Barack Obama is sure practicing a curious foreign policy. The standard foreign policy for every country in the world throughout history is to keep your friends close and watch your enemies. Obama is keeping our enemies close and watching our friends closely and with skepticism. This is no way to run a country. If Obama wanted to project American weakness to the world, he has done a masterful job. It only took him 9 months to undo what his predecessors took 233 years building up. In the process, Obama is aligning himself with all the wrong people. If he was my son, I would counsel him to stop hanging around with gutter trash and start hanging around with the good guys.

On the Dennis Prager show, I heard that Obama is shutting down a service that documents all torture and civil rights abuses in Iran. The company that provides this service requested only $2.7 million to do the job for the year. Considering the massive amounts of money that Obama is spending like water, that is an extremely modest amount. The company is being shut down because Obama wants to meet with the Mullah’s of Iran and does not want anything to get in the way of those talks. This is very short sighted thinking.

Obama also has refused to meet with the Dali Lama. He is the nominal head of Tibet. Freeing Tibet is a favorite cause of Obama’s Hollywood crowd, yet he will not meet with the Dali Lama. Why? It is because he wants to meet with China and he does not want to make the Chinese leaders mad. Every President in my memory going back to President Eisenhower has met with the Dali Lama. Not meeting with the Dali Lama is a sign of weakness. The Chinese will make careful note that America is now weak. They will act accordingly in Asia and throughout the world.

In Honduras, their President Zelaya decided that he wanted to emulate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. So, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that President Zelaya had committed unconstitutional acts and should be deported. A new President was selected to fill out President Zelaya’s term of office. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro objected to this action by Honduras, calling it a coup. Barack Obama stepped in as the leader of the “Free World” and sided with the communist dictators and against the Honduran people who were following their Constitution. Barack Obama called the Honduran action a “coup”. Zelaya is now in the Brazilian embassy waiting for the communist dictators to give him time to become a communist dictator like them. Obama continues to support the communist dictators by shutting off all support to Honduras. Honduras is a poor country in the first place. Shutting out needed supplies will make things that much worse.

How did the country that is the leader of the “Free World” become a lap dog for communist dictators? Why aren’t we preaching freedom and democracy to the rest of the world? Why is America suddenly so weak that even Venezuela thinks that they can thumb their nose at us? It was only 10 months ago, under George W. Bush, that we were the strongest country in the world. It was only 10 months ago that we were the leader of the “Free World” and spoke out for freedom and democracy.

Now, even our dollar is under attack. The dollar is crashing on world markets. There is talk about replacing the dollar as the currency used to buy and sell oil. If that happens, the dollar will start a freefall and we will be in severe trouble. Hyperinflation would be a real possibility if the dollar becomes disconnected from oil. Last year nobody even gave it a thought to disconnect the dollar from oil. Now, it is a possibility and could happen very soon. I do not want it to happen, not even to a Democrat President. Disconnecting the dollar from oil has implications to the country far from just making buying and selling oil difficult. It means there would be a real glut of American dollars on the market. When you have too many dollars chasing too few goods, you have hyperinflation. Hyperinflation destroys the value of everyone’s savings and investments. It destroys the value of any contracts. It destroys confidence in the System of government. Governments fall because of hyperinflation. We have the best government ever devised by man in this country. We need to keep it at all costs. We cannot let the government be changed just because some people misused it to cause hyperinflation. Let that be a lesson to us for all time that elections have consequences.

We are living in pivotal times. We need to keep our eyes open to the fast moving events that are shaping the world around us. We also need to hold fast to the things that are true. By being vigilant and holding true to our values, we can withstand the whirlwind that is attacking us. Jesus talked about the House built on the rock and the house built on the sand. Let us make sure that we have the house built on the rock so that we can withstand the floods of history.

 

Will Munsil wrote an article for the ASU newspaper. In the article, he laments that some of the conservative voices are not giving the conservative movement a good name. He has a lot of good things to say about Rush Limbaugh. But, he dismisses Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz, Michael Savage and the “birthers” as giving the movement a bad name.

What Mr. Munsil does not realize is that each “voice” in the movement has its place. Orly Taitz and the birthers have their place. While it is not necessarily the face that establishment conservatives would like to put before the world, they are a viable force. Establishment type conservatives generally tend to be a little more liberal than the people that support Orly Taitz and the birthers. To people more conservative than Mr. Munsil, Orly Taitz and the birthers are pursuing something they feel passionately about. Whether it will ever bear any fruit is another matter and not even the point. The birthers build a pretty convincing case based on evidence that is available to the public that there is something to their story. Let them pursue this goal and stay out of their way. If they are right, the evidence will build up and say so. If they are wrong, the evidence will eventually lead everyone to that conclusion.

Glenn Beck does not have the same function in the conservative movement that Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager or Michael Savage have. Limbaugh, Prager and Savage discuss the fine points of conservative orthodoxy. Glenn Beck is not in that category. Glenn Beck’s job in the grand pantheon is to be the “Town Crier”. In early America, there were people that went around the towns that gave the headlines of the news. They were known as the Town Criers. Their job was to discover news and report it, not discuss points of doctrine. I am not saying that Glenn never discusses doctrine, just that his role is more of the Town Crier than intellectual. Glenn Beck has been warning America about things that are happening and are about to happen. He does that very well. If you think that he is trying to be Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Prager, you would say he is giving us a bad name. If you understand his role, you will embrace that role and wish we had others that did just that.

Michael Savage performs the same role as Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager. If you listen to all three, you would be struck by how similar their messages are. Their approaches are entirely different as are all three individuals. Dennis Prager holds an intellectual discussion with you on the radio. He appeals to your intellect. Rush Limbaugh is the showman. He entertains while teaching. Michael Savage just tells you like it is. You may not like what he says, but you have to realize that what he says is true. Michael Savage does have the problem that he sometimes comes across as too negative. When I listen to Michael Savage, sometimes I have to turn him off because he is too much for me to take. That never happens with Rush because Rush is funny and makes sure you have a good time.

Will Munsil is correct in that we have to wonder about the face that we put forward. But, before we criticize we have to realize the roles each commentator plays. Why? Because if you do not understand why the radio personality says what he/she says, you miss the entire point. The why is just as important as the what.

I do commend Will Munsil on his insight. Any time you write an article and take a stand you will start to take arrows from all those that have a problem with whatever it is that you say. Liberal Republicans want their candidates to be politically correct, so they do not offend Democrats. Just being physically present is enough to offend Democrats on some issues. In other words, if you spend your life trying not to offend Democrats you will end up being a nothing.

 

Tonight, Barack Obama is going to try and rescue his Presidency. I know the talk is about healthcare, but it really is about saving his Presidency. He has staked everything on getting HIS version of healthcare passed by the House and Senate. Right now, there is a lot of opposition to his version of healthcare. He is going to try and change minds tonight during his speech.

The talk show hosts from the Salem Radio Network (Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt) will be presenting about 1.3 million signatures to Capitol Hill. They will be received by Republicans in the House and Senate. The Republicans will then deliver the petitions to the leadership of the House and Senate. That is the largest number of signatures delivered on a single topic on Capitol Hill. My wife and I signed the petition and will definitely vote against any Senator or House member that votes for the bill. I would hope that other signers would have the same commitment. This petition puts a lot of voters on record as opposing Obamacare. This is a big hill to climb.

Barack Obama has a lot to overcome tonight. We shall see if he even tries to overcome this built in opposition. My guess is that he will assume that everyone is on board, at least a little bit. He will most likely repeat the things that we have been hearing for the past few weeks. Most of the statements that he uses to promote the healthcare bill have been determined to be false by logic, if nothing else. He will probably bring the government option back on the table for discussion. The government option gives Obama the quickest and easiest way to get to the “single-payer” Healthcare system. Since that is the goal of the Democrats, the government option is most likely the path he will choose.

The main goal is to get the Obamacare bill passed, period. The second goal is to pass the bill with at least one Republican vote. If they get 1 Republican to vote for the bill (Olympia Snowe, that is you I am talking about), they can call the bill bi-partisan. A bi-partisan bill gives Democrats cover. If they are given cover by the Republicans, the debacle predicted for them in 2010 will be blunted. Democrats need the cover. Republicans should not give it to them by voting for Obamacare. If Obamacare is as bad as predicted, the Democrats will be severely punished. If it is the best healthcare system in the world, then they will be able to reap the rewards. Since every politician knows that it will be a disaster, Democrats want the cover very badly. They may even be willing to compromise, but the compromise would be just for show. It would go back to the worst of Obamacare as soon as the Democrats felt that they could get away with eliminating the compromise.

There are a lot of quick and easy things that could be done that would make health insurance more affordable. But this debate is not about making health care more affordable for all Americans. It is about giving Democrats more power.  The words used make it seem like Democrats are concerned about the cost of healthcare. If that was the case, the Democrats would have proposed fixes to the healthcare system that would have saved everyone money. The Democrats want power. They will use and/or abuse anything to get more power.

The Republicans have proposed the fixes to the system that will reduce the cost for everyone. The Republican proposals get the government out of the healthcare system. That is always a good idea. President Reagan had it right when he said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” If you use that idea you can solve any problem the federal, state and local governments have. It will always result in lower cost and more freedom. Since our goal should always be more freedom, we should try and reduce the government in our lives. Unfortunately, that is not what we will hear tonight from Barack Hussein Obama.

 

On the way to work today, Dennis Prager was talking about 6 solar towers at the Long Beach Airport. The six towers have three panels each. These towers will produce enough power to run 120 laptop computers. According to Dennis, the towers are exceedingly ugly. For the blemish on the scenery, it seems a poor investment. You have those six towers that look terrible and only produce enough power to support up to 120 laptops. That is only 20 laptops each. That seems hardly worth it.

That is the problem with the left. They always seem to know what is best for you. The best for you always makes it worse for you and better some place you will never be. Dennis’ example was that in order to achieve energy independence, we have to put up with these ugly towers. Yet, the northeast corner of Alaska, where no human will ever visit, is left pristine. The justification is that it is better for the environment that it be left pristine. The problem with that argument is the caribou, the primary animal in that environment, loves the Alaska pipeline. The caribou population exploded after the Alaska pipeline was installed. The reason is the pipeline provides warmth and shelter. Both are in extremely short supply in that part of Alaska. The warmth and shelter allow the caribou to survive and thrive. We can assume the same would be true in the Arctic National Wildlife area that the drilling would take place. But, the left knows more than the caribou or us.

The towers also say that they will save carbon dioxide. We need carbon dioxide in the air. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is like calling oxygen a pollutant. Plants require carbon dioxide to live. They make oxygen and sugar from carbon dioxide. If we start removing all the carbon dioxide out of the air under the guise that it will lower the temperature, the plants will all die and so will we. We now have carbon dioxide levels that are near starvation levels for plants. They can handle much more oxygen. Their systems can handle up to 6% carbon dioxide in the air. It has been that in the past. Carbon dioxide has little to nothing to do with the temperature of the earth, anyway.

Wind farms are another darling of the left. It takes many square miles of land to equal one nuclear power plant. Then, if the wind does not blow the wind power plant is worthless. The nuclear power would put out electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When I have driven through the wind farms in California, many windmills are not working. That is because it is expensive to maintain windmills in working order to get maximum results. Nuclear power is also not cheap, but it is reliable. Nuclear power plants are also clean and almost pollution free. Wind farms tend to kill a lot of birds with the turning blades. They are developing expensive systems that can prevent birds from hitting the blades, but that is an additional expense. Also, liberals do not want wind farms anywhere near where THEY happen to be. Liberals do not mind putting it in your backyard, just not in theirs.

Another source of power that is relatively cheap and is extremely clean is hydro power. The liberals absolutely hate hydro power. You would think that they would love hydro power because it does not cause pollution. They hate it because the river has been stopped and that is not natural. They want most if not all dams removed so that rivers can run free and unimpeded. The fact that most of our food is produced because of water that is stored behind these dams does not seem to matter to them. When it comes to choosing between farmers and fish, the fish always win if a liberal is in charge. The farmers can starve and liberals do not care. If the fish has any problem, the liberals have big problems with that. When we start running out of food because of liberals giving all our water to the fishes and other wildlife or removing our dams, maybe they will rethink their values. I doubt it.

When I worked for the Soil Conservation Service/Natural Resources Conservation Service, I came into contact with quite a few environmentalists. Most of them had a couple of things in common: First, they knew absolutely nothing about how the environment works, but thought they knew everything; second, anything that benefitted wildlife was good, anything that benefitted the farmer/rancher was bad. Even when you would show them that both sides would benefit by doing a recommended procedure, they would balk if it meant that even one cow was allowed on the ground. That was just madness. They would settle for less wildlife habitat, if they could remove the cow from the land. It was crazy how single minded they were. As a result, I came away with a very negative opinion of the environmental movement. That is because I am a trained Environmental Scientist.

We now have these single-minded environmentalists in charge of our government agencies. What will happen to those agencies over the next four years as policies get put in place that are unscientific and unsound remains to be seen. I expect to see the environment of the United States be worse off in four years than it is today because of all the new environmental policies. The EPA already has stepped in it by calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. Any freshman biology student knows that was a stupid idea.

 

On the way to work today, I heard Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt debate the pros and cons of the Fair Tax. Dennis Prager generally believes that the Fair Tax would be a good idea. Hugh Hewitt thinks that the Fair Tax is a pie in the sky idea that is impractical.

To review for those of you who are not up to speed on the Fair Tax, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax. A consumption tax is a tax on the things you buy, not an income tax. The income tax would be repealed, so you would get your entire paycheck. Since the government has to have money to pay for things it needs tax revenue. The Fair Tax would take the place of the income tax. Rep. Lindner and Neal Boortz came up with the Fair Tax and say that the rate should be 23% to replace the income tax. So that the lower income people would not have to pay any tax, people would get a “prebate” of what they would be expected to pay in tax for that month. Then, every time you bought something you would pay the tax. If you spend less than your prebate, you made money. If you bought more than your prebate, then you ended up paying the government.

Hugh Hewitt says that the rate for the consumption tax is not 23%, but 30%. I have not read his book, so I will have to take him at his word on how he gets to that point. Neal Boortz and Rep. Lindner go to great lengths in their books to make sure that the 23% figure is shown. They also address the question of whether the rate is 23% or 30%. An economist came out with the 30% figure a few years ago and Neal Boortz explained how that economist got to 30%. The economist was incorrect in how he got to 30%; I do not know how Hugh came up with the figure. I am not really sure on this point, which person is correct. I respect and believe in the honesty of all three men, so I would have to see their arguments placed side by side before I could really determine it for myself.

Hugh Hewitt’s main argument is that the Fair Tax can never be passed. I agree with him on that. There is a lot of power associated with taxes. Congress would have to voluntarily give up a lot of power to vote for the Fair Tax. Since Democrats thirst for power with every breath, they will never in their lifetimes vote for the Fair Tax. Republicans would have to produce all the votes for the bill. That would be unlikely as some Republicans like power almost as much as Democrats. You would have to have a Congress with about 70% Republicans in both Houses to have a chance and that is not likely to happen given the public is generally split 50-50.

Hugh Hewitt thinks that Republicans should support a flat tax as that is more likely to be passed by Congress.  That is correct. There is a far greater chance of a flat tax passing over the Fair Tax. All Republicans could get behind it and you might even be able to persuade some Democrats to follow suit. It is unlikely to get much Democrat support, but even one Democrat is far more than you would get for the Fair Tax.

In conclusion, the flat tax is the more likely solution to the confusion tax situation we have today. Right now, if you take your taxes to 10 tax experts to have them done, you are likely to get at least 6 different answers. With a flat tax, all that would go away. Of course, so would the need to have your taxes done by a CPA. Anyone would be able to write down their income and multiply it by the tax number to come up with how much tax they owed. This plan has a similar problem to the Fair Tax in that Congress would have to give up some power over taxes. Since it is a much smaller amount than the Fair Tax would require, it would have a greater chance of success. Also, it would be a good first step to the Fair Tax if that is your ultimate goal.

If your goal is to have the Fair Tax enacted, to go from our current confusing income tax system to the Fair Tax is a steep jump. To take an intermediate jump to a flat tax and then the Fair Tax would seem reasonable. It would mean a delay of probably a few years, but that should not be a problem. So, anyone who would like the Fair Tax, you should support a flat tax as an intermediate step. Then, you can get people moving in your direction for the final leap to the Fair Tax. Problem Solved!

 

This week, a poll came out saying that one-third of pre-teens believe that by the time they reach adulthood, there will not be an earth for them to live on. The amounts are even worse among blacks and Hispanics with 75% of blacks believing there will not be an earth for them and 65% of Hispanics believing it. That is how bad the hysteria is over the lie that is global warming or the now accepted term, global climate change. It is ironic that they chose that new name as the global climate is always changing, so if it changes they can claim it was because of man when man had nothing to do with it.

Today, Dennis Prager had a Dr. Ian Pilar, a Professor of Mining Geology from the University of Adelaide in Australia. I am not sure of the spelling on the professor’s name, so if I misspelled it I am sorry. Dr. Pilar just wrote a book called, “Heaven and Earth”. It is a best seller in Australia and is coming out this week in the United States and England.

In Dennis Prager’s interview I learned some interesting facts that I did not know about the earth. According to Dr. Pilar, for about 80% of the time there were not ice caps in the Arctic or the Antarctic. During those times the earth was much warmer and had an abundance of life during those time periods. During the time that we have had ice caps, the life on earth has struggled for existence. This was a fact that I did not know. I knew about the abundance of life, but I did not know about the lack of an ice cap for 80% of the time.

The other fact that Dr. Pilar mentioned was about the ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland. Those ice sheets move over the surface of the ground. When they come to a hill, they build up and go over the hill. When they reach the shore, they fall off into the ocean creating ice bergs. All of that was information that I already knew. What he added was the part that I was not fully aware of. He said that the amount of ice that falls off was determined to fall off thousands or millions of years ago. It is not determined by the temperature of the earth at the time it falls off. In fact, the ice breaks off less when the temperature is hotter than when it is colder. That does make some sense as the ice would be more brittle when it is colder.

Dr. Pilar also backed up the information about carbon dioxide that I already knew and added some new wrinkles. He said that as the earth warms, carbon dioxide is released from the soil and the water raising the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. As the earth cools, the carbon dioxide is trapped by the soil and the water lowering the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. He did say that carbon dioxide plays a part in warming the earth as a greenhouse gas, up to a point. When it reaches a certain point, it ceases to make any difference in warming the earth. That is how the earth has had carbon dioxide levels of 5-6% and not been burned to a cinder. That was something that when he said it, I thought that it made perfect sense based on what I knew had happened in the history of the earth and how plants function.

What all this means is that humans could reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to zero and it would make no difference on the climate. Since as the earth warms, carbon dioxide is released from the water and the soil, we have no control over the amount in the atmosphere. Also, carbon dioxide follows climate changes, not leads climate changes.

That means that all this concentration on carbon dioxide is just silly stuff. It would remain silly stuff if the people that believed it did not have the reins of power in our government. They could impose draconian measures on our economy in the name of climate change and have no impact on the climate at all. It would destroy the America that I love and that is why I have to keep speaking out about this issue.

 

This morning on the Dennis Prager show, he played a clip of his appearance on the Larry King show last night. The other guest was Perez Hilton. They were debating same sex marriage and whet her it should be legalized. Perez Hilton went straight for the fairness issue. Dennis set forward the reasons why fairness is not an issue. The important issue is that marriage is because a man and a woman both bring something different to the table.

Dennis asked Perez if he believed that men and women were the same. Perez said that they were the same except for external body parts. Obviously Perez has not been around children. Anyone who has raised a boy and a girl knows that boys and girls are different almost from day one. It is not cultural training that makes them different. It is inherent in each sex certain traits that give rise to what they are as adults. Of course, cultural training modifies this to some extent. But the inherent differences are there nonetheless.

For one thing, men and women have their brains wired differently. Women have more connections between the left and right brain than men do. There is nothing any cultural training can do to make that different. It is just a fact. That difference gives women some advantages in certain parts of life. It also gives men certain advantages in other parts of life. There is nothing right or wrong about this. It is just a fact and each of us has to live with the advantages we were given because we were a man or a woman.

Dennis Prager also brought up another great point. If you think that men and women are the same with different body parts, are the boy scouts and girl scouts discriminatory? Perez never answered that question, because the only answer is that boy and girl scouts are not discriminatory. Boys and girls are different and need different organizations to meet their needs.

Perez Hilton brought up that it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry. We changed the law to allow that, why not change the law to allow gays to marry? Dennis answered that there is nothing in all religious doctrine or historical secular doctrine that justified the law keeping blacks and whites from marrying. There is no religious or secular doctrine that supports same sex marriage. Dennis also pointed out that there is no difference between a black person and a white person. There is a profound difference between a man and a woman. That is why marriage is there. A man and a woman both bring something to the marriage that two men or two women cannot bring. Also, that is not saying that all marriages are perfect. All marriages are imperfect. Marriages that seem perfect are because you have two committed people that work at it every day.

Perez Hilton tried to say that there are a thousand benefits/rights to married couples that are denied to everyone else. He said that same sex marriage would open up those benefits/rights to everyone. Dennis said that those are issues that can be settled without calling a same sex union, marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Children are frequently are asked about marriage. If you add sexual confusion by asking, are you going to marry a man or a woman, you are going too far. Children should have examples of men being men and women being women. About 97% of the population is straight. Why should we add sexual confusion to children when they do not need it?

From the debate between Perez Hilton and Dennis Prager it was obvious who won. Dennis won on the issues. Dennis had all the facts on his side. Dennis had all the religious, social and cultural issues to back him up in the debate. All Perez Hilton had, was the emotional issue of “fairness” or “equality”. All of us should be treated equal. But, all of us do not have equal rights. There are some things I cannot do because I do not have the right. Other people can do those things because they have the right. That is fair because I have not earned the right. Until I earn the right, I have no basis in asking for the right. Some rights are God given, like freedom of speech. Others are earned, like higher pay because of an education. Most rights are earned. Many people hear the word rights and expect it to be given to them as a God given thing. We are getting away from the policy of earning.

 

“When the left enters, diversity of thought goes.” That statement by Dennis Prager, just as I was getting out of my car to go to work was profound. He had been leading up to that statement by saying that the right considers the left wrong and the left considers the right evil. He had been giving numerous examples of left leaning people that would not give the time of day to a person who expressed an opinion from the right. Dennis said that this problem had been occurring since Karl Marx. Also, all fascist states, from the Nazi's to the communists, have been from the left.

What brought this all on was the Miss USA beauty contest. Miss California had answered a question about Vermont granting gay marriage and what did she think the rest of the states should do. Miss California said that she was glad she lived in a country where people could choose both. She then elaborated more on that thought and closed with the fact that in her family she was brought up that marriage was between a man and a woman. She closed that she did not want to give offense to anyone. Perez Hilton, one of the judges, went ballistic, called her nasty names and called her intelligence into question on U-Tube. Yesterday, one of the co-chairs of the Miss USA Pageant went on CBS and basically said that if you do not have leftist views, you cannot win a beauty contest. She said that Miss California had not been compassionate in her answer. In my mind, I could not think of a more compassionate and inclusive answer to the question. I would have been much blunter.

At almost all colleges and universities, you have to hold leftist opinions to be hired. If you have ever put forth a conservative opinion in public, you have little chance of being hired as a full-time faculty member. If you manage to get past the hiring committee and they find out that you have conservative views, you have little chance of being promoted to full professor. The quality of your scholarship is not important. Your ability to teach is not important. If you hold conservative ideas, you have little chance to get past the leftist gatekeepers. When conservatives ran the colleges and universities there were many liberals and Marxists that taught at the schools and attained full professorship. Today, that cannot be said of conservatives in a liberal environment. You will find exceptions, but the general rule is that conservatives need not apply.

At the major newspapers and television stations, conservatives need not apply. The television stations are finding that they need some conservative hosts, so will hire some selected conservatives. But, the general rule is that they only hire liberals. As a result, you get this liberal bias. The TV stations and newspapers cannot see the liberal bias because all the people they hang around with are liberals. Since all their liberal friends hold exactly the same opinions that they do, they see absolutely no problem with reporting news with a liberal slant. They just figure that the liberal position is the normal position for everyone in the US. When they are confronted with the liberal bias claim, they are dumfounded. They cannot possibly have a liberal bias in their news reporting. Yet, you see it time and again. In the interview with the co-chair of the Miss USA Pageant, the reporter just took what the co-chair said with no questions being raised in her mind. If she had no bias, she could have asked the co-chair to give an example of how Miss California could have answered the question more compassionately. That would have put the co-chair on the spot to put up or shut up. If she could not give an example, then she would have been exposed as a fascist. If she could give an example, then she would have vindicated Miss California. Also, the reporter could have asked the co-chair what the difference was between the answer Miss California gave and the answer Barack Obama gave during the campaign. He said that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. He did not even acknowledge that gays had any right to marriage. Miss California did make that acknowledgement. That also would have put the co-chair on the spot.

Liberals are dominating the American scene more and more throughout my lifetime. As a result, conservative ideas are disparaged more and more. About the only bastion of conservative thought is talk radio and part of the internet. Congress is getting ready to fix that problem as soon as they can think of a way around the Republicans. Then, they will shut down talk radio and all conservative thought on the internet. We have to hope that the Republicans, as weak as they are, can hold on until the elections in 2010. Then, we have a chance to fix part of the problem we created in 2008.

 

Listening to the Dennis Prager show, I heard something quite disturbing. He was telling us about the beauty pageant that was held over the weekend. Miss California was given a question from one of the judges. The question was approximately, New Hampshire recently approved gay marriages. Should other states follow their example? Miss California said approximately, that she was glad she lived in a country where people could believe what they wanted to. But, that she and her family believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Miss California came in first runner-up in the event.

One of the judges was outraged. After the event, he made a U-Tube video where he called her stupid and other names for not saying that gay marriage was a good thing. This judge said that if Miss California had won he would have gone on stage and caused a scene.

That is really disturbing to me. Things are starting to get out of hand where people that believe in gay marriage are concerned. Those of us who believe in traditional marriage are now not just wrong; we are stupid and a lot of other unprintable names. The next thing you know, we will not be able to voice our opinions at all. The left believes it knows more than all of recorded history and every religious and secular leader throughout time. That is really scary. When something has worked well for thousands of years, why change it?

The real thrust behind all this gay marriage talk where anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is now not just wrong but stupid and worse, is that the left wants to control the agenda. The way they control the agenda is to intimidate everyone into keeping silent. If they keep calling everyone bad names for supporting tradition, then people will start keeping quiet. That is how they imposed political correctness and other leftist changes in the language. Now words do not even mean what they have meant for hundreds of years.

What is happening right before our eyes is that our free speech is being taken away from us. It started with political correctness. We let that go because it seemed harmless at first. Now the left has gone beyond political correctness into changing the thoughts of everyone. If they cannot win the discussion of ideas, they will win with intimidation. They will bully everyone into believing, or at least saying, what they want them to say. When they achieve that goal, then there will not be anyone to stop them from completely dominating the culture. They almost do so now, so this last step will just complete the process.

Those of us who believe in truth and right need to speak out and say that we will not be intimidated. I will not stop saying that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not between two people of the same sex. The reason behind marriage is to have and raise children. Two people of the same sex cannot have children through natural means. They are incapable of doing what the purpose of marriage is, so they fall outside the definition of marriage. If you want to call their unions something else, then that is fine. But, they are not marriage and never will be marriage, no matter how much the left cries that they are.

We need to take a stand here and now. Our rights are being trampled by the left. They believe that they know more than the combined world. They want to impose their failed doctrines on the American people. If we do not take a stand now, we will lose our freedoms and America will be a historical country. We cannot let that happen. The Tea Parties were a first step, but we need to continue. Stand up and be counted. Do not let yourself be intimidated by the left. You will end up stronger, though you may catch a few arrows.

 

Earlier this week, Neal Boortz had a link up on his Nealz Nuze that just said something about it being good to start your week. I clicked on the link because I was curious and found the U-Tube video of Susan Boyle. To say I was moved by the video was an understatement.

I have been cursed with perfect pitch. That means that singers that sing out of tune drive me crazy. Since over 90% of all today’s singers sing out of tune, I almost never listen to music anymore. When Susan hit her first note, I knew I had heard a singer that was exceptional. Not only was the tone clear, full and rich, it was exactly on pitch. The reaction from the crowd took about one note longer before they also realized that they were hearing an exceptional voice singing.

When Susan came out on stage, she was unremarkable. She is 47 years old from a small town somewhere in either northern England or Scotland. That comment comes from living in England for two years and knowing a little bit about English accents. The judges were unimpressed with her from the start. They handled her as if she had no business on that stage. When she said she wanted to be as big a star as the biggest star in England, the judges were incredulous. Susan was a bit “cheeky” with the judges in response to their stern tone. At that point, people were laughing at Susan. Her hair was not well done; she probably had fixed it herself. She looked to me like your typical middle-aged housewife in England. She wore a plain dress, nothing fancy. In other words, she was up there in a plain wrapper and asked the world to believe.

From listening to the Dennis Prager show, I learned a few other facts about Susan Boyle. She was oxygen deprived at birth. That has given her a learning disability. The learning disability made her the brunt of many jokes by her classmates in school. They taunted her and bullies attacked her. Most of it was verbal and she says those scars never go away. She lived with her parents until her father passed away about 10 years ago. Then she lived with and took care of her mother until she died recently. She spent her free time singing in the church choir. She also said that she has never been kissed.

I like to think of myself as old hard heart. The real story is that when I see a success story like this, I get all choked up. She stood there with all her handicaps and won. She asked for no special favors. She was granted no special favors. She had one chance to succeed or fail. She took that chance and succeeded far beyond her wildest imaginations. One week ago, nobody had heard of her except for a few people in the collection of villages she calls home. Today, millions of people know of her and applaud her success.

Time will tell if success will change Susan Boyle. It will obviously change her on the outside. She will have money to have people fix her hair. She will have money to buy fancy dresses. She may even lose a little weight. Like almost all of us (myself included), she has put on a few pounds over the years. She is not badly overweight, but a few pounds would greatly improve her image. The real test will be if she changes on the inside. Right now, she is proud of who she is and yet humble at the same time. She is here with no regrets over what has happened in her life. Will success change that self image that she currently has? Only time will tell.

I wish Susan Boyle well in her future singing career. She has a voice that you so rarely hear. I hope some singing coach doesn’t try and change her voice into something else. Right now, she has a perfect voice. The volume, pitch and fullness are all in the right amounts. If you mess with perfection, sometimes you end up with something much less. In my estimation, she does everything right when it comes to the voice, don’t change a thing. You may need to work with her on timing or reading music, but somehow I doubt that. She already got that training in the church choir.

 

Yesterday, Vermont became the first state that ratified a bill authorizing people of the same sex to marry. They had to override the veto of the Governor to complete the task. All the other states that have authorized same sex marriage have been because of unelected judges. Dennis Prager discussed this issue on the way to work today.

What is the real issue with same sex marriage? Is it the rights that married people have? No, same sex couples can get the same rights if they so choose. Is it to get the same benefits that married people have? Maybe, but these benefits can be obtained in ways other than getting married.

Then what is the real reason? The answer may lie in the acronym used by the Gays and Lesbians, LGBT. That stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The gays and lesbians claim that they are that way because it is genetic. People are bisexual and transgender because of choice. That would indicate that the goal of the organization is to blur the line between male and female. If you blur the line between male and female, then bisexual and transgender become more acceptable. Also as an offshoot, gays and lesbians are not considered different at all.

Why throw away thousands of years of Jewish and Christian tradition just because a few people say so? Shouldn’t we acknowledge the wisdom of the ages? There has to be a reason that the Jews and Christians adopted the marriage covenant between men and women only. The reason is obvious. If you want society to continue, you have to have children. The only way to have children is for men and women to get together and create a child. Marriage then protects the woman and children from starvation and death. Traditionally, the man is obligated to care for the woman and children. Both the man and the woman then train the children in what is expected of them to make them good members of the society. This practice has successfully continued civilization to our day. It is a successful practice.

We started to modify that practice when we needed women to work during World War II. At that time, women had to go to work because most of the men were off fighting in the war. Women liked earning a paycheck. When men came back from the war, many women had a difficult time giving up the paycheck to become the housewife again. That started women working. In our time, women have to work to provide enough money to pay for the houses that we own. Generally, men also do not earn enough money to have a wife and children at home like they did before World War II.

Gays and Lesbians say that changing the definition of marriage will not have any impact on society. I believe they are wrong. It will take a few years, but I believe that changing the definition of marriage will confuse the gender roles that men and women have had for thousands of years. In other countries where they have relaxed the marriage laws, marriages are much fewer. That means more women raising children without the aid of a husband. I do not want to sound like a male chauvinist pig, but I believe that men are essential in a family. Boys need to learn how to be men and girls need to know how men are supposed to behave. Just like boys need to learn to respect their mother and sisters, girls need to learn how to be women from their mothers. A family where one of these roles is missing is not a complete family. Studies show that children are less likely to be involved in crime if they come from a home with a father and a mother. I am not saying that there are not good people that were raised by just their father or their mother. I am just saying that in general, children born and raised to a married father and mother turn out better.

If you want a predictor of crime, one of the best statistics you could use is did the person come from a one parent household. If you want a predictor of poverty, one of the best statistics you could use is did the person come from a one parent household. The percentages are against one parent households being successful. There are many that are, but there is a larger number that do not make it. There are just not enough statistics on children raised by two fathers or two mothers to be valid, but my guess is that they are not much better than single parent households. Only one gender is represented. A successful family has both genders as role models.

I have been successfully married for almost 37 years. During that time, each of us has had a role in raising our children. Both of us taught them different things and that turned them into whole individuals. Our children laugh when they identify that this or that trait came from me. It makes us closer as a family. I frequently see my father in the things that I do and say. I am sure that my sons do the same thing. As I look back, I would not change much. I would still marry and raise my seven wonderful children, even if I knew how much of a problem that was going to be.

 

Our historically challenged President is off jet setting around the world, changing the past. The latest was the talk he gave just before jetting off to Turkey. In the talk, he talked about how the Prague Spring was a success in changing Europe. He must be joking. The Prague Spring was a total disaster from any perspective. The only problem with the Prague Spring is that the left has decided that it was a golden time and taught that it was successful in changing communism.

Let me refresh your memory like Dennis Prager did mine this morning. In 1968, Alexander Dubcek instituted some reforms in Czechoslovakia. This included, but was not limited to, freedom of expression. Since the Soviet Russians hated freedom of expression, they feared the power of freedom; they decided to put down this rebellion while it was still a peaceful, non-violent revolution.

The Soviets sent in the tanks and slaughtered thousands. The Czechoslovakian government was ousted and a puppet government was put in its place. Maybe Alexander Dubcek expected America to come to his aid. That was not to be as President Johnson was bogged down in Vietnam and was hoping to be re-elected. Getting America involved with the Soviets right then would have been impossible for President Johnson. It was obvious that the Soviets did not fear anything that the Americans would do at that time. They just came in and cleaned house. Those that were not killed outright were sent to the Gulags and never heard from again.

The Prague Spring was the second time in 12 years that the Soviets came in and cleaned out reform minded people from Eastern European states. The first was in 1956 in Hungary and the second in Prague. They followed the same script each time. They came in with tanks and guns to defeat upstarts that thought they could win with ideas and good intentions.

What you intend to do is great. What you actually do is better. If you intend to change the world with ideas, you better have some way to back it up. Unfortunately, the world is filled with people with guns. Those that have the guns make the rules. You can have all the wonderful thoughts in the world, but without guns behind it, are useless. Of course, a people that have no ideas and have guns is also not good. The best of all possible worlds is when people have great ideas and are willing to back it up with their lives and guns. Then you have the ability to change the world. Barack Obama thinks that ideas change the world if they are good. That is wrong. Just look at Prague and Hungary and you will see that good ideas and good intentions are not enough. You also have to be able to back them up with guns.

A world without guns would be nice, but it will never happen in my lifetime. As Americans, we have the best ideas and we also have the best military. We do not have the best leader right now. We have a leader that thinks that good intentions are better than a strong military at deterring terrorists. We have a leader that thinks that if your intentions are good enough, you can keep all the bad guys at bay. He is living in a dream world. Unfortunately, that dream world can and will get a lot of people killed if Obama does not wake up soon.

On a side, but related note, why did Barack Obama bow to the King of Saudi Arabia? He should have known that American Presidents bow to nobody. I knew that for at least the last 50 of my 60 years. If I knew it so long, surely he has known it for a long time. When Bill Clinton was President, the New York Times made a point of lecturing Mr. Clinton on the fact that Presidents do not bow to anyone. That was over a head nod to the Emperor of Japan. Surely someone in his party would have remembered the lecture from the New York Times on the subject just a few years ago.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Barack Obama surrounds himself with “yes” men. The number of times he puts his foot in his mouth or he does something stupid or he gives a tacky gift to another head of state, it cannot just be innocent mistakes. There is a pattern emerging. That pattern is one of incompetence abroad and dealing with heads of state. That is what was warned during the election, but everyone scoffed and said it would not matter. Well, it does matter. Barack Obama represents the United States. When he acts like a country bumpkin, it makes the entire United States look like a bunch of country bumpkins. We used to run a tight ship over at the State Department when it came to this kind of thing. Now the wheels have come off the bus in only three months, disgraceful.

  There is a disturbing court case that has been introduced in Spain. I heard Dennis Prager interview one of the men on his show today. A man who was put in prison for terrorism and earned a law degree has filed suit against 6 Americans for giving advice to President Bush about the Geneva Convention. That the case was filed is not disturbing. Anyone can file anything against anyone. The disturbing part is that a judicial review recommends that it go to trial. That is the disturbing part of the entire thing. This case is a blow against our national sovereignty.

If someone can file a case in Spain or some other country charging someone for a crime that was potentially committed in the United States, our national sovereignty is gone. Our borders are no longer secure against foreign aggression. If our national sovereignty is gone, we no longer have a country. If we lose the United States, there will never be another time to have another United States in the history of the world. We are a unique case that happened at a unique time in history. If we lose what we have, there is nothing to replace it with. Liberty will cease to exist everywhere on the planet. Individual rights will cease to exist everywhere on the planet. Now, they will not happen overnight, but you can count on them happening rather soon after our demise. If there is no US to insure that there are individual rights and liberty, there will not be individual rights or liberty.

Right now, the Spanish government is reviewing the case to see if there is any merit. If the Spanish government had any sense, they would have dismissed it without cause.

The case alleges that these six individuals gave advice to President Bush to have him put in place rules and guidelines that caused prisoners to be tortured against the Geneva Convention. There were a few individuals that were tortured, but they were done by individuals who were disciplined. There was no policy of American torture of prisoners, despite what you hear from the Democrats. So, since there was no policy of torture there could not have been advice advocating torture. That would mean that all six should not be charged. That does not even take into account that the events took place in the US and this case has been filed in Spain. There is no jurisdiction for the court to use to take the case.

The individual that filed the case kidnapped a man at knife and gun point. The man was held in a cell that was six feet by three feet in dimensions. It was also less than six feet high. The man that was being held was taller than six feet. That meant that he could not lie down without bending and could not stand up without bending over. The man was held in this cell for a year. He was not allowed out for any exercise or anything. If that is not torture, I do not know what torture is. The man was released from this torture chamber after his family managed to raise the ransom.

This case has potential serious ramifications for us in the United States. If the Obama administration stands up to Spain and tells them they have no case, then we are safe. If Spain indicts these six men and the Obama administration gives them up, we have lost the country completely without hope of getting it back. At this time, with all the deficit spending we still have a chance to reclaim the country. There is a point where the country is lost and nothing will bring it back. We are close to that now. This issue with Spain could tip us over, if Spain is stupid enough to even bring it about. It would also end the sovereignty of Spain as well. They would have to think this through thoroughly before they committed themselves to this strategy. I think cooler heads in Spain will reject the lawsuit and all will be well, but we cannot be too sure until it actually happens.

 

On the way to work today, I listened to Dennis Prager on KKNT 960 AM. The main topic he was talking about was higher education and a study done by UCLA on the top ten issues that are important to college professors.

The top two issues were to make the students do community service and to make the students honor other races. As Dennis Prager said, if you wanted to do community service to help the “Mormon” Church, would the college professors think that was community service? The answer is obvious, college professors mean leftist community service like feeding the homeless, not things that would build up the community.

The second issue is race. Liberals see race in everything they do. Conservatives do not see race, unless it is brought to their attention. I am particularly color blind when it comes to racial issues. I have children or in-laws or nephews that are of every racial group. As a result, I generally do not even know what a person’s race is until they bring it to my attention. If they are a different color, I just use that as one of their identifying marks like a scar or hair color. As a scientist, I know that each of us are generally alike when it comes to our genes. Our DNA is so similar that, except for sex, it would be difficult to tell which sample was which from my class of students of different races. There are markers that can tell where your DNA originated, but generally we are genetically alike regardless of what color we happen to be. The differences between races are cultural, not genetic.

Dennis Prager said that teaching students comes in tenth of the top ten things that college professors are concerned with. As an aside, he said that he has heard that community college teachers are generally better than university teachers. That is because community college teachers are there to teach and university professors are there to do research, not teach. University professors do not get promoted on the basis of how well they teach. They get promoted on how much money they can bring in to the university in the form of grants or on how much they get published. Teaching is a low priority at universities when it comes to professors. Community college teachers are there because they like to teach. They get promoted on how well they teach, not on how much money they bring in. For that reason, you will get better teachers in a community college than in any 4-year college or university. There are exceptions to that rule. There are excellent university professors, but they are rare.

Most of higher education is little more than indoctrination into liberal groupthink. The exceptions to that statement generally come in the sciences. In English, History and the humanities in general, liberal groupthink is the norm. In the sciences, you cannot generally teach the liberal claptrap and be looked at as a serious scientist. The exception to that is global warming. You can believe in global warming and be promoted, but that is disappearing as the evidence is mounting against global warming. Most serious scientists have rejected global warming as an ideology and are sticking to the facts. That is the best way for any true scientist to follow.

As Dennis Prager said, never has so much been spent to teach your children things you do not believe. Many universities are concerned with turning out good liberals, not educated citizens. I know at my school, in the sciences you get a real education. In the liberal arts, you get liberalism 101. That is why our students complain about having to think in our classes. They say that they do not have to think in their other classes. That is a real shame.