Obama's Here

We’ve just finished a particularly long and messy presidential election campaign, that’s been about as bad as any I remember seeing. Barack Hussein Obama will soon be our new president, which has the Democrats (and the Europeans) dancing in the streets, while the hard core Republicans are standing around in shock. A combination of disillusionment with eight years of George Bush’s marginally successful neo-conservative policies, a failing economy, and overall disappointment with John McCain pretty well doomed the republican chances of winning at the federal level. Could some other republican have led the GOP to victory? Perhaps. It’s to late to worry about that however, because now we’re faced with four years of Obama / Reid / Pelosi, and a liberal agenda that I for one am very much afraid is going to end our countries days as a great nation. ‘Course I pretty much said the same thing when Slick Willy Clinton got himself elected, and while the country didn’t exactly fall apart, things went downhill in a hurry as far as I was concerned. I will, as every American should, support our duely elected president as best I can, irreguardless of my personal feelings. However, there is always the next election, and a lot of hard work coming up in order to get my prefered candidates (whoever they turn out to be) elected.

Our new President has a lot of problems on his plate, and I do not envy him at all. At the moment our nations economy is somewhere in the basement, our national debt (depending on who you listen to) is somewhere between seven and fifteen trillion dollars, we’ve got a nearly trillion dollar bank bailout to pay for, escallating prices, two wars going on, an energy crisis that can only get worse, a rapidly swelling federal government, sabre rattling from Iran and North Korea, a resurgent Russia, massive trade imballances, an ageing infrasructure, a flood of illegal immigration, and a whole lot of disalusioned citizens grumbling and growling about the present turn of events.

With Obama’s pre-election tax plan, 95% of American taxpayers (those making under $250,000 a year) are supposed to get a tax cut. Naturally the remaining 5% of our population, who already pay for the vast majority of our government, will see their taxes raised yet again. This is called “redistributing the wealth” in democratic circles, but in reality does little more than take from the wealthy and give to the government… Spread the wealth around? Do the Democrats really believe the government can do a better job of spending my money than I could, and that business should not be allowed to make profits for the owners? That idea didn’t work for the Russians under communism either. Tax cuts huh? Okay, and just how are little things like increased gasoline taxes, windfall profits taxes, capitol gains taxes, death taxes, assorted “sin taxes”, and “carbon taxes” going to affect all of us? How much is social security and free medical care for twelve million illegal immigrants going to cost us? Hang on to your wallets folks, the long arm of a liberal idealistic world is reaching for your pocket.

What else does the new democratic regime have in mind for us? Well, it’s going to be hard to accurately forecast this soon, but one bright idea is to take “freedom of choice” away from the working stiff. It won’t matter if you want to unionize your job or not, as the big labor czar’s will be able to walk in and take over at will under the new “Union Supremacy” ideas which not incidentally also eliminate any “secret ballot” ideas we might have in the union hall. Then of course we’re going to have the new rules about political campaigning on radio and TV. Which, boiled down to the nitty-gritty means that if Pat Buchanan doesn’t spend exactly the same amount of time pedaling half baked liberal ideas as he spends plugging conservative ideals, he won’t be allowed on the air. And by the way, any required media advertising for the “opposition” would naturally be free of charge. (I think I’m going to start learning how to write handbills and broadsides... after all, they worked for Tom Paine. If you don’t know who he was, you definitely need to study American history!) Filibustering has never been a political maneuver I particularly cared for either, but it is a legitimate “last ditch” effort to stop some political action that might be found particularly abhorrent. With an effective one-party rule in Washington, that idea can be written off as well. I would expect unemployment to rise as the military is downsized yet again and a few hundred thousand unemployed soldiers are dumped on the streets.

Something else that will affect all parts of the media, and probably private conversation as well, will be “political correctness”. All you have to do is remember that freedom of speech is a fine and wondrous thing, as long as nobody could possibly be offended by your words, either in public or in private. Conversation is going to become pretty bland I’m afraid. Porous borders will become even more the norm, considering that we’ve already been told to “learn to speak Spanish” you might remember. Al Bore and global warming will probably become our new national religion I suspect, even if the folks who can't tell us if it’s going to rain next weekend can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt within ten years if I don't start driving a “green” car. Organized religion will probably take a pretty good hit as well, particularly Christianity. And with some sort of a full blown “Freedom of Choice” law, it’ll be OK to slaughter of millions of unborn babies, so long as we keep all the child molesters and mass murders on death row alive and appealing their sentences. Don’t you just love the fact that under upcoming new liberal laws the kids will now be able to marry whatever they want, including the neighbors horse? And on that general line, as a self confessed knuckle dragging redneck, I probably should know that I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, that the police are all that is needed to protect my family from murderers and thieves, and that a benevolent liberal government will make sure that I’m not tempted to shoot some home invader threatening my family, by completely banning the bearing of arms despite our second amendment rights. That’s OK too I guess, as liberal judges will now be able to rewrite the Constitution and Bill of Rights every few days to accommodate some nut or other who would never get his wild ideas past the voters under the old order.

OPEC is really upset by the recent reduction in oil prices, so they’re about to reduce worldwide oil production in the hopes of driving the price back up to over $100 per barrel. With Reid and Pelosi running the show in congress, our domestic oil certainly won’t be developed for our use, and the off-shore oil reserves that we’re not allowed to touch will probably be given to China in an anti-poverty scheme. Any wealth we might have left over will likely find itself being shipped to the Swiss bank accounts of assorted African despots, so they can “assist” their poverty stricken victims… err “citizens”. We can expect to see an increased role for United Nations authority within our borders, while globalization will be greatly expanded and American jobs will continue to leave our shores.

Hopefully when we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan with our tails between our legs the bad guys will stop fighting because they’ll now know that we're really good guys at heart. After all, we only need to sit down, hold hands, perhaps sing a few bars of Kumbaya, and negotiate with the terrorists to convince them to change their ways irregardless of the simple fact that negotiations have never worked with terrorists or despots. What will happen to the mid-east if we pull out and allow a totalitarian Islamofascist theocracy to take over? Have a look at the works of assorted dictators like Saddam, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, or Attila the Hun…

I’m not predicting the end of the western world necessarily, but I’m very much afraid that our distinctly American culture is in for some serious challenges.

Have no fear, Obama’s here!

VOTE!

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address, January 20, 1961

The election is upon us… finally! I’ll be rather glad to have it over and done with, as I for one an eternally sick and tired of all the claims and counterclaims, charges and countercharges of what seems to have been the messiest election campaign that I can remember. Strangely enough the mudslinging all seems to have come at the federal level, which is pretty sad considering that we’re supposed to be a civilized people. And neither party has room to be indignant about it either. The campaigns here in Idaho seems to have been kept pretty clean throughout, which speaks well of our candidates for state and local offices. About all that’s left for us to do is cast our ballots and wait for the count to tell us who won… with a few recounts here and there… and probably plenty of screaming and crying about “stolen elections” at the national level. I suspect both major parties are lining up their legal specialists in hanging chads, and searching for user friendly people who can determine the voters intent from faint marks on a piece of paper.

The Republicans are frothing at the mouth about ACORN registered voters and busily searching for irregularities and possible voter fraud. (I understand that ACORN was caught registering a single voter 72 separate times in one city, and that quite a few long deceased citizens are expected to be voting in Las Vegas this year!) ACORN, the “Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”, is a self proclaimed non-partisan organization, although it generally follows the Democratics on policy matters. This alignment, and some liberal causes have made ACORN the subject of considerable partisan conflict. Organizations like this, and the disinformation spread by tightly controlled media outlets have been giving the Republicans heartburn for months. I’ll bet there are more than a few Republican programs along with a lot of conservative writers that are giving the DNC sleepless nights as well.

All in all, this will be a real interesting election, if the American people even bother to vote. I spoke with Rose Gehring the other day, and she commented that she hopes all registered Idaho County voters would show up and cast their ballots. As having a large turn-out makes a lot of work for the elections officials, I asked why she wanted to see such a large turnout. Rose said that there are 10,050 registered voters in Idaho County, and that she has a ballot waiting for every single one of them. Grinning, she explained that preparing for an election is somewhat like preparing a banquet, and when only half the expected guests’ show up the cooks have the discouraging job of throwing the extra food away. I can see where that would get frustrating.

Voting is the peaceful mechanism established by our constitution whereby we select our leaders, by the ballot and not by the bullet as happens in so many other countries, nor by the police intimidation we recently watched occur in Rhodesia. The American system of handing over the reins of power every four years is almost unique in today’s world, and we’ve been doing just that for well over two hundred years.

So why do so many qualified Americans choose not to vote? Well, a lot of infrequent voters and those unregistered said they do not vote or do not register to vote because they are too busy. The idea that politics are controlled by special interests is held by about two-thirds of non-voters, and they think that voting is “immaterial”. A feeling that the candidates don’t really speak to them was another reason why many people don’t vote. Still, 93 percent of infrequent voters agreed that voting is a very important part of being a good citizen and 81 percent of nonvoters agreed it is an important way to voice their opinions on issues that affect their families and communities.

The chance of a single vote in a system such as our Electoral College has an very low possibility of influencing the outcome. But we should also keep in mind our last two presidential elections, where the outcome was decided by only a relative handful of votes. At the same time, while my vote might be only a “drop in the bucket” on the national level, it’s a lot bigger “drop” in selecting Idaho’s Senators and Representatives to Washington, along with all the folks we send to Boise representing us. Voting is quite important at the local level as well. Remember those 10,050 voters in this county? Those are the only people who can select our county office holders, and the decisions those people make generally have a more immediate effect our daily lives than do people at the federal level. Consider that the nine or so million dollar budget in this county is your tax money after all. If you don’t like the office holder, the State of the Union, or the condition the county’s in, don’t blame anyone other than yourself if you didn’t voice your opinion with your vote. So on November 4th, simply get off the couch and go cast your vote!

A good friend of mine, Mr. J. D. Ray of Portland Ore. recently got into a bit of a “discussion” on the internet about voting. J.D. and I don’t always agree on matters political, but I’d say he’s hit upon several very good points in his rebuttal. He kindly gave me permission to quote a part of what he wrote:

I vote because I believe financial responsibility should be enforced on our government the same way it is on us.

I vote because I believe that all life is sacred, and that killing someone in their home on the other side of the world is the same as killing an unborn child.

I vote because I believe that in America, the right to free speech should be upheld, because it's in our constitution, and the right to not be offended shouldn't, because it's not.

I vote because I believe in states' rights, and that when my state votes something into law, the federal government shouldn't create a law specifically designed to make it illegal.

I vote because I believe that the government shouldn't be concerned with the definition of the word "marriage," but should concern themselves with what makes a binding contract between two domestic partners. "Marriage" should be left to churches and other social organizations.

I vote because I believe that the market should be free to rise and fall without being pushed one way or the other by the government.

I vote because I believe taxes should be fair for everyone.

I vote because I believe government is too big.

I vote because I believe illegal aliens should be sent home, not put to work in factories because they work cheap for off-the-books wages, nor allowed to sit around sucking up our country's benefits, killing our citizens in gang warfare, or taking jobs when Americans are unemployed.

I vote because I believe America wants to believe in itself again, and is ready and willing to work to make that happen.

I vote because I'm proud to be American, and if you don't like it here, get the hell out.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Two Men

In 1986, Arizona Congressman John McCain announced his candidacy for the Senate seat of retiring Barry Goldwater. McCain, a graduate of the US Naval Academy, had already completed a successful career in the US Navy, retiring with the rank of Captain (one step below Admiral), had been a member of Congress for slightly less than four years, and had been an active member of the Republican Party for less than 10 years. Since that time, and all political rhetoric aside, John McCain has also had a successful twenty plus year career as a US Senator. His self proclaimed hero’s are Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt. (A very good choice in hero’s as far as I’m concerned.)

47 year old Barack Obama is presently the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, a seat he filled in 2005. Educated at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years, he transferred to Columbia University in New York, where he graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science. He moved to Chicago in 1985 where he worked as a community organizer with low-income families. He entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated magna cum laude in 1991. Returning to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, he also taught at the University of Chicago Law School. His advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate and he was elected in 1996 from south side Hyde Park. Obama seems to think he’s the rightful inheritor of John F. Kennedy’s mantle of liberal leadership, a claim leaving many people questioning his sanity!

Obama is proclaimed to be the “agent of change” by the Democrats, and in the absence of Hillary is held somewhat in awe by the looney left, almost as if he were the returned messiah. The radical right who abhor both Obama and Hillary are grudging following McCain, who is currently pretty much the leader of the conservative right if only by default, and who is (for a number of good reasons) not fully trusted by any conservative group.

McCain wants to cut taxes or so he claims, while Obama wants increased taxation to pay for even more social programs. Humm… How soon we forget… Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who cut taxes, and the treasury receipts promptly increased? Newt Gingrich and the Republicans had a contract with American that trimmed our taxes somewhat, and revitalized our economy, just in time for Bill Clinton and the Democrats to claim the credit. Generally higher taxes mean less money into the public coffers, lost jobs, more small businesses failures, and of course less money in your pocket. Our current economic woes are the result of massive government overspending, coupled with people wanting bigger homes than they could afford, big gas guzzling cars they couldn't afford, and enormous credit card debts from buying all the things they can't afford to pay cash for. All this to keep up with the "wealthiest one percent" of our population, who they claim don't pay their fair share of the tax burden in this country. I guess the most affluant taxpayers paying 85-90% of the nations taxes isn't their “fair share”? What neither candidate seems to be mentioning at the moment is that we’re going to have a pretty stout tax increase no matter what. It’s going to be a dire necessity to pay off that huge Wall Street bailout that the American people didn’t want, and Congress passed anyhow! However the election turns out, congress is going to have to go along with the presidential proposals before they can take effect. And congress is falling all over themselves in avoiding their responsibilities.

With his military background, John McCain would probably be a bit more “user friendly” to the Defense Department than Barack Obama, who seems to have cut his teeth on a “the military is the great satan” far left liberal mantra. For some reason (probably in considering all the hate and discontent going on in the world) McCain seems to believe in a strong national defense. Generally the far left seems to think we’de be better off with no defense establishment at all, and that we could “defend” ourselves by sharing our wealth (paying Danegeld) with every two-bit dictator in the world. The trouble with that is (as the democrats never seem to realize), that once the dane gets a taste of easy money he gets greedy, and then he’s darn hard to get rid of. A lot of folks (mostly hard core republicans I suspect) question Obama’s patriotism. The “evidence” presented, such as his refusal to salute the flag, is highly suspect but quite compelling as well. One that seems downright silly is his reported desire to change our national anthem to “I’d like to teach the world to sing”, which Coca-Cola Corp. would probably appriciate, but would certainly upset the rest of us! The American Flag lapel pin flap is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot if it’s the only complaint about his patriotism. Heck, I don’t wear one either… but only because I somehow lost mine, and haven’t found a replacement yet. I do however dislike the “show your loyalty” fetish currently running rampant across the nation. Things like that lead to the downright rediculous “Victory Cabbage” instead of sauerkraut campaign during WW I. It also led to Americans of Japanese decent being tossed in concentration camps during WW II.

Another subject that gets a lot of media attention is the question of same sex marriage. It appears to me that most Americans are opposed to the idea, or somewhat neutral, with only a few quite vocal liberal adheriants considering it to be a major talking point. Personally, I’d think that if a couple of people want to play house they can do so without making a big production of it, or later tieing up our courts when they inevitably decide to get divorced. I look at gay marriage as little more than another step in the liberal destruction of our national character.

Heading for the White House is the most far left-wing member of the US Senate according to the National Journal. The current political polls show Obama to be ahead of McCain by two whole points, and the national media makes that out to be the end of the world for the republicans. Two points huh? That sounds a lot more like a neck and neck race to me! Still, consider that most of the polls are taken in east coast urban areas and are hardly indicative of what the rest of the nation thinks, which never seems to bother whoever the media’s fair haired boy is at the moment. As usual, the eastern liberal media is once again loudly touting the numbers in trying to influence how we think and vote, rather on the line of a “McCain’s already lost, so all you knuckle-dragging Republicans might as well stay home” sort of thing. ‘Kinda makes me wonder if perhaps we shouldn’t reconsider Barry Goldwater’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about sawing off the eastern seaboard and letting it drift out to sea.

Thus we have two men running for election to the highest political office in the land, and representing opposing ends of our political spectrum. They are much alike in many ways, and yet oh-so-different. One of them will be chosen our next president, and over the next four years will have to lead the way through some of the worst problems ever to face our nation. Of the two, I’d prefer having a leader of men out in front.

Gold Standard

At the beginning of the presidential campaign, one plank in Texas Representative Ron Paul’s platform was a return to “hard money”, i.e. a gold based currency rather than the fiat money system presently in use. I agree completely with Rep. Paul’s idea, but unfortunately it’s not feasible in today’s world. There ain’t that much gold in existence! There’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 140,000 tons of gold available in the world today, and if it was formed into a single gold bar it would be a cube roughly 60 feet on a side (that includes all the privately held coins, bars and jewelry in the world, which is about 75% of the total supply). All that gold totals up to about $1.8 trillion, or about $250 for each person in today’s world (depending on whatever today’s gold price is). America's gold reserve is only about an eighth of that of that total, far less that our (arguable) national debt of $6.9 trillion! It would seem that Fort Knox is little more than a modest sized national piggy bank despite the mountains of “gold bars” that we sometimes see in the movies. There's not all that much gold left in the ground anymore either. Approximately 50,000 tonnes (about a third of what has already been dug out) remains un-mined according to the best guesses of the geologists, and will cost a large fortune to extract. Meanwhile - after more detailed worldwide surveys - the mining industry consensus is that large mineral deposit discoveries are now a thing of the past. Gold, as always, is extremely scarce.

No, despite the high hopes of some people, the idea of the public running around with a pocketful of gold coins isn’t going to happen. Silver and platinum coins would help of course, but there we run into the continuing problem of scarcity, and the very high industrial demand for those metals. Precious gems perhaps? England has their crown jewels of course, but the United States has never had anything similar to fall back on… well, except for Liz Taylor’s jewelry box perhaps.

The term “money” is generally used to indicate anything that is used as a medium of exchange in payment for goods and services, or the repayment of debts. The main uses of money are in exchange, accounting, and as a convenient store of value. Way back when, if the King had to travel anywhere, the national treasury usually went along in the form of gold bars or coins, carried in a chest of some sort and well guarded at that. Due to the inconvenience that brought on, some other form of “money” was required that could be easily carried. After all, it is rather inconvenient to travel with a mid-sized treasure chest full of gold coins, being guarded by a bunch of big, burley, intimidating looking guys carrying swords. Back about 1600 BC, the Chinese invented “paper money”, which was nothing more than a promissory note redeemable for a stated amount of gold or silver, and was much easier to carry around. Used on and off for centuries, paper was a handy medium of exchange when large amounts of money were involved, but most folks still preferred the jingle of gold and silver in their pocket or purse.

Hard pressed to finance the Revolution, the Continental Congress issued paper money called “Continentals”, that were nothing more than vague promises to “pay” sometime in the far and unspecified future. During the Civil War, and for the same reason, the U.S. government resumed printing paper currency. These "greenbacks" were once again nothing more than a promise to pay at some time in the future, because they were not backed by the gold or silver resources in the national treasury. Through the following century the demand for currency far outstripped the available supply of precious metals, leading to the American abandonment of silver coins and silver certificates in the 1960’s, in favor of what’s called “Fiat Money”. Today, no country in the world backs their money with gold or silver. When a government is unable to pay its debts in gold or silver, the temptation to remove the physical backing of the currency becomes irresistible, and a system wherein money is not backed by anything of physical value develops. With that system, the value of money is based only on scarcity and public confidence that it can be exchanged for something of value. If that confidence is damaged the money inevitably becomes worthless. Nor is there any limit on the amount of money that can be printed. This allows creation of unlimited credit along with government “control” of inflation, or so goes the theory. Initially, a rapid growth in the availability of credit is mistaken for economic growth as business profits grow, and thus the artificial wealth for a select few. In the long run however, the economy tends to suffer. Hyper-inflation is the terminal stage of any fiat currency where the currency looses most of its value seemingly overnight, and is often the result of increasing inflation to the point where all confidence in money is lost. Well, not long back I was severely castigated by a reader for opposing a general “redistribution” of wealth in this country, as proposed by the liberals. That reader shouldn’t worry, at the rate we’re going there soon won’t be any wealth left to redistribute!

The nation’s founding fathers were greatly concerned about government control of the money supply. One thing they all agreed on was limits to the issuance of money, and the belief that no “central bank” should have such control. Thomas Jefferson warned of handing that control of the money supply to the banking industry, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country". In 1913 the US Congress created the Federal Reserve Banking System, a semi-autonomous “central bank” that controls our money supply and thus our economy, and that just happens to be run by the same banking elite that Jefferson warned us about.

The Crash of 2008 is wiping out our people's wealth. Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics. Horsefeathers! What we are witnessing is the collapse of "Greed Is Good!" capitalism. We are witnessing what happens when a nation ignores history and abandons the principals that made it great. "Government must save us!" cries the left… yeah, that same government (both political parties I might mention), that got us into this mess with easy money policies, unbalanced budgets, and nearly limitless federal spending. Today government expects an unelected financial elite to get us out of an economic disaster that the same unelected financial elite got us into!

The spending party's over folks. Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

A lesson from history

Many of us can well remember the tumultuous years of the 1960’s and 70’s, with the never ending war in Vietnam, the racial hatreds, incessant riots, civil disobedience, “Urban Guerillas” national disunity, the Kennedy and King assignations, dirty tricks in national politics, and a presidential resignation. Shortly thereafter we ran full tilt into an oil shortage, rapidly escalating prices, the Iran hostage crisis, and finally the economic slump of the early 1980’s. In many ways most of us would probably prefer to forget that era completely, but still, we somehow managed to survive the times. Yet that “bad times” era certainly could have been a lot worse, I think I learned a lot from it, and the nation should have as well. Still, the ongoing revision of American history in recent years (generally done by leftist academics trying to make the US out the bad guys, or to “prove” some social or political theory), has only denied those lessons, promoted a great disservice to the American people, and left a lie for future generations to study. Those were momentous times in the history of our nation and should be presented to us and to future generations as they actually happened.

The “baggage” we carry around with us… our memories, experiences, and our knowledge of the past… our history in other words, is what makes us the people and the nation we are. And I would think that history might have a bearing on who we select as the leaders of our nation, based on what was done, right or wrong, in the past. The wisdom of past experience should be expected to show in today’s decisions. Today we’re saddled with a historic debt, two wars, health care issues, a weak dollar, an all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, faltering social security, bank foreclosures, and a crashing economy, making this a critical election year. Had they known they were about to face all those problems, I wonder if Senators McCain or Obama would have decided to forget all about running for office this time around! For those interested, history shows us that whoever gets the job is going to take a beating, and the party in power is really going to take a real heavy hit!

With the president at the wheel, he is the first one blamed if things go wrong. But, if you think the President actually has the power to change things, you're sadly mistaken. The President is little more than a talking head, while the Senate is charged with government oversight and the House determines government spending, leaving the president to beg, plead, and cajole for whatever program he believes best. It's the people we send to Congress that are going to make things happen for good or ill. When you look at the failing economy, remember that congress has been headed by the Democrats for the last 2 years. Yes, it took much more than two years for our economic crisis to gather steam, but it was started by left wing economic policies, and the far left politicians have had their hand on the throttle for years. Now, they want to “change” things, with even more taxes, more government spending, and more government interference in our daily lives.

The Crash of ’29 was caused, plain and simple, by greed in the business sector. Credit was cheap, to many people jumped on the stock market bandwagon with that cheap credit, and when the bills came due, there wasn’t any hard money to pay them with. (Credit is after all, nothing more than a promissory note.) The folks jumping out of Wall St. windows weren’t the financial fat cats of the day, but rather the little guys who suddenly found they’d pawned the kid’s future on harebrained schemes. We’re looking at a similar situation today, in that far to many people jumped into a rather shaky investment market in the hopes of getting rich quick. When the housing bubble popped it took much of that investment business down with it. Neither the president or congress had much, if any, control over that. We can blame the Federal Reserve in part, for constantly tinkering with interest rates, rather than simply letting the market find it’s own level, but the Fed is a semi-autonomous part of the government that pretty well does what it wants. We can blame the Treasury Department for not properly regulating Wall St., but Congress had long ago ended much of that oversight authority. We might also keep in mind that the economy had been growing slowly but steadily throughout the Bush administration. Blaming the Republicans, the President, and “greedy corporations” for all the bad things that are happening in our world is nothing but a nice way to shift the responsibility away from the lousy job Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democratic Congress have done with the mandate given them two years ago. Or at least they claimed they had a mandate when they took control of congress.

In the aftermath of the ’29 crash, Americans floundered around a bit at the start, and then dug in their heels, joined hands, and went to work solving the problem for themselves. Friends, families, neighbors, and entire communities pretty well stuck together, supported each other, and began rebuilding. The government started borrowing money and scattered it around with considerable fanfare, claiming that FDR’s brand of socialism was saving us. But what’s going to happen now if our economy continues to crumble? There’s not much money left for CCC and WPA projects, nor are we the people we once were, today we’re a “diverse” society remember, a random collection of strangers who usually don’t know each other, or even speak the same language, much less have common goals!

I'm registered as an independent, and for years I've voted for whomever I considered the best candidates from both Parties. If the Democrats can ever remember that they lost the last two elections because they keep shoving a far left agenda on us, and blaming everything on “knuckle dragging, trailer trash Christian fundamentalists”, I might consider voting for them again, sometime in the far future. Remember too that after 9/11 the Democrats were saying, “How is this our fault? How are we to blame for this?” while the Republicans were saying, “This is pure evil, and we need to fight this now.” Today, their “agent of change” is another elitist pushing a far left agenda, and who blames everything on “bitter working-class voters who cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations." No, I’ll remember past experiences, and again vote for the person who will best accomplish what I want done. I wouldn't vote for Sen. Obama as president as he’s not likely to change the things I want changed. I’m not overly happy with Sen. McCain either, but I have a fair idea of how he’d handle things.

I’m also going to remember that the last three people the Democrats sent to the White House included a “good old boy” from Texas who gave us a major war and divided the nation, a peanut farmer from Georgia who gave us some failed social programs along with the Iranian situation, and lastly a slick talker from Arkansas who saw nothing wrong with chasing interns around the Oval Office. Now they want us to elect a far left radical from Chicago!

Bailout?

The big to-do of late has been the housing bubble burst, followed by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and now the investment banking failure and bailout. The Federal Reserve tells us that we’re supposed to save the national economy by handing those same failed banks a few hundred billion dollars! I’m not an economist, and if I had all the answers I’d probably be the Secretary of the Treasury instead of writing this column, but I’ll toss my nickels worth in anyway. Ready? I think this is the biggest confidence game pulled on the American taxpayer in the history of the United States, and our illustrious Congress is going along with it!

While the banks must take a lot of the responsibility for the current mess, the crisis was initiated when “political correctness” was forced on the mortgage industry during the Clinton years. The In 1992 the Los Angeles Times reported that a Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains." All well and fine on the face of it, but like everything else financial, don’t get carried away! Under the Clinton administration the federal government pressured banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's man at HUD, Andrew Cuomo, proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate income borrowers. Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," like the applicant's credit rating or ability to make a down payment, banks were “encouraged” to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good collection of unpaid bills I presume. Threatening lawsuits, the Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage! (I wish they’d have done something like that for me!) Worse yet, the Republicans went along with it!

The housing bubble collapse and the eschewing mortgage crisis could have been, and often was, predicted by just about anyone who bothered to look at the greatly overvalued real estate prices over the last few years. There are always people around with “more money than brains” however, who will pay an exorbitant price so that they can have a second home in a rustic setting, or perhaps something “with a great view”. Well and fine if that’s what they want, and can afford it. But to pay for that expensive view, the homeowner probably had to go out and borrow the money, usually from a bank in the form of a mortgage. Banks like to trade those mortgages around, pretending they’re cash instead of a debt, and it doesn’t take long before some really big outfit called an “investment bank” holds thousands of them after having borrowed a few billion dollars here and there to buy all that questionable paper. They plan to get rich as people slowly pay off the loan on their individual properties. This often results in one bank or another having borrowed a whole lot more money than they really should have, and is sometimes called the “greed is good” form of business as they work the cash flow and lie to their stockholders in trying to stay afloat, and not incidentally paying the CEO and his cohorts some fantastic wages.

Now we get to the fly in the ointment. If the homeowner’s income is reduced, say perhaps because of a general business downturn or his perhaps his welfare check got cut, he may be forced to default on that mortgage loan because now he can’t make the payments, or even sell the property at its inflated price. As the downturn continues or worsens, the investment banks find themselves in a jam as those defaulted mortgages start piling up, and their monthly income isn’t showing up as scheduled. Meanwhile, back on Wall Street, the folks that made those huge loans to the investment banks are demanding their money back. Now, when the mortgage company can’t make their payments on time they go bankrupt. The repercussions of all these financial shenanigans then echo through the entire economy, and with today’s economic globalization those echoes are heard around the world. This leaves the super rich people out a few million dollars each, while a good many small potatoes investors find their stock portfolios aren’t worth quite what they thought, and their retirement incomes are going to be a lot less than they had figured on. And all because the housing bubble burst and far to many food stamp based mortgages collapsed.

This time around it’s not just a case of keeping Chrysler or the Saving and Loan industry in business either. This is the fifth bailout this year, as we’ve already handed Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG a lot of money, and now we’re looking at another seven hundred billion dollars which is supposed to save our (and the rest of the worlds), economy from falling apart! The next logical question is, just how much is $700 billion? Quite a lot really, or not that much, depending on your viewpoint. With about 300 million men, women, and children living in the United States the bailout will cost us roughly $2,300 per person, or slightly less than our average personal tax burden of $2,432. In other words, about twelve times the total worth of Bill Gates, or half the combined wealth of the Forbes 400 list.

Skeptics are calling this $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system "cash for trash" as the current plan is for the US Government to buy many of those defaulted mortgages in the hope that someday they’ll get our money back, which is a rather questionable assumption I’d think. The scary part is that the Treasury Department wants a free hand from Congress, or rather they want seven hundred billion dollars to do with as they wish, with no congressional oversight and no legal constraints! This crisis could have been avoided if the federal bank regulators from the treasury been doing their jobs and enforced the rules. They’ve also been telling us how great everything was going for the last couple of years. Now, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insist they’ve got all the answers and we’re supposed to blindly “trust” them without any guarantee that their plan will even work!?

Unfortunately, this economic mess is going to severely effect the upcoming election as well. Remember what happened in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash? The Democrats blamed everything on Herbert Hoover and the Republicans instead of the of the financial industry that caused the problem in the first place. FDR got elected president, the American people got the “New Deal” crammed down their throats, and we’ve been fending off rampant socialism ever since! Here however, we have the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies starting the fire, and sure enough they’ll happily blame the Republican administration instead of their own failed “bright ideas”. Thanks to political correctness, and if this last ditch bailout flops as it very well might, we can soon expect to see the Mother-in-Law of all financial crashes!

According to political cartoonist Robert Ariail, the new motto at Treasury is, “From each taxpayer according to his abilities, to each investment banker according to his needs.”

Taxes

Not long back, the Idaho County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 2009 county budget. As is to be expected, a few people showed up to protest various (or all) parts of the budget and nearly all had their say to the commissioners, while other protesters paced the sidewalk out front with picket signs. When all was said and done the protesters were still unhappy, I got an idea for a column, and of course the budget was passed with minimal changes. For the most part I can’t complain about the budget I guess, although I do think it’s a bit excessive (particularly the bonus for elected officials) at points. But, as Commissioner Brandt stated, if we want the government to provide specific services, we should expect to pay for them, and that is what our taxes do. With that I might add, just who determined that we specifically want any particular government service? Nobody ever asked me at any rate. At the risk of making myself real unpopular at the courthouse, I suspect that most of us could quite happily do without the services of tax assessors and tax collectors! Then to, if I were speeding down the highway, I don’t think I’d really want to see a deputy sheriff coming up behind me either. Still, what government services do we require, what others do we want anyway, and finally, what services could we dispense with?

One big ticket item is the county road department. Most of us complain about potholes and washboards on the road, and of course we blame the county no matter who has the responsibility of taking care of a particular stretch of road. Without the road department we’d probably see a big reduction in the tax rate well enough, but I’m also afraid that our 476 mile long collection of county maintained roads would soon be little more than goat trails, generally impassable for anything less than a tracklaying vehicle! And don’t forget that your tax bill includes the levy for whatever highway district you live in, and that district is not a part of the county budget. The sheriffs department is another big ticket item, and one that a lot of people could happily do without I suspect. Still, our local deputies do a pretty good job of keeping the scofflaws under control. After wading through reams of Idaho State Police supplied statistics, it appears that Idaho County has one of the lowest crime rates in the state, and a pretty darn good “case closed” ratio as well. That they do with a total of only 17 sworn deputies who take care of somewhere around 16,000 full time residents, and lord only knows how many part time visitors each year. According to James Zehner, Idaho County assessor, the property valuation of this county is approximately one point three billion dollars! He says that the county’s cut of your taxes is roughly two dollars on every thousand dollars of property value. The rest of the tax bill goes to school districts, fire districts, highway districts, cemetery districts, flood control districts, and hospital districts, along with any other government apparatus that happens to have their hand in your pocket. At the same time, many of us have to pay even more taxes to whatever city we live in.

Then we have the big problem, Federal taxes. The fed’s tax our income, usually at what seems like excessive rates. Then they tax us all over again on everything from gasoline to tobacco. On top of that, there are a mirade of “hidden taxes” that further empty our wallets. When all is said and done, federal taxes claim well over half of our annual income. And what do we get in return for those taxes? Quite a bit really… or so we’re told by the government propaganda machine. We get “national defense” of course, complete with multi-billion dollar naval vessels, hundred million dollar jet airplanes, mega-bucks spent on spy satellites, eight-hundred dollar toilet seats, and of course trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As if that’s not enough, we get the DOJ and federal law enforcement, wherein the FBI reads our mail, taps our phones, tracks every penny that goes through our bank account, worries about our library card usage, and produces well known operations like the mess(s) at Waco and Ruby Ridge that we’re not supposed to be concerned with because our government “knows best”, and is “taking care” of us. We get Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to make us more “secure” than we were before 9-11. We get the U.S. Forest Service that burns down our forests and then bars us from using whatever’s left of our own public lands. There’s the EPA that among other things keeps us from depleting our national oil reserves by not letting us extract the oil we so desperately need. Well, they protect Spotted Owls and Snail Darters as well, so I guess we can curl up with “warm fuzzy feelings” when the home heating oil runs out. And we get… (insert roll of drums here)… “The Fed”! That’s the quasi official “Federal Reserve” banking branch of our government that issues money… money that’s backed by nothing more than a vague “promise to pay” which makes it almost worth the paper it’s printed on. The Fed does lots of things for us, they borrow trillions of dollars from foreign countries every year to keep our government afloat, they decree how much our money’s worth, how many of our tax dollars will be used to bail out giant financial institutions that managed to get themselves into a jam, how much “money” is available for congress to give to this or that despotic foreign ruler, and they even determine how much interest you can draw on the pittance you managed to save for a rainy day. And there’s FEMA of course, those wondrous folks who come charging in a couple of weeks late, with truckloads of money to save the day whenever the Gulf Coast gets hit with a hurricane, or the Mississippi river floods the mid-west again.

Another tax provided “service” we get is watching our tax dollars being spent to support “the arts and entertainment”, which we really should appreciate I guess. After all, pornographers, talentless “actors”, wild-eyed “artists”, and filthy minded poets all deserve to “earn” a living, and a chance to show their “work” to the public… don’t they? How about my favorite tax money wasters… err… “spenders”, the US Congress. The most exclusive club in the world, congress gives themselves pay raises without asking the public for an opinion, takes long luxurious vacations all over the world at taxpayer expense, hand their overseas friends billions of dollars in assorted foreign aid, send billions more home in the form of pork barrel projects in the hopes of buying votes, and who enjoy one of the best retirement programs in existence short of being the CEO of an investment bank! Adding insult to injury, Congress said that they would dramatically simplify the US Tax Code, clear back in 1955. In the 53 years since that statement, our nice “simple and equitable” tax code has grown from 172,000 words to a more confusing 995,000 words, while our tax load, both local and federal, continue rising to astronomical heights!

I will of course have a few choice words to say about taxes at a later date. Right now, I’m running out of column space, and my Irish temper is rapidly running away from my common sense. Besides, if I really said what I think about all this legalized extortion and the people who impose it on us, my old Sunday school teacher would spend the next couple of weeks giving me a really hard time about using such language!

Sarah?

John McCain’s announcement that he had selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate struck the liberal left like the proverbial “bolt-from-the-blue”, and apparently rattled more than a few cages among the republican senior leadership as well. The national media is in a near frenzy with their “smear the republican lady” campaign, the democrats are almost hysterical in their attempts to demonize her, and the hardcore republican leadership is still weeping and wailing about their favorite son, Mitt Romney, being passed over. In the meantime the rank and file republicans along with a good many independents are sitting back enjoying the show and wishing Miz Palin well. Personally I’ve about reached the hysterical stage myself, laughing hysterically that is, at all the charges and countercharges that make up this typically American political circus… err… “campaign” that is, and I too wish her well.

There are a good many unproved accusations being passed around about Sen. Obama’s religion and supposed connections to Chicago’s “corrupt political machine” that rightly or wrongly I consider little more than mudslinging by the radical right, and ignore completely. Joe Biden seems to be a fairly safe Veep candidate for the democrats as there is surprisingly little being said about him from either side of the aisle. John McCain is quite well detested by the far left, and is constantly under attack by the media and the massed Obama supporters. Now, enter Sarah Palin, a political unknown with a quite interesting background.

The difference between John McCain and his running mate is vast. Age of course, as she’s nearly 30 years younger than McCain. She’s the first woman ever to be on a Republican presidential ticket. She’s been governor of Alaska for less than two years, while he’s served in the US Congress for 25 years. In comparison, Obama has been a congressman for only a short time, with his running mate Joe Biden having forty years of congressional experience, which means he’s experienced in working with Washington insiders, and I’d guess he has a lot of political debts to pay off. (Don’t look for much “change” other than in a cosmetic sense, from the Biden camp). The republicans claim that Obama has little or no foreign policy experience, to which the democrats claim Biden’s experience will make up for the perceived shortcoming. Now the democrats are railing about the republican vice presidential candidates lack of experience, and completely ignoring McCain’s years on the fast track! Nobody seems to remember that the Vice President is pretty much a figurehead position that that does little more than referee the Senate fights, whom we keep handy “just in case”.

McCain is classed as a “maverick” by many, and “more of the same” by the Democrats, mostly because he doesn’t subscribe to their peculiar ideas of how to run things. Personally, like every previous president, I suspect he’ll do “his own thing” no matter what the democrats claim. One of the big bug-a-boos I constantly see mentioned in the media is McCain’s age, a whole seventy-two years old. Well, that may have been doddering old age a hundred years ago, but nowdays seventy-two isn’t at all that old! Another reference to McCain’s age is that “Palin is only a heartbeat away from being president!” Really, so is Biden, but medical science and the Secret Service seem to be pretty good at preventing bad things from happening to a sitting president. The “age” part I’d say we can write-off.

As an old “cold-warrior” and Vietnam vet, I got just a bit upset when the left leaning media came up with comments about Obama not having all the “Cold War and Vietnam era baggage” to haul along. First off, whoever wins the election had better not forget the cold war or Vietnam, as that’s what set the stage for the international problems we see today! It’s not just George Bush’s doings either but dates back to the days of FDR, Harry Truman, and particularly Lyndon Johnson! Nor is it just a US problem, as you might have noticed that Vladimir Putin seems to be leading Russia into a return to the “bad old days”, while several other countries, including China and North Korea never really left those days.

Many pundits stress the fact that no Alaskan has ever appeared on a national ticket, as if an Alaskan, or any ruralite for that matter, is incapable of handling important matters. (Maybe they’ve got a point there, how many of us rural folks hold a PhD. in socialism from an eastern Ivy League college?) What’s even worse in their view is that Palin is an unknown factor to Washington political insiders, and to the national news media. After all, they didn’t “make” her career, and they don’t control her. That may be two strikes against her in their view, but it’s a definite plus in my book! For one thing, she’s a country girl, or at least a small town girl with small town values, and who isn’t afraid to get her hands dirty. She’s tough, smart, competent, credible, and confident enough to fight even the entrenched politicians of her own party. This mother of five was tired of seeing government running amuck, stepped into public service to reform it… and she’s got a record of doing just that. She’s spent her time as governor cutting taxes and government waste, reducing big government, establishing ethics committees, pursuing alternative energy, and in being pro-family and pro-life. It would seem that far-left liberals don't know how to react to a strong, conservative, female politician. They worship Hillary but seem terrified of Sarah! She’s also inspired a Web site www.PalinFacts.com, which gives some humorous, tongue-in-cheek, yet complimentary comments about Sarah Palin's life, character, and career. A few of my favorites include;

In 2003, the US considered deploying Sarah Palin to Iraq as a 1-woman commando squad, but wanted to make it a fair fight.

As head of Alaska’s Nat’l Guard, Sarah Palin taught troops in a training exercise how to scare a hand grenade into not exploding.

Sarah Palin loves opening up a can of whup-ass.

When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

Sarah’s a very interesting lady, and very much the breath of fresh air so desperately needed in Washington today. She also a break with current Republican spending habits, and the ongoing political insider culture. In his introduction of Palin, Sen. McCain portrayed her as a political maverick, and an ordinary mother who understands the struggles of other parents, who knows the problems, the hopes, and the values of working people, knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care, along with the unending cost of gasoline and groceries.
Dunno about anyone else, but she sounds like my kinda gal!

"Code of the West"

In My Opinion
by Bob Fogarty



In 1934, author Zane Gray (1872-1939) wrote a popular western novel entitled “The Code of the West”. While no written “code” ever existed, Gray chronicled the unwritten rules of conduct that the western pioneers generally tried to live by. These rules were based on hospitality, fair play, and loyalty to friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Historian Ramon Adams, explained in his book “The Cowman and His Code of Ethics”; "Back in the days when the cowman with his herds made a new frontier, there was no law on the range. Lack of written law made it necessary for him to frame some of his own, thus developing a rule of behavior which became known as the "Code of the West." These homespun laws, being merely a gentleman’s agreement to certain rules of conduct for survival, were never written into statutes, but were respected everywhere on the range. Though the cowman might break every law of the territory, state and federal government, he took pride in upholding his own unwritten code.”

On occasion the term will come up in a conversation these days, at which point some participants will give a knowing nod, others will look around blankly, and almost always a few will snicker at such melodramatic foolishness. Most of us “country bumpkins” seem to know right off just what’s being referred to, while most of the “city slickers” seemingly haven’t a clue. For those who aren’t aware of the “Code of the West”, it’s not a joke, it’s not something an author pulled out of his hat to sell a few books, it’s not something that the kids came up with from Lone Ranger or Hopalong Cassidy movies, and it’s certainly not something that could be enforced by lawyers, judges, and juries. Quite simply it’s a mutually agreed upon code of ethics, and a way of life that doesn’t require formalities. You might say it’s an expanded version of the same Golden Rule we all learned as kids, and that ideally we would try to live our adult lives by… well, as best we can.

When we refer to “the west”, most everybody automatically thinks of the later half of the nineteenth century, of cowboys and Indians, wagon trains, cattle drives, and of course the gunfight at OK corral. But in reality, “the west” has always been quite a bit more than that. After all, what was “the west” to the Pilgrims as they stood on Plymouth Rock? What was “the west” to a seventeenth century colonist trying to clear a farm in upstate New York? What did Daniel Boone consider to be “the west”, long before the stereotype cowboy appeared on the scene? I rather think that “the west”, along with “the code of the west” began when those first Americans stepped off the boat, and tried mightily to make a new home on this continent. Consider that they had only themselves, their families, and their neighbors to depend on, and who equally depended on them. They had little or even no support from the home country. For most intents and purposes there was no law as they understood it, only mutual agreements. They were quite literally “on their own”, with no government bureaucracy around to take care of them. While the printed “code of the west” that we see at times speaks mostly of cowboys in the wild and wooly west of the late 1800’s, but it could just as well be speaking of America in the 1600’s, or even the America of today.

I’ve known of this “code” nearly all my life, being taught a part of it by my New Mexico cowboy (in his younger days) grandfather, and of course from being a Zane Gray fan in my childhood. I really don’t know how successful I’ve been through the years, but I have for the most part tried to use what Grandpa taught me as a guide to life. Certainly I’ve bent the rules a few times, but I try not to make a habit of it. In the military, and in the fire service, I’ve found a good many folks whose leadership style seemed to be based on quite similar ethics, on common sense, and on respect for their followers, rather than the threats and bluster we so often see today. For the most part these leaders were successful in their everyday lives, and in reaching their career goals. I’ve also seen those who reach their goals by walking all over everyone else and who would happily stab a friend in the back if it might give them a slight advantage. I’m reasonably sure that a good many of our countries leaders do things the same way, and would laugh hysterically if it were suggested that they might seriously consider living their life by some sort of an ethical code. But if you ask them they’ll piously assure you that they do have a quite honorable code of ethics. Perhaps… Perhaps… There is a second “Golden Rule” after all, one that states “He who has the gold makes the rules”, and that seems to fit right into the mad scramble for money and power that we see in today’s society.

We’re presently in the midst of a Presidential election campaign, with character assignations and half-baked accusations flying thick and fast, some serious mudslinging going on, and even downright lies on occasion. But the campaign hasn’t gotten really gory… or at least not yet. I might suggest that all the candidates and their supporters take a few moments to examine the unwritten code of conduct practiced by our western forbearers, and consider just how well it would serve them and our nation today, in both our internal politics and our international relations. Certainly I’d have a lot more respect for a politician who honestly tried his best to live by it.

Space won’t allow me to repeat everything attributed to the code of the west, but a few of the more prominent items might include;
The measure of a man is when he does the right thing even when no one is watching.
Be there for a friend when he needs you.

Honesty is absolute - your word is your bond, a handshake is more binding than a contract.

Look out for your own.
Don't make a threat without expecting dire consequences.

Life is not about how fast you run, or how high you climb, but how well you bounce.

It don't take a very big person to carry a grudge.

Don't interfere with something that ain't botherin' you none.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if, in the course of selecting our political leaders and representatives, we were to put a lot more value than is currently fashionable on an individual’s ethics, and be concerned with factors like honesty, truthfulness, and a sense of fair play for all? Or is that to much to ask of our public servants (and businessmen) in this modern age?

Nuts?

Well, its official I guess, the Democrats are nuts! While I doubt the claim would stand up in a court of law today, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, in a new book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” claims, "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," and that "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." It would appear that just about the time liberals figured it was safe to come out of the closet and call themselves such in public, a psychiatrist says that liberalism is really some sort of a mental disorder! (Strangely enough I’ve had that same thought many times over the last few decades!) And while many of us have made somewhat similar statements over the years, Rossiter is a professional pshrink after all, and apparently has no known connection to political activism or "the vast right-wing conspiracy", so perhaps he does know what he’s talking about. He is a board certified psychiatrist, and who also happens to be a certified forensic psychiatrist or so I understand.

Rossiter claims the brand of liberalism displayed by the Democratic presidential nominee can only be understood as a psychological disorder. As per the good doctor, "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do."… "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." He goes on to say that the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by “creating a sense of victimization”, “supporting infantile claims to entitlement and compensation”, “adds to primitive feelings of envy”, along with “rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government”. He adds; "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious." I rather liked the “spoiled, angry children” part. I’ll admit knowing quite a few Democrats that I think quite highly of… and some of them can hardly be called “liberal”, but I also remember the democratic reaction to the last couple of presidential elections, which they still claim George W. Bush “stole”.

In theory, american liberalism consists of an ideology that wants to maximize individual liberty. The theory includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Well, “freedom of speech”, as long as the speaker is politically correct perhaps, and conservative broadcasters can be put out of business by the proposed “Fairness Doctrine” if they don’t toe the liberal line? “Freedom of Religion”… or perhaps it should be “freedom from religion”? I found out why we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse anymore (this was intended to be a joke I believe, but if the shoe fits…) “You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. If you do, it creates a hostile work environment.” Liberalism is also supposed to believe in the government providing such necessities as education, health care, food, and shelter. Well, we do have government welfare programs that are supposed to do just that, but if it’s all the same to the government I’d rather have a decent job. I sometimes question much of the governments education program, but I’m not an expert, so who am I to doubt the validity of rewritten history, or the value of college credit courses in basket weaving and hard rock appriciation? Freedom of the Press? Well, I am still writing… but I doubt I’ll ever be syndicated in the New York Times… Perhaps if I start praising Al Bore’s global warming theories, or begin weeping and wailing about the horrors of off-shore oil wells?

All in all, I’d say the third party Liberatarians fit the technical defination of “Liberal” far more that the democrats who claim the name, and apparently want nothing more than to rule your everyday life, and tax you to death so that they can “redistribute” your hard earned wages! (The IRS under the Democrats… “How much do you make? Send it in.”)

Wikipedia defines socialism as “... any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories.” This particular piece goes on to interconnect socialism with communism and modern day liberalism. The Democrats of Harry Truman’s day, and even during John Kennedy’s era, were generally trying to improve America’s standard of living. But as the wild-eyed radical social theories of the 1960’s evolved into the democratic party we see today, things obviously changed, and not necessarily for the better. I well remember the discussions of “if only the Scientists (or the Doctors, or the Sociologists, or whomever) ran the world” that were common in the fifties and sixties. Today’s left wing liberals developed from those thoughts, and now seem to be but a step away from reinventing Marxist communism, preferring government to individual control of every aspect of our lives! Still, I’d much rather make my own mistakes!

“Liberalism” as we understand it to be today, has been around for a long time and in any number of guises. America’s founding fathers were quite liberal in their political thinking for their day and age. Strangely enough, they were firm believers in massive doses of individual liberty (and the corresponding civic responsibility), without engaging a mid-sized herd of Kings, Princes, and assorted government officials to make every decision for the great unwashed masses. The country they brought into being seems to have functioned fairly well for a couple of hundred years. Now however, we seem to have all sorts of well meaning people who want to control our every waking moment, “for our own good” of course, and they are terribly close to winning!

I’ll end with a quotation from Sir Winston Churchill who, in his long and variegated political career, was a political liberal at times, as well as staunch conservative. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”