to maintain your previous standard of living, or reaching retirement with way more money than you need, encountering large expenses like college costs without enough money saved, or the death of a spouse. ESP helps an individual create a lifetime financial plan including things like:

• How much should I save?
• How much should I put in my 401k?
• How much can I spend this year without putting my future in jeopardy?
• How much life insurance should I have?
• What asset allocation should I use?
• Will I be able to pay for my kid's college?
• When can I afford to retire?
• What should I do now to minimize the impact of taxes over my lifetime?
• What are my priorities for saving?
• Will my family be secure if I die?

Without something like ESP, you are left to guess at the answers to these questions, and being off by even a small amount can result in big financial disruptions in the future. ESP is the most comprehensive tool available to individuals to help them make these important decisions.

For a full discussion of consumption smoothing and ESP, read this paper by Kotlikoff.

(I do not profit in any way from the sale of this product. All disclaimers apply.)

Global warming

There is terrible news for environmentalists today.

Global warming has apparently stopped.

The official temperature records stored at the University of East Anglia shows that the average global temperature has not increased in the past 8 years. Global warming stopped in 1998. From 1970 until 1998, the average global temperature increased by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit. However, in the past 8 years, the temperature has dropped a fraction of a degree.

The really horrible news for environmentalists is that in those same eight years, human production of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide was at its highest levels ever. Our factories, power plants, and SUVs continued to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before, and yet the "human caused" warming trend reversed.

Even before this latest example, there was plenty of evidence that there is no correlation between human activity and the temperature cycles of the earth. A previous warming cycle occurred from 1918 until 1940, well before the major increase of "greenhouse gas" emissions, and the following cooling cycle lasting from 1940 and 1965 coincided precisely with the period of greatest increase in emissions worldwide. Environmentalists love to make wild claims such as "This is the hottest year since 1500!" And what made 1500 so hot? Was it the Hummers and the coal-burning power plants? Was it caused by Republicans not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty? Perhaps Christopher Columbus was to blame, because we know that it is always a European American, and he is the closest thing there was to a European American at the time.

You would think that environmentalists would be overjoyed to discover that humans are not causing global warming, that the earth has natural temperature cycles, and that we are not on the brink of a worldwide cataclysm caused by American industry. But they are not. In fact, they are more hysterical than ever. They point to their computer models which say that by the year 2030 the global temperature will have increased by 6 degrees. Or 2 degrees. Or 1 degree. It depends which model you look at, how you set all of the very sensitive parameters, and who you ask. They won't tell you that in 1990 those same models were saying that by 2005 the global temperature would have climbed by three degrees. Nor will they tell you that in 1970 those same models said that by 1990 the global temperature would have dropped by six degrees, sending the earth into an ice age. That's right, thirty-five years ago the environmentalist panic was over global cooling caused by American industry. The only thing which has stayed the same is the identity of the villain.

So why are environmentalists so sad to hear that we are not all about to die as a result of global warming? It is because their power comes from the imminent threat of crisis. Looming disaster is their excuse to enact their real agenda, which is greater government control over industry. The environment is just an excuse to accomplish a liberal coup, seizing more power for the government and putting more of the economy under their control. If the earth is not about to be destroyed by evil corporations burning fossil fuels and building gas-guzzling SUVs, the impetus for more government regulation and greater socialization is gone. And worse yet, the opportunity to use fear mongering to increase their fundraising is dangerously threatened. If their global warming pseudo-science is debunked, how will they be able to write hysterical fund-raising letters convincing concerned people to send in $50 or face certain demise from melting polar caps?

The real crisis here has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, shrinking ozone layer, melting polar ice, or global warming. The crisis which has the left in a tizzy is the shrinking and melting away of their power and influence as people recognize them as the frauds they are.

Happy Tax Day

It's Tax Day, so I want you to stop and ask yourself one question:

Are you getting your money's worth?

Socialist Space Exploration

Forty years ago today, the first man orbited the earth in a primitive, Russian space capsule.

Twenty five years ago today, the first Space Shuttle lifted off from Florida and went into orbit.

Back in those days, if you asked where our space program would be in 2006, the answer would have been mind-blowing. By 2006, we were told, we would have cities in orbit, permanently manned bases on the moon, human exploration of Mars, and at least the beginnings of a manned interstellar program. Space travel, we were promised, would be as routine as flying from New York to London.

Our space program has failed to deliver on that early promise. It seems that the height of our achievement was the Apollo program more than thirty years ago. We could not send a man back to the moon today if we wanted to. The Space Shuttle program has never been as successful as we hoped. It was originally touted as being capable of flying ten to fifteen missions a year, but five missions in a year is the most it has ever achieved. The plans for the International Space Station are getting more modest each year, as the program slides further behind schedule and over budget.

So what is the cause of this lack of innovation or progress?

We have turned space exploration into another ineffective government program, blocking our greatest engine of innovation, the free market private sector, from reaching its full potential in advancing the technology of space flight. The same principle is true in space flight as anywhere else: the best and brightest people don't work for the government. If they did, the private sector would hire them away. NASA is crippled by the fact that it is government run, and thus not propelled by the market forces which fuel private enterprise. Instead, it is limited by the short-sighted nature of public funding and the whim of Congress. The private sector should, in theory, be far better than the government at developing new technology to achieve our goals in space. But there is not a single American company which provides a commercial satellite launch capability. Several companies have tried, but none have succeeded. It is not that the technical challenge is beyond the ability of American industry. We built rockets which could carry a satellite to orbit decades ago. The reason that there is no private sector business flying in space is that it is not economically feasible. To break into the business, a company would have to compete with NASA, a taxpayer subsidized entity. NASA can offer their satellite launching service at a lower price because they are funded by the government, and there is no way that a private company can compete with that. By maintaining a government-run space program, we not only have a sub-par space program, but we also block out private companies which could do a lot more if they could break into the industry.

So let's get back to the vision we had forty years ago, get the government out of the way, and unleash America's unstoppable creativity and the power of free market enterprise to reach our Space Age dreams.

Welfare crisis

In March, 2006 the number of New York City residents on the welfare rolls fell to the lowest level since December of 1964.

Today there are about 402,000 New York City residents on welfare, down nearly two thirds from the high point during Clinton's administration.

Is this good news or bad news? That depends entirely on your perspective.

If you are a liberal who measures compassion based on the number of people dependant on government assistance, this is a crisis of epic proportions. In fact, it is a threat to that which matters most to you in this world: your chances to gain power in the next election.

If you are a conservative who measures compassion based on the number of people who no longer need government assistance, it is very good news.

But how are her document forging skills

Katie Couric will have big shoes to fill as she takes over the CBS anchor job.

She certainly has years of experience reading a teleprompter, so that should not be an issue.

And she has well established liberal credentials, which is a basic qualification for the job.

However, there is no reason to think that she is up to the critical task of forging documents to create news stories damaging to conservatives. Without this skill, CBS News will just not be the same.

A challenge

So the fact that we have not found the chemical weapons which we know that Saddam had is proof that they don't exist?

Here is a challenge:

Give me five years and a $10 million budget to hide one hundred 50-gallon barrels anywhere in the state of Texas. During those five years, you can observe from England or Canada.

At the end of the five years, you will have three years to find the barrels. During that time, I will have a few thousand people shooting at you as you search.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have the option of hiding the barrels in Oklahoma or New Mexico, but you can't look for them there.

If you don't find the barrels in three years, we can conclude that they don't exist, right?

Seen on monster.com

Wanted

White House seeking new director for Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Must desire to be held responsible for the ignorant behavior of every individual during the next hurricane, flood, tornado, terrorist attack, fire, cartoon snubbing Islam, or Cubs loss in the World Series. Job includes being held accountable for the failure of local emergency responders to do their job. Signing bonus is a 100% cotton t-shirt with the phrase "Designated Fall Guy" embroidered on the front in large script lettering.

Please hurry. Hurricane season begins in just two months.

Organs

Every year in America, thousands of people die while they wait for an organ donation which never comes. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people die with perfectly good organs which could save lives, but are not used.

China has a solution to this problem. There are more than enough organs available in China, and many people go to China to buy organs which they can't get in other places. China gets these organs by killing people accused of political or religous crimes and taking their organs.

Other countries mandate that organs be harvested from anyone who dies with useable organs.

In America, we don't do things that way. We believe in freedom and individual rights, not tyranny or total government control. A person's organs belong to that person, and can not be taken away against that person's will. But there is something we can do to eliminate the shortage of organs.

Allow individuals to leave their organs to their estate.

The estate could then sell the organs at a price determined by the free market. This would encourage people to allow their organs to be used, because it would benefit their own family in addition to benefiting the organ recipient.

Some might object to this based on the idea that it would make organs unaffordable. The reality is that it would not. Organs are already sold at market price, only now the company who harvests the organs pockets the money generated. What claim does that company have on the value of the organ? They should be compensated for the cost of harvesting the organ, but the organ itsself belongs to the donor. The price for organs is determined by supply and demand. If the supply increases, the price will decrease.

Other people might have ethical problems with the idea of a person selling his organs to benefit his estate. The company which currently sells the organs doesn't have an ethical problem with that. They profit handsomely from it. But your organs belong to you. They are your property. The definition of ownership includes the right to sell your property. If you own your organs, there is no ethical problem with selling them after you die. There is a much greater ethical problem with burying the organs in the ground and letting someone who needed those organs die.

This is a win-win proposition. It allows an individual to help their own family and help someone in need of a new organ at the same time.

Limousine Liberals

Liberals like to pose as the champion of the little guy.

They claim to be the ones who are in tune with the blue collar worker.

They sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden.

They stand up for those who are exploited by evil corporations.

But occasionally, one of these big-hearted liberals slips up and reveals what he really thinks.

On Sunday night, Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin was co-hosting a radio program with Brian Whitman on WABC in New York. He made some disparaging remarks about Sean Hannity, and Mr. Hannity called in to discuss the remarks. Alec Baldwin, who has publicly called Vice President Cheney a terrorist and suggested that Henry Hyde be stoned to death, was not willing to defend his comments with substance. Instead, he immediately launched a personal attack against Sean Hannity. The actor searched for the deepest, darkest, most demeaning insult that he could conjure up, and he came up with this gem:

"Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you? "

In a single sentence, Alec Baldwin revealed what he truly thinks of real Americans. Construction workers are the people who make America work. We all depend on them for the houses we live in, the buildings where we work, shop, and live out our lives, and the roads we drive on. Baldwin shows the height of his arrogance and condescension by using "construction worker" as an insulting epithet. He believes that his career of pretending to be someone not only makes him better than the rabble who pay admission to his films, but also makes his opinions more valid and more important than anyone else's. The fact that Baldwin thinks that calling someone a "former construction worker" is an insult reflects much more on Baldwin than on the target of Baldwin's diatribe.

Although Baldwin's self-importance has not yet reached the level of Richard Gere, who claimed to speak for the entire world, it is getting close.

Making it all worthwhile

Sometimes something happens which makes it all worthwhile.

Yesterday, my wife was talking with our 6-year-old son. He was telling her about how he was going to have eight boys when he grows up. He told her that he would need a big house for all of those kids.

My wife said, "You'd better work hard in school so that you can get a good job. You need to be able to support that family, and you don't want your wife to have to work and put the kids in day care."

My son said, "What is day care?"

At that moment, all of the effort we have made to be sure that one or the other of us is always available to be with the kids paid off. We could live in a fancier house, drive a nicer car, and have a bigger checking account, and get more sleep if we dumped the kids in day care while we both went to work. But what is the point of having kids if you are going to hire someone to raise them? Investment in things which last and things which really matter will always pay off.

Real Westerns

I used to watch the Academy Awards, or at least I was interested enough to find out who won. I watched two years ago when the third Lord of the Rings movie swept most of the categories. I will not be watching this year. Politics have taken over the Academy, and people are voting to prove how "enlightened" they are, rather than based on the quality of the films.

Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of this. The Actor's Screen Guild was right in passing it up, but it will almost certainly win a bunch of Oscars on Sunday. Personally, I much preferred Crash for best picture. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. Joaquin Phoenix would get my vote for best actor, for his role in Walk the Line. And why didn't Russell Crowe even get a best actor nomination for Cinderella Man?

One positive note is that Brokeback Mountain was not nominated for best documentary, even though the equally fictitious "Bowling for Columbine" won that category two years ago, again based on politics rather than merit.

Brokeback Mountain is not the only nomination which reveals Hollywood's political agenda. Other nominated films show a gay writer as a soulful artist, a transsexual as a responsible parent, a Palestinian suicide bomber as a thoughtful, conscience-driven activist, greedy oil company executives as, well, greedy oil company executives, and Senator Joe McCarthy as (gasp) a threat to American civil liberties. Positive representations of Christians, conservatives, or white hetersexuals are strangely missing.

Brokeback Mountain is popular in Hollywood because it is an attack on the American history of the west as a place of rugged individualism where the men are, well, manly. Although I am not a big fan of westerns, I love the distinctly American culture they reflect. I plan to spend Sunday evening celebrating the American West by watching a true, red-blooded American Western. I have not decided on which one to watch yet, but my prime candidates are: True Grit, The Shootist, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Red River.

Chocolate New Orleans

In honor of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and today's Mardi Gras celebration, I present the recipe for a Chocolate New Orleans.

1. Start off with a large brownie with chocolate chunks baked into it.
2. Apply a layer of chocolate mousse.
3. Add a second layer of brownie.
4. Lay down a thin layer of chocolate pudding.
5. Add a third brownie.
6. Put two large scoops of chocolate ice cream on top.
7. Cover it with a generous layer of hot fudge.
8. Sprinkle dark chocolate shavings on the hot fudge.
9. Have a transvestite from the French Quarter pee all over it.

Self-centered little brats

Was I the only one who was a bit embarrassed by some of our Olympic athletes?

I'm not going to mention names here, because these people seek attention at any cost. What is sad is that these few high-profile athletes and their childish actions overshadowed many fine athletes who have worked hard for years to get to the Olympics and competed honorably.

We had one world-class skier who was favored to win a number of events, but messed all of them up and walked away empty-handed. That would be excusable, except that in an interview after he lost the last event, he had a very blasé attitude, and talked about how it was all good because he had fun hanging out in bars until midnight before competing.

Then there was the American snowboardcross racer who was leading the gold-medal race but felt the need to show off with a showboat jump move. She crashed a stone's throw from the finish line, and lost the gold medal. There is certainly a time to celebrate a win, but it is on the other side of the finish line.

One snowboarder said that he hoped to win a gold medal because it would "help me pick up lots of chicks."

And of course a lot of attention went to the two American speed skaters who had a public name-calling match in the media over who would or wouldn't skate in a relay race.

It used to be that being a part of the American Olympic Team was about national pride and sportsmanlike competition putting team and country ahead of self. These days it seems to be about individual attention at any cost. This trend appears to have started with professional athletes and celebrities such as Dennis Rodman who depend on media attention to get bigger contracts and higher-paying endorsements. By doing something shocking, they can get their names in the headlines, which builds their name recognition. This year's Olympic Team reflects that self-focused culture, and the attitude they display is being picked up by our teenagers as well. Our teenager sees sports as a way to attract attention by showing off flashy moves, but without the discipline, persistence, or focus on teamwork to excel as an athlete. If we can't get rid of this "it's all about me" outlook, we are going to turn into a nation of self-centered brats.

Why I love old movies

This clip from the 1940 movie "The Ghost Breakers" starring Bob Hope shows why I love old movies. I nominate this as the greatest line in film history.

Other old movies I have recently watched:

Witness for the Prosecution -- a courtroom drama with interesting characters and an amazing ending

The Big Sleep -- a mystery with Humphery Bogart. The plot is dizzyingly complex and I had to write down a list of characters to keep it all straight.

Affirmative Action Arson

Whoever is setting fire to Baptist churches in Alabama seems to believe in Affirmative Action.

The arsonists appear to be using a quota system to assure that each race is represented in the church burning in proportion to the racial makeup of the general population. Of the first six fires, five were set in Baptist churches with predominately white congregations, and one was in a church with a predominately black congregation. The 16% black representation is good enough to prevent even Jesse Jackson from shaking them down for some extra cash.

The media seems to be very relieved that the arsonists are so progressive. Each time more churches burn, the news articles conclude with the current tally. As long as the arsonists continue to employ a quota system, it is all good. Using the right kind of racial discrimination is enough of a virtue to overshadow the crime of burning houses of worship. After all, hate crimes against Baptists are excusable.

U2

Fifteen years ago I was a huge U2 fan. I first started following them when they put out the album War. That is still one of my favorites, along with Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Boy, and Achtung Baby. I have seen them in concert three times. At one point I could recite the lyrics to every song they had ever recorded. U2 had a passion and a fervor which made their music powerfully compelling.

However, since Achtung Baby came out in 1991, U2 has lost its soul. Zooropa was worthless, and besides one faint glimmer of their former selves, Pop was just as bad. I still faithfully line up to buy their albums, hoping that they will rediscover that unforgettable fire which made them great, but their last two albums have been equally disappointing. U2 has gone from being revolutionary to being clichéd and formulaic.

As a U2 fan, you would think that I would be thrilled that they won 5 Grammy Awards last night. Actually, I am a bit puzzled. What in their last album makes it worthy of a Grammy? I listened to it a lot, and finally gave up on trying to appreciate it. The songs are trite and shallow and the music is pop rock drivel. Perhaps they were on to something a few years ago when they wrote "What do I do now that its all been said, no new ideas in the house, and every book has been read?"

So why does a has-been band like U2 win 5 Grammy Awards with such a dull album? It clearly doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their music. It is due to the memory of their former greatness combined with their present-day political activism. However, neither of these is a substitute for present-day musical creativity or innovation.

U2 has always been political. One of their great early songs is "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" a protest of the Irish revolution, about the bombing of a vetrans day parade in Dublin. This is a matter close to the heart of U2, being native Irishmen, and the passion of personal conviction comes through clearly in the music. "In the Name of Love" is another great anthem from U2's early days, honoring Martin Luther King in soaring, spiritual verse.

It used to be that the music spoke for itsself. Today, the music is shallow and the activism is mostly offstage. And it has gone from being personal and passionate to being forced, calculated, and staged for an audience. They are political because they think that this is what people want, not because they believe their new poll-driven causes in the same way they believed Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Instead of singing about their homeland, where there is a personal connection, they sing songs bashing America. Americans certainly have a right to be critical of our government, but let's not forget that U2 chose to move here to take advantage of the great economic opportunity available in America. U2's prosperity is a testimony that there is opportunity for anyone in America, but their songs carry the opposite message. Certain segments of the public, along with the Grammy jurists, eat it up. But those of us who remember U2's roots see through it.

Cartoons

Muslims, angered by Danish cartoons linking their prophet Mohammed with violence, took to the streets setting buildings on fire, storming embassies, looting, burning flags, hurling bottles and stones, and killing people as they demand that Islam be recognized as a religion of peace.

One masked gunman barricaded in the EU headquarters said, "Until Israel is a charred cinder and the Zionist pigs, Danish Devils, and American infidels show respect for Islam and burn in a lake of hellfire, we will hunt them down and rip out their innards for depicting the prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, or the Islamic faith as breeding violence."

Lifeboat

Tuesday morning at Oak Hills Elementary

Teacher: Good morning, class!

Class: Good morning, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Today we're going to play a game!

Class: Yeaaaaaaaaaah!

Teacher: This game is called Lifeboat. All together...

Class: Lifeboat!

Teacher: Good! Lifeboat is a lesson in values clarification. Can you say values clarification?

Class: No.

Teacher: Values clarification is where your little minds decide which lives are worth living and which lives are worth ...ahem... not living. Now here's how we play. A big ship just sank. There are five people on the lifeboat. But the lifeboat is only made for two. I'll list the five people on the chalkboard, and you, class, will decide which three will be thrown overboard. Are we ready?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Good! First, there's an old, old crippled grandfather. Second, there's a mentally handicapped person in a wheelchair.

Alison: What's mentally handicapped?

Teacher: It means they can never be a productive member of society. Third, there's an overweight woman on welfare, with a sniffling, whimpering baby.

Max: Is the baby on welfare, too?

Teacher: Let's not push Mrs. Aryan...

Sydney: Who else is in the boat?

Teacher: A young, white doctor with blue eyes and perfect teeth, and Jessica Simpson. Now, class, take five minutes to make your decision. ... Times up! Well class?

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Teacher: Very good! That was fun, wasn't it?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: For our next lesson, we're going to do an experiment!

Class: Yeah!

Teacher: We're going to test the law of gravity, just like Galileo, by dropping two objects out the window--one heavy and one light-- to see which one hits the sidewalk first. Now what shall we use for the lighter object? I'm thinking of something small and square...

Class: An eraser?

Teacher: Good! And what shall we use for the heavy object? I'm thinking of something round and bouncy... Tommy, I haven't given you permission to leave your sea...class, the bell has not rung. What are you... oohh! Class...put me down! Put me down this instant! Ooohhh! Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[THUD]

Throw over teacher and we'll see if she can bounce
We've learned our lesson--teacher says perfection's what counts
She's getting old and gray and wears an ugly coat
Throw over teacher and we'll play another game of lifeboat

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby, or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Two speeches

On Tuesday night, two speeches were given to Congress and the nation.

In one speech, the benefits of smaller government were proclaimed. The speech called for lower taxes, more free markets, less government interference with the economy, and more individual liberty. This speech acknowledged that capitalism, freedom, open trade, and the diligence and innovation of the American people are the greatest forces for progress and economic growth.

In the other speech, government was the solution to every problem. Increased government spending was touted as the great fix-all. More taxes, more regulation, and more government programs were presented as the path to prosperity.

What is truly odd is that both speeches were given by the same person.

Speaking as a fiscal conservative, President Bush made a strong case for lower taxes, tax code reform, and Social Security reform. He called on Congress to reign in runaway spending by cutting wasteful programs. He asked for the line-item-veto to help eliminate earmarks. At times he sounded almost like Ronald Reagan declaring that "In this crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Unfortunately, the second speech sounded more like Lyndon Johnson than Ronald Reagan. President Bush proposed more than two-dozen new or increased spending initiatives.

He proposed a 22% increase in government subsidy into clean energy research and development. He also promised government money to build new nuclear power plants and to produce ethanol from wood chips. If these technologies were economically viable, the private sector would make the investment. Tax money should not be used to subsidize the development of new technologies which are not cost effective.

The President proposed spending tax money on the development of hydrogen-powered cars. Again, if this technology was economically beneficial, private businesses would undertake the effort. The President appears to have forgotten about the billions of dollars which President Clinton poured into a government program to develop hybrid technology, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The program never produced the hybrid cars they promised. However, foreign automakers, Honda and Toyota, privately developed the technology which can be purchased by Americans today.

Bush also proposed increasing federal "investment" in math and science education. Vast amounts of research show that there is little connection between spending and educational results, and federal spending is the least effective way to improve the quality of education. Surely the President is aware that America did not become a world leader in technology and scientific advancement because of government subsidies. We have long surpassed the countries who tried to achieve success this way.

The president called for more government subsidies and tax preferences for health care. This ignores the fact that the current problems with our health-care system result largely because of government intrusion and subsidies which subvert the market forces of price and quality competition.

After listening to the contradictions in these two speeches, one was forced to ask "Which one do I believe?"

The first speech presented a real roadmap to progress and prosperity through opportunity and freedom.

However, the President's laundry list of new government programs and increased government spending is more in line with how Congress and President Bush have actually operated for the past five years. Since 2000, government spending has increased 40 percent, a figure larger than Clinton's entire eight years. The reality is that the American public expects a government solution to every problem, and any politician who does not promise more government money for every societal ill is committing political suicide. For real change to occur, Americans need to stop looking to the government as their paternal caretaker and start making the most of the opportunities we each have to achieve our own potential.

ANWR

Politicians love to decry our dependence on foreign oil and the high price of gas. The problem is that both of these things are a result of their own actions. We have plenty of domestic oil which is there for the drilling. However, environmentalists and their liberal allies have prevented us from using it. There is more oil in Alaska than in any middle-eastern country. We could end our reliance on foreign oil in two or three years by making full use of our own oil reserves on the gulf coast and in Alaska. Likewise, politicains blame oil companies for the high price of gas, but at the same time they keep increasing the gasoline taxes, and they let environmental lobbists block the construction of more refineries which would increase supply and drive down the price. As a result, no new refinery has been built in the United States for 28 years.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is the ideal way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we develop new energy sources to meet our longer-term needs. Hydrogen-powered cars and fusion power plants are still a decade or more away, and conservative estimates say that our oil reserves in ANWR would last 50 years. It is time to start using our own resources so that we are no longer beholden to people like Hugo Chavez or middle-eastern nations who take our oil money and use it to finance terror.

The reason that we have been prevented from drilling in ANWR is that environmental groups along with liberal politicians and the media have waged a very effective PR campaign to prevent it. From reading media accounts, the area where President Bush wants oil drilling to be conducted is a pristine wilderness, with snow-capped mountains, green meadows, sparkling rivers, and blue lakes surrounded by teeming wildlife. Here are a few photos from news stories about drilling in ANWR:

One of these photos is actually in ANWR, but not in the part of ANWR where they plan to drill. The others are not ANWR at all.

Here are photos of the area where they actually plan to drill:

It is an ice rink the size of South Carolina. Not a single one of the politicians who opposes drilling has actually been there. People who have spent a lot of time in the Alaskan wilderness report that the caribou congregate under the pipelines. They love the pipelines, and use them for shelter. In ANWR there is one dirt road which runs part way along one edge of the 29,600 square mile area. Roughly one tenth of one percent of the ANWR land area would be affected by drilling, leaving 29,560 square miles for the caribou. The ANWR web site says that there are two herds of caribou living there. Each one would have to make do with 14,780 square miles of land.

I wonder how quickly the environmentalists’ argument would last if people saw these pictures instead of what the media shows.

Tax cuts

The report published by the Congressional Budget Office last week indicates that the 2003 capital gains tax cuts have already more than paid for themselves.

In 2003, before the capital gains tax cut bill was passed, the CBO Budget and Economic Outlook report projected capital gains tax revenue at $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a total of $125 billion.

The capital gains tax was passed by Congress in 2003, and took affect in 2004.

Opponents to the tax cut claimed that it would reduce tax revenues by $27 billion in 2004 and 2005, resulting in $98 billion in revenue instead of $125 billion. They were wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but completely, 180 degrees wrong.

Tax revenues did not decrease as a result of the tax cut. They increased. The actual capital gains taxes collected were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005, for a total of $151 billion.

Instead of reducing revenue by $27 billion, the revenue exceeded projections by $26 billion.

Chalk up one more for supply-side economics.

Daniel Clifton of the American Shareholders Association predicted this result, saying

A capital gains tax cut spurs the growth of new businesses, increases the wage of workers, enhances consumer purchasing power, and grows the economy at large, resulting in more overall gains to be taxed. When capital is taxed at a lower rate, any revenue losses are offset because there is more overall capital being produced, and thus more total revenue being generated.

The reverse is true, as demonstrated by President Clinton. In 1993 he signed the largest tax increase in history, raising the top rate by 16 percent. However, tax revenues over the next four years only beat pre-hike estimates by one percent.

So what put the budget into "surplus" at the end of the 1990's? It was a combination of Republican-led reigning in of spending, and a 1997 capital gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress. In spite of cutting the capital gains tax rate by 28%, capital gains tax revenues exceeded projections by 11% over the next three years.

Now I reject any argument which claims that we should be trying to maximize tax revenues. The government already spends too much money and is too intrusive. Balancing the budget can not be accomplished by increasing the tax burden. When we face a budget deficit, the problem is excessive spending, not insufficient taxation. We can not blame Bush's tax cuts for the current budget deficit. The numbers simply do not support the claim that tax rate cuts result in deficits.

Instead, we must blame Congress for their inability to control spending. Republicans won control of Congress on this platform in 1994, and for a while, they remained true to the principle of fiscal restraint. But in the five years that Republicans have controlled Congress and the White House, they have failed miserably to keep spending under control. In 2005 the Federal government spent $2,472.2 billion, up from $1,789.2 billion in 2000. This represents a 6.68% annual increase in spending, outpacing inflation, population growth, and GDP.

There are two key elements to a successful implementation of fiscally conservative economic policy: low taxes and controlled spending. One does not work without the other. We are doing fine on taxes, but its time to get spending in check.

A relief

On Tuesday, liberal web site "Truthout" reported that they had proof that the NSA wiretaps had started earlier than 9/11/2001. They trumpted this news as evidence that President Bush was hellbent on depriving people of their rights by listening to the international phone calls of terrorists.

On Wednesday, the "Truthout" story was debunked, meaning that they do not have evidence that NSA wiretaps had started before terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, and Pentagon, and attempted to target some other site. They were not nearly so loud in admitting that they were wrong. Truthout, it seems, is aptly named. There is no TruthIn it.

However, "Truthout" author Lason Jeapold did express relief that the story was untrue. "It is a great relief to discover that the rights of the 20 hijackers and 3,000 Americans killed on September eleventh were not violated."

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pointed out that "its hard to exercise your right to make an unmonitored phone call when you are dead."

Klanned Parenthood

KLANNED PARENTHOOD
Putting the "hood" in Parenthood

Abortion! Because lynching is for amateurs.

In America today, almost as many black babies are aborted as are born.


A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. This is not an accident. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said "Negros and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans. Blacks, soldiers, and jews are a menace to the race -- sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility. ... More children from the fit, less from the unfit--that is the chief issue of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919)

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing

Abortion

There is one central issue on the mind of every Democrat Senator in the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito: will Ted Kennedy ever shut up?

The confirmation hearings are more about liberal Senators grandstanding than about understanding Judge Alito's judicial philosophy. Kennedy talked for 24 of the 30 minutes allotted to him for the purpose of questioning Alito. Senator Biden went on for 18 minutes before he got to the first question.

These senators have already decided how they are going to vote. They are now just looking to score political points. They hope to do this by forcing Judge Alito to sound evasive, particularly on the question of abortion. But is Judge Alito being evasive when he refuses to say how he would rule in a case involving abortion? A better question is this: would a judge be fair to say how he would rule on a case before hearing both sides of the case argued in court? A judge who did this would rightly be considered prejudiced and unfit to try the case. While politicians can take positions based on their own opinion or what is politically expedient, a judge must decide a case based on the law, and only after hearing arguments from both sides.

That being said, I do think that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He would not vote that way because of his own personal opinion. He would vote to overturn Roe because it is bad Constitutional law. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a life and death decision which resulted in the deaths of 46 million unborn babies. The Supreme Court came down on the side of death, and they did it based on a "right" made up out of thin air. The Constitution does not include a right to privacy, and depriving 46 million people of their right to life on the basis of a non-existent "right" is a travesty unequalled by our nation since slavery.

Abortion advocates have made many arguments in an attempt to justify abortion. These arguments are based on a "right to choose" and "a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." They claim that abortion is a decision involving a woman and her doctor. But they omit the fact that a third person is involved: the baby. All of the pro-abortion arguments crumble unless the baby can be dehumanized. Certainly no one's right to choose supersedes another person's right to live. A woman's right to her own body does not give her the right to dismember someone else. A decision between a woman and her doctor can not result in some other person being sucked into a sink.

Abortion advocates are forced to resort to arbitrary definitions for who is human and who is not.

The Supreme Court used a trimester system. They said that 179 days after conception, it is a lump of tissue which can be removed, but 181 days after conception it is human and the state has an interest in protecting the life. Why is 180 days the magic number? No reason.

Then there was the viability standard. If the baby is viable, it is human. But viability is determined by the level of technology among many other things. A person's humanity does not vary depending on the level of technology. Thirty years ago, 28 weeks was the limit of viability. Today it is common for babies born at 22 weeks to survive. By their argument, in 1975 a baby at 25 weeks gestation was not human, but today it is.

Others say that it is when the baby is no longer dependent on it mother for survival. As the parent of a teenager, let me tell you that this doesn't happen until age 19 or so. But seriously, a one-year-old is dependent on her parent for care. Leave her alone and she dies. Should killing her be a matter of choice?

Many other attempts have been made to define a point somewhere between conception and birth at which a baby "becomes" human. These tend to focus on the baby's biological or cognitive functions. However, it is not these functions which make us human. People who lose these functions through a medical condition or age are not considered unhuman.

Today abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Humanness is determined by one's position relative to the birth canal. On this side, you are human, but on that side you are not. It is discrimination based on place of residence. But this doesn't even fit with standard usage. I did an experiment years ago where I approached dozens of obviously pregnant women and asked them "what is in there?" Some told me it was a boy. Others said a girl. Some said that it was a baby. Some even told me the baby's name. Not a single one said that it was a fetus, the product of conception, or a tissue mass. The working definition for an unborn baby's humanity is that it is human if it is wanted.

The only non-arbitrary definition for humanness is that at the moment of conception, a unique, living human comes into existence. She is unique because her DNA is distinct from either parents' and from any other person on earth. And if not human, than what species is she? The state has an obligation to protect the lives of all people, not just the ones who are big and powerful and can speak for themselves.

Vermont Real Estate

The value of real estate in Vermont jumped sharply on Friday, with the news that Judge Edward Cashman had sentenced a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 7-year-old girl to six months in prison because "he no longer believes in punishment."

It appears that the sudden surge in demand was a result of pedophiles from across the country moving to Vermont to take advantage of this new philosophy for dealing with child rapists.

Analysts say that the housing bubble is unlikely to last for long, as a glut of houses is dumped on the market by families with children moving out of the state.

Judge Cashman based his decision primarily the lack of facilities in Vermont prisons to rehabilitate sex offenders, saying "There's other families out there, and there's other people who could be victimized, and I'm trying to take the long view." However, prosecuting attorney Jack Harmon pointed out that there are no seven-year-old girls in prison.

An apology

In 1996 I was critical of Steve Forbes when he called Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." It was not that I particularly liked Robertson, or didn't like Forbes. In fact, my little green Nissan Sentra sported Forbes bumper stickers during the 2000 primaries, and I have never watched Robertson. But Forbes' comments on Robertson seemed excessively harsh.

Well, it turns out that Steve Forbes hit the nail on the head. Pat Robertson believes that he speaks for God, revealing exactly what God thinks on any topic, and why God does what he does in a specific situation. What arrogant presumption!

Mr. Forbes, I apologize for taking issue with you for calling Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." You were right.

52 months

It has been 52 months since a group of terrorists crashed American airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and attempted to attack a forth target, killing three thousand innocent people. Bin Laden intended the 9/11 attacks to be the first in a series of three attacks on America over a two year period, each attack more devastating than the previous. To this day, attacking America and inflicting massive casualties remains a top priority of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi. But nothing has happened.

But in reality, a lot has happened.

Of the 26 most wanted terrorists on the FBI list in January 2002, 22 are dead or captured.

We are holding hundreds of terrorists in secret prisons and at Gitmo. We are using the intelligence we obtain from them to capture more terrorists and thwart their plans.

We have listened to terrorists' communications here and around the world, giving us an advantage in stopping their attacks.

Jose Padilla is facing trial rather than plotting to kill Americans.

A dictator who sponsored terror has been removed from power, and the first democracy has been planted in the Middle East, where the people of Iraq elected their own government for the first time in history last month.

Zhalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and others are in prison cells rather than directing more murder plots.

Thanks to the single-minded leadership of President George Bush, we are fighting an effective war on Terror which has prevented further attacks on American soil for 52 months.

Part of the problem with the War on Terror is that the benefits are often untangible. How many people were saved by preventing attacks which never happened? We will never know the exact number. However, it is clear that our aggressive, pro-active approach is working. Let's not mess with it.

Treason

Some day, America will be attacked by terrorists again. Their goal will be to make September 11, 2001 look small-time. Recent politically motivated statements and actions by Democrats make it more likely that these attacks will be successful at murdering many thousands of Americans.

I wonder if Democrats will stand up and take responsibility when this happens?

Will Charles Schumer address the families of the victims killed by the terrorists, and explain why the "right" of these terrorists to carry on their international phone calls without monitoring was more important than the right of the victims to not be blown up?

Will the politicians who complain about the high price of gas and our reliance on foreign oil, but then vote to raise gas taxes and to not allow us to use our own vast oil reserves or build new refineries accept the blame when terrorists use the money we pay for their oil to finance attacks against America?

Will Howard Dean meet with the wives of American soldiers killed by an enemy emboldened by his statement that America can not win the war in Iraq? What could he possibly say to justify his irresponsible comments?

Will Senators who voted to compromise our ability to stop terror attacks by weakening the Patriot Act and passing the Terrorist Bill of Rights stand by their position that the "civil rights" of terrorists outweigh American civilians right to life?

Will Senator Murtha resign in disgrace if we don't finish the job in Iraq, and the terrorists we left behind kill thousands of Americans with Saddam's hidden supply of nerve gas?

We all know who will take the blame when the next attack happens. It won't be the Congressmen who voted for the war and then stabbed our troops in the back when it became politically expedient. It won't be the leaker in the CIA who notified the terrorists that we were monitoring their communications. It won't be CNN or the New York Times, al Qaeda's propoganda branch. It will be the one man who has done more to dismantle the global terror networks than any person in history. the one man who has taken an unwavering stand against evil in spite of the political price. President George Bush will take the blame.

The War against Terror is a global confrontation of Good versus evil. The war in Iraq is a war between 25 million Iraqis and a few thousand terrorists. Democrats have joined with the wrong side in this conflict. In the long term, this will be a losing strategy.

Real journalism

News anchors from every major news network were quick to criticize Farris Hassan, the sixteen year old student who travelled from his home in Fort Lauderdale Florida to Iraq to report on what he saw there.

On CNN, talking head Paula Zahn asked, "How can he abandon traditional journalistic practices such as sitting in our news room reporting manufactured polls in favor of novel methods such as actually going to Iraq and discussing what he sees first hand?"

Bob Schieffer on CBS Evening News claimed that Hassan's trip was a stunt: "They ask us to believe that a sixteen year old was able to go to Iraq and report what is really going on there? I am seven times his age, and even I don't actually go there."

On NBC, Brian Williams asked "Don't the people we poll, sitting on their sofa at home, have a better perspective on what is beneficial for Iraq? If people start seeing the reality for themselves and actually thinking rather than blindly accepting our version of the story, they may not reach the desired conclusions."

Farris Hassan gained a very different perspective from his visit to Iraq than you would get from watching the news. He wrote:

Life is not about money, fame, or power. Life is about combating the forces of evil in the world, promoting justice, helping the misfortunate, and improving the welfare of our fellow man. Progress requires that we commit ourselves to such goals. We are not here on Earth to hedonistically pleasure ourselves, but to serve each other and the creator. What deed is greater than sacrificing one's luxuries for the benefit of those less blessed?

If I know what is needed and what is right, but do not act on my moral conscience, I would be a hypocrite. I must do what I say decent individuals should do. I want to live my days so that my nights are not full of regrets. Therefore, I must go.

What went wrong?

Senate Democrats, while noting that the Iraqi election voter turnout put American voters to shame, are wondering why the turnout was slightly lower than the turnout for Saddam Hussein's landslide victory.

Senator Harry Reid said, "You may say that a seventy percent turnout is a sign that democracy is taking hold in Iraq, but I must remind you that four years ago, Saddam got one hundred percent of the vote with every single Iraqi voting. Is this really progress?"

While some Iraqi voters were kept at home by a total ban on vehicles and the threat of terrorist attacks, it has been pointed out that the transit strike in New York deterred more people than these obstacles.

Democrats, who had partnered with their friends in the insurgency and the New York Times to undermine the elections, were discouraged by the results. Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said, "We can't let the unfortunate success of these elections give us the impression that we are winning in Iraq, because the results would be disastrous next November."

Senator Hillary Clinton was asked to comment, but an anonymous staffer indicated that they were still taking polls to determine if she would take sides with the 10,000 insurgents and the rest of her party, or with the 25 million Iraqi people.

Senator Ted Kennedy reminded Americans that the Iraqi election is not the only issue. "We can't focus solely on the thirty percent of the Iraqi people who did not vote. We must remember that there are other important questions. What should be done about Saddam being beaten by Americans? Should George Bush be impeached for spying on terrorists? Were Diebold voting machines used in Iraq? The American people deserve answers to these questions."

CNN Reporter Walter Jenkins, currently on assignment in Baghdad, interviewed a number of Iraqi citizens who did not vote, searching for an explanation for the decreasing voter turnout. One Iraqi said, "We knew that the entire world was not behind this election because Richard Gere didn't tell us to vote."

Golden Globe

The Hollywood elites of the Golden Globe film awards have proven what we suspected for a long time: they are so open minded that their brains leaked out.

Last week the Golden Globe nominees were announced. "Brokeback Mountain", the gay cowboy movie, received seven nominations. This box-office flop was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Direction, Best Song, and Best Score. It is clear that politics was the deciding factor here, because the quality of filmmaking couldn't explain the nominations. The film is beyond tacky. It is an assault on the genre of the American Western. Fortunately, the American public demonstrates better taste than the Golden Globe awards. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, based on the amazing book by Christian author C.S. Lewis was released on the same day as Brokeback Mountain, and to date has attracted 32 times the audience.

The other day I watched "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", a great western starring John Wayne and James Stewart. I shudder to think of what John Wayne would do to Heath Ledger if the two met in Dodge City. This year, instead of watching the Golden Globe awards, rent anything starring John Wayne and enjoy a celebration of what made America great.

How to get in real trouble

There are two ways to get yourself into a heap of trouble in this "holiday" season.

A music teacher in a Richardson Texas school told her students that there is no Santa Claus. The backlash was so severe that the school district was forced to issue a "pro-Santa" statement from the big man himself.

In Manhasset New York, a Catholic priest who had been asked to give the blessing during the lighting of the town Christmas Tree had the audacity to mention the name of Jesus. A city councilman interrupted him as he was speaking and chastised him for being "inappropriate."

We have Santa Claus, a fictional character based on a myth, and the historical person Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, whose name is the basis of Christmas, whose birth celebrated at Christmas is the central point in history.

The two ways to get into a lot of trouble:

Question the myth or declare the truth

Joy to the World, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King
Let every heart prepare him room
And heaven and nature sing

Making it right

I learned a few things last night as I listened to Tookie William's lawyer make the case that his brutal gang killer client should not be executed. I learned that guilt or innocence is not the important factor in determining if justice should be carried out. The important factor is that executions should be done in proportion to the demographics of the population at large. For example, more than half the people in the United States are women. Therefore, more than half of the people executed should be women. I have a proposal to make sure that this happens. We need to begin randomly arresting and executing white women. To assure that the system is fair, diverse, and equitable, we must take action now. I call on Senators Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein to take the lead in this issue by volunteering to be first on the list. We would be eternally grateful to them for helping to end decades of injustice.

Tookie's Last Book

Gang Murderer Tookie Williams will soon be executed, more than 26 years after he brutally killed four people.

Opponents of the death penalty want Tookie's life to be spared because, they say, he is a changed man, and he has done so much good during his twenty years on death row. He has written books encouraging kids to not join gangs. At the same time, he refuses to give law enforcement authorities the information which could help them shut down the lawless gang he founded.

But nothing that a murderer does in prison after being sentenced to death should affect the carrying out of the sentence. For one thing, there is no proof that his reform is genuine. Secondly, writing books does not bring back the people he killed. If Tookie is genuine in his regret for his actions, and if he actually has influenced kids to not join gangs, I extend my thanks to him, as they swab his arm with alcohol before they insert the needle. Got to avoid infection, you know.

For justice to be done, the sentence must be carried out. But if Tookie is really concerned about influencing kids in South Central LA to not join gangs, he has just enough time to write one more short book. In this book he can describe how he founded the Crips, how he killed people, and how he was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death. He can talk about how he wasted his life. He can tell kids who are considering joining a gang what it is like to spend twenty six years sitting on death row. Then he can tell them about the ultimate consequence for what he did: how tonight he will be strapped to a gurney, a needle inserted into his vein, and lethal drugs pumped into his body. Perhaps there will be a few kids who would read that book and see that justice is done in spite of Tookie claim to be reformed, and they will decide not to join a gang.

Tookie's life was wasted, but perhaps his death would not be wasted. What happens tonight is the most powerful anti-gang statement Tookie will ever make.

The Grinch who Stole Target

Employees are Target have been instructed not to mention Christmas. No Christmas signs. No Christmas music. No greeting customers with "Merry Christmas." Instead, they can say "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." You see, they don't want to offend anybody. They want to be inclusive of all traditions, including those who would rather have a twig of holly stuck in their eye than wish someone "Merry Christmas."

We shop at Target quite often, and we are not going to boycott Target.

Instead we are going to pick up the slack. When I take my little boys to Target, we are going to wish every person we see a "Merry Christmas." Every customer, every employee, the police man by the door, and the checkout clerk. Then we will page the manager so that we can wish him a Merry Christmas, too. We may even sing a few choruses of "Away in a Manger" or "Joy to the World." If the security guard asks us to leave, we'll wish him a Merry Christmas too.

And to all you readers of this blog: MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Why our kids are not in public schools

These days many people delegate the responsibility to educate their kids to the government by putting them in public schools. Not only do they give up the opportunity to instruct their kids with the knowledge and skills needed for life, but they also entrust the state to provide their kids world view and moral foundation in their formative years. Public schools claim to be "tolerant" and non-religious, but they do promote their own political and religious views of liberalism and secular humanism.

We put our oldest child in public school for two years, but changed to a Christian school because of a number of incidents. Here are a few:

On the first day of seventh grade, the social studies teacher conducted an "ethnicity survey". The paper she sent home claimed that they are concerned with "ethnicity" not race. This paper informed us that there are four ethnicities: African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, and European American. An African American is any person with black skin, regardless of where their ancestors are from or where they currently live. A white native South African who is currently an American citizen living in Texas is not an African American. A black man from Jamaica living in France is an African American, even though he is neither African nor American. Likewise, any person with oriental features is of the same ethnicity, whether they are from China, Japan, Thailand, Korea, or Indonesia. Like I said, it is about ethnicity, not race. The most important factor in the quality of education is the "ethnic" makeup of the class. To adequately prepare students to avoid Affirmative Action lawsuits in the corporate world, the practice of using quotas to ensure a diverse classroom is essential. Defining everyone by placing them into one of four categories is critical in recognizing each of our uniqueness and viewing all people based on their character. To conduct the ethnicity survey, they went around the classroom and each student indicated which of the four ethnicities they belong to. When they got to my son, he said, "I am an American." The teacher was a bit confused, as that is not one of the four ethnicities in the world. "Yes, but what is your family background?" He replied, "Well, my biological father is half Hispanic-American and half European-American. My biological mother is European American. My mother is Asian-American. My father is part American Indian. My brothers are half Asian-American and half European-American. I was born in The United States, so you can list me as American or Native American." She looked at him and said, "You are white. You are a European-American." Like I said, it is about ethnicity, not race.

Later that year, the same teacher spent weeks talking about "non-violent social action." The class was supposedly about American history up to the Civil War. However, the teacher couldn't help but interject her own agenda into the class. "Non-violent social action" was held up as the paragon of virtue. The Civil Rights movement, feminism, and the homosexual movement were held up as prime examples of the good which could be accomplished by non-violent social action. The teacher asked for other examples of non-violent social action, and my son mentioned Operation Rescue, a movement of people willing to sacrificially place themselves between the unborn baby and the abortionist who wants to dismember her for money. Although violence has been inflicted on Rescuers, Operation Rescue has never condoned or initiated violence, and takes action to prevent violence on defenseless babies. However, the teacher told the class that Operation Rescue is not an example of non-violent social action because some Operation Rescue members support the death penalty.

Public schools promote tolerance for every idea except for Christianity. They will make accommodations for Muslims to do their prayers during school hours, but one teacher told our son that he could not bring a Bible to school. Separation of Church and State, you know. The First Amendment is a limit on the state, not on citizens, and it protects the citizen's right to practice religion. But public schools are bastions of their own state-sponsored religion, secular humanism, and they preach tolerance, but don't tolerate Christian ideas.

We spent so much time deprogramming our son from the crazy stuff he was taught at school that we came to realize that it is not the responsibility of the government to teach our kids or to guide them as they build a world view and a moral compass. It is a parent's job.