The past couple of days I have been hearing reports about proposals from the Obama administration on how the school year and school day need to be lengthened. As a teacher, those ideas caught my attention. I do teach at the Community College level so these proposals do not directly impact me. They undoubtedly would impact me in the long run if they ever got implemented.

The education secretary for the Obama administration has suggested that schools need to be the center of the community. To fulfill that function, they need to be open more. When asked what he meant by being open more, he replied that they should be open for twelve or more hours a day and 6-7 days a week. He did add that this extra time would be filled with all sorts of educational activities and physical education.

From what I know of the educational system in this country, I highly doubt that twelve months of school will produce better students than nine months. I also think that 6 or 7 days of school would produce the same level of student as the current 5 day system. The reason for my optimism is my great respect for the teacher’s union, the NEA.

In my opinion, the reason the Obama administration wants to have schools open longer each day and longer during the year is not to produce better students. Their goal would be to produce better Obamabots. Since a student has the potential to think for him/herself, they can be dangerous. That is because they spend so much time with their parents. Taking them away for twelve hours a day would remove much of the parental attraction. Then, you could indoctrinate the students into whatever you wanted without the influence of the parents.

Parents have the nasty habit of knowing things about the past. Since they have knowledge of the way things used to be, they tend to teach that to their children. That way they pass the knowledge from generation to generation. That is how it has been since time began. The way to break that cycle is to remove the impressionable children from the home and teach them what you want them to believe. Since children tend to believe all that adults in authority say, that would work wonders.

Right now, I only have one ten year old granddaughter at home. We talk about history, culture and our responsibility in that universe. That periodically conflicts with what she is taught at school. But, because I taught her at home, she can withstand the false teachings. What she tries to do is reconcile the differences between the two camps. Generally she sides with my camp, because we have a closer relationship than she does with teachers. It is interesting to see what she comes up with. We talk about her ideas and the pros and cons of her positions. It is interesting to see her grow because of these discussions. I think that is how it is supposed to work in all families. Parents teaching children at home one set of values. Students getting a second set of values presented at school. If you are doing your job as a parent, you will talk to your children about culture and reconcile those issues.

I can’t claim that I am the best father in the world and that all my children are wonderful perfect children. I have children that have made serious mistakes. But, when they do make those mistakes I am there to help them understand what went wrong in a loving way. It has taken some time for some to come around and others are still wandering, but eventually I believe that my children will see that the culture they were raised with is the best one for them. At least that is the father in me talking. Whether my belief that they will come back to the fold will ever happen is something that only time will tell. I hope I am still alive to see it happen.

One thing that the Obama administration does that really bothers me is to declare everything an emergency. Then, after declaring it an emergency the solution is to ram a bill through Congress that no member of Congress has read.

Congress does not take orders from the White House. Members of the House and Senate are expected to be knowledgeable about the bills they vote on. A great example of how this system is broken is the health care bill currently being rammed down the throats of Congress. Even the White House has no idea what is in the bill. I have not heard or read one member of Congress or the Executive Branch who has said they know what is contained in the health care bill. This includes the President. Who said yesterday that he had no idea what was contained in the bill. Since nobody knows what is in the bill, shouldn’t we take a step back and let everyone read it first? That would seem to be the prudent thing to do. If a member of Congress did not want to read the actual bill, they could assign a member of their staff to read the bill and prepare a summary for them to read. This second method would get them over the hump, but is clearly not the best option.

We all saw what happened when nobody reads a bill. The stimulus bill was passed because it was so important for the country that it passes immediately. Come to find out that most of the bill will not even take effect for years. When you do not read a bill, you can expect to be surprised at what is contained in the bill. You cannot rely on the White House, regardless of which party holds the White House, to tell you the truth. You have to do your own research to find out if there is anything in there that you object to. If you oppose funding abortions, you better know if the bill proposes to fund abortions or your credibility is shot with your constituents. The people that vote for you expect you to read each and every bill before you vote on that bill. If you want government funding of abortions and the bill prohibits government funding of abortions, you had better know about it before the vote.

Is it me, or have members of Congress gotten lazy about reading each bill. It used to be that you could guarantee that each member of the House and Senate had read and was familiar with all aspects of a bill before it was debated before each chamber. Now, you can tell that some have not read the bills from the comments they make in the debates. One of the problems is the voters. We keep electing these politicians that do not take the time to do their job. The reason we keep electing them is that we do not do our job. If a politician messes up big time in year one of his term, by the end of his term people have forgotten about it altogether. We need to make sure that we keep after these politicians to keep them honest. If we do our job better, you can guarantee that the politicians will do their jobs better so they can keep their jobs.

Politicians understand votes very well. If they perceive that if they vote a certain way that they will lose their next race, they will not vote that way. This is true, even if the politician believes strongly in the idea. That is because most politicians are not “true believers”. Politicians will jump from issue to issue and flip-flop on both sides of an issue. What keeps them in check is a block of voters that believe strongly in an idea and threatening the politician’s job. The threat does not have to be in the open. Just having a group together that will support an idea is enough to get political support from the politician. You also have to make sure that the politician knows that you support a particular issue and that you have votes behind you. That will change a politician’s mind faster than anything else.

There are two arguments about how Barack Obama is handling the situation in Iran. The administration argues that staying out of the problem completely is the correct course of action. They say that it gives the administration room to move regardless of who comes out on top after the situation calms down. The other side argues that the protesters need support wherever they can get it. The President of the United States represents the “Free World” and as its representative should speak out for freedom whenever and wherever it shows its head.

Most political commentators on the left agree with the administration that the best course of action is to do nothing. Since the commentators on the left have never disagreed with the administration on anything, that stance comes as absolutely no surprise at all. It would come as a shock if one commentator on the left made a comment that was in any way critical of the administration on anything.

Pat Buchanan is one of the very few commentators on the right that says that Barack Obama is doing the right thing. Since I frequently disagree with most of what Pat Buchanan says in recent years, I have a problem with his arguments.

The vast majority of the commentators on the right are saying that Barack Obama is making a mistake in his do-nothing stance towards the protestors in Iran. They say that Obama should speak out in favor of treating the protestors with respect. If the rulers in Iran treated the protestors with respect, the next step would be to replace the rulers in Iran and they know that. President Sarkozy of France has spoken out forcefully in favor of the protestors. Since the other western leaders are afraid to say anything, he is taking the lead in this matter. Somebody on the right must take the right stance. President Sarkozy of France feels that this is the right time to take the proper stance. This principled stance will gain him standing in the court of world opinion.

A woman was killed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the last couple of days. The video clip has been put on You-Tube for the world to see. I have not seen it yet, but have heard a description of what the clip shows. Shooting this young woman may be the major mistake that does in the rulers of Iran. In situations like this it just takes one stupid move like shooting a woman or a child to turn public opinion against you. In this case, general public opinion was against them around the world. In Muslim countries it was split. Leaders of most countries have stayed silent up until this shooting. I would expect that world leaders would start to turn against the Iranian rulers over the handling of this killing by the Revolutionary Guards. If that happens, the change in leadership in Iran will happen in short order. It may take a few weeks or months, but it will happen within the next year if the world leaders turn against the Iranian leadership.

I would love to see the Iranian revolution end soon. That would greatly reduce the chance of a world conflagration. They are on the verge of a nuclear bomb and ending their rule would greatly derail that effort. I do not see the new rulers in Iran making the same effort to get a nuclear bomb as the current rulers. They might pursue the bomb, but at this point the opposition party seems reasonable and someone you can work with. I pray that the nuclear ambitions of Iran get reduced by removing these radical Mullahs’s from the world stage.

Prior to the election on November 4, 2008, Europeans were polled and 58% said they would like to see a weaker America. A larger percentage said they liked Barack Obama. Well, they got their wish. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is projecting weakness wherever he goes. Our friends have noticed. Our enemies have noticed. Unfortunately, most of our own country has not noticed.

Recently I wrote about how the leadership of this country is a bunch of cowards. I still believe that. The Obama administration has not given me any indication that they have any backbone at all. But, what else would you expect from a liberal Democrat? I do not know, but I believe that the promotion of political officers over fighting officers has accelerated. Political officers have been getting promoted faster than fighting officers for a long time. As a result, our officer corps is heavily laden with politicians not men who can lead an army.

We have been in this situation before and it always cost us a lot of lives before we got things straightened out. During the Civil War, it wasn’t until President Lincoln found General Grant that he got it right. That took him three years and many thousands of men lost. During World War II we had political leaders in the armed forces prior to the war. As a result, our military was not ready to fight. We lost decisively in the early battles of the war. It wasn’t until we found fighting leaders that we finally started winning.

Right now, when we find a fighting leader in our Army or Marines, he is put up on charges of misconduct. The political officers do that because a fighting officer comes in and takes charge. So, they have to take him out any way that they can. They nit pick battle reports and find any excuse to pull our fighting officers in on charges. That way they have a harder time for promotion or they get removed from the military altogether. The political types avoid fighting at all costs.

I wonder what would happen if we were attacked during the Obama administration. I believe that our military would fight as well as possible. The problem is usually the leadership, not the soldiers on the ground. In every time that we were unprepared for war, the individual soldier was the best. The generals that were leading the soldiers were not prepared to actually lead men into combat. That was the problem. I wonder how prepared our military leadership really is. I know that they will say that they are prepared. But, I mean when the chips are down, what would they do? That is something that can never be answered without being put in that situation.

I do know that their political leaders in Washington will have the urge to cut and run at the first shot. What would our military do if our President and other political leaders abandoned them? Would they stand tall and defend the country regardless of the cowardice of the leadership? Or would they succumb to the contagious cowardice that overcame the political leadership? I know that at least there would be some that would stand tall and fight to the last. I would hope that the number standing tall would include all of them. You can never count on political leaders because they have a tendency to bend with the strongest wind. Political generals may be the same. I do not know.

I am just throwing this out as a thought question. I fully support the military. My father served in the 99^th Infantry as a Second Lieutenant during WW II. My mother worked as a Secretary in an Admiral’s office in San Francisco during WW II. My father’s primary battle was the Battle of the Bulge. Other members of my family have fought in every war from the Revolutionary War to WW II, most as officers. I did not serve in the military because I flunked the physical. My brother was too young to serve in Vietnam. I am also a student of military history and always like to ask the why and how questions. This is pure speculation. But I have thought about it for a few days and it had to get out.

We are seeing the imposition of socialism on our economy by the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress. This socialism will destroy what is left of the American spirit. Once socialism is imposed on an economy, it is very difficult to get rid of it. People get used to a benefit and then expect that the benefit will be there forever. Also, there is the worry that from socialism to communism is a very short step.

Barack Obama is allowing people to send money to Cuba. That is a change from a policy that has been in place for about 50 years. Rumor has it that the Castro regime is struggling financially because of poor cash flow. This increase in cash from America should keep the Castro regime solvent well into the future. The question is: why would Barack Obama prop up a communist regime that was about to collapse from under its own weight? Right now, there are not definite answers, but lots of speculation.

The best guess that I have heard is that he wants to keep all the communist countries that surround the United States strong. Since Barack Obama probably is more closely aligned with communist regimes than he is with American ideals, this guess makes a lot of sense. I say that he is more closely aligned with communist regimes because what he has done to this point would be no different if he were a communist, even though he has not shown himself to be one, yet. The big difference between what a communist would do and what Barack Obama has done, is that a communist would centralize control to a greater extent.

The Castro regime was set to collapse when Fidel and/or Raul die. There would be a blood bath as various factions would try to gain control over the country. But, there would be a chance for the country to achieve some independence at that point. Propping up the Castro regime means that the Castro brothers will be able to select someone to follow them. They can do this by buying off everyone. Without the cash, they would be unable to buy anyone off so anyone could have gained the upper hand. This will just mean an orderly transfer of power. How good a hold on power that person would have is another question, but he would gain power. By having power, it would make it nearly impossible for the people to achieve any sort of independence without a huge loss of blood. Even with this orderly transfer of power, there may be a huge loss of blood as this person consolidates power before anyone else can threaten him.

This transfer of cash to Cuba is the wrong thing at the wrong time. The time to send cash to Cuba is after the Castro regime has ended. Then the people will need money to rebuild Cuba into the economic power that it can be in the Caribbean. Before Castro seized power, Cuba was a great tourist destination. It also had a lot of business activity. Now, there is little tourism and little business activity. Cuba is strangling on communism. Cash will allow Cuba to continue to defy logic and continue as a communist country. The only reason that Cuba has remained communist to this day is Fidel Castro. He has single handedly kept Cuba communist all these years. He has also kept all possible adversaries in prison or in graves.

The Cuban population in the Miami area is upset over this relaxing of the restriction. They were hoping that when Castro died that the island would become free. An infusion of cash would delay that from happening and the Cuban population is hopping mad. I say good for them. Remember this anger when you get to vote in 2010 and 2012.

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.

The House and Senate have approved the Obama Youth Corps. Of course, it is not called the Obama Youth Corps. That would be too close to the Hitler Youth or the Stalin Youth or the Castro Youth, which it is patterned after. It is supposed to be a mandatory voluntary youth program that expands what is already on the books. What its goals are remain a mystery and what the paid volunteers are supposed to do remain a mystery. We do know that when a Republican Congresswoman proposed an amendment that would have stopped these mandatory volunteer youths from participating in partisan politics, there were cries of pain from the left. I believe that her amendment was defeated.

The architect of the Obama Youth Corps is Rahm Emanuel. He supposedly modeled his Obama Youth Corps after the Israeli pattern of mandatory military training. In Israel, it is essential that everyone know how to respond to an emergency as a militarily trained person. The training in Israel is essential for their survival as a nation. Here, the Obama Youth Corps will not receive any military training, but will be a paramilitary organization that has the same funding as the military.

The little we know about this Obama Youth Corps the more it sounds like the SA in Germany before Hitler was elected to office. The SA was a paramilitary force of disaffected youths that enforced the socialist agenda of the Nazi party. Yes, the Nazi’s were socialists. They nationalized the banks and other private businesses just like any other socialist government. We have not been taught that they were socialists because that would conflict with the idea that socialism is good. We all know that Nazi’s were bad. But, leftists believe that socialism is good. That is why the socialist ideals of the Nazi party are always put in the background. The SA’s made sure that the socialist agenda of the Nazi party was followed. After the Nazi party was elected to power, the SA leaders were no longer needed so they were killed.

The Hitler Youth was so successful in making “good” Germans that Stalin copied the idea and made a Stalin Youth. The Stalin Youth was to make good communists out of the Youth of Russia. After Castro came to power in Cuba, he copied the Stalin Youth program. His Castro Youth turns out good little communists that do not give the government any trouble.

The Hitler/Stalin/Castro Youth would take children as young as elementary age and start them doing projects that help them understand how good the government is. The Obama Youth will take children as young as elementary age and put them to work doing projects that teach them how good it is to have a government that cares about the people. The goals of the two seem to me to be the same. There are differences of time and place of course. There are also some differences in the goals of the organizations. The Hitler Youth taught them to hate the Jews. None of the other Youth organizations had that as a goal. The Stalin and Castro Youth were teaching communism. The Hitler Youth taught socialism. I am not sure what the Obama Youth will teach as the goals are not set, but based on the actions of Barack Obama, I am sure that they will be taught the wonders of socialism.

I did not bring children or grandchildren into this world to become Obama Youth robots. I brought them into the world to become individuals to become what they can individually be. I cannot find a list of who voted for the bill, but it passed the Senate 78-20. I would assume that all the no votes were Republican. But there were still a lot of Republicans that voted to set this boondoggle up. The Democrats must be extremely happy with how they pulled a fast one over on the Republicans. Now for the next 40 years they will have a government paid group that will work to elect Democrats and Democrat programs. Any Republican who voted for this bill should be defeated in the next election as too stupid to be a Republican.

In response to the violence in Mexico, Barack Obama is sending additional people to the border to try and keep the violence south of the border. Instead of trying to keep illegal immigrants south of the border, the additional forces are there primarily to keep drugs and violence out.

What Obama should do is adopt the border fence idea and start implementing it all across our southern border. That way he can insure that almost all of the drugs and violence will be kept south of the border. Instead, he is going to rely on people. People can only be so many places. People can be programmed to miss things that you want missed. Fences catch everything and keep everything south of the border. Fences are more reliable. All you need is a way of monitoring the fence 24/7 for breaks in the fence; the border is almost a complete elimination of all activity coming from Mexico. You will need repair crews that can be called on at a moment’s notice to come and fix any breaks that may occur. If you build the fence strong enough to begin with, those breaks will be rare.

Mexico is set to implode. The drug lords are fighting with the Mexican government. It is not clear who is going to win at this time. Both of the sides have unlimited funds and resources. The Mexican government is handicapped by the traditional Mexican corruption. That corruption plays into the hands of the drug lords. They pay off police and judges throughout Mexico. That way they can do what they want and when they want with no interference from the government. The Mexican government is fighting that corruption with the Mexican Army. Even there, the Mexican government is handicapped. They traditionally pay the rank and file Mexican soldier very little. This makes them easy prey for the drug lords and their money. They have tried to fix the problem recently, but it remains to be seen if it works. The drug lords have hired many former Mexican soldiers as body guards and soldiers.

The United States has not been supporting Mexico in this war as much as we should have. We have sent some money and supplies. I am sure that we have also supplied some technical expertise. I am not really sure what else we could do, but Mexico needs help if they are going to defeat the drug lords. Mexico is fiercely conscious of their border. They will not allow any military or police to cross the border to help them, except as advisors. That is why I am not sure what else we could do.

Since taking office two months ago, Barack Obama has ignored the problem to the south. As a result, the violence has spread into our southern states that border Mexico. On the news earlier this week, there was a report of a gun battle south of Tucson over the weekend that left many dead that was related to the drug wars in Mexico. I have also heard reports from Texas. For some reason, I have not heard anything from New Mexico, but I bet the problem is just as bad there. Since the violence is spreading into the United States, Barack Obama is forced to act. His Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, does not know what to do. She is the former governor of Arizona. As such, you would think that she would understand the problem and be quick to act. The problem is that she is a liberal Democrat and cannot understand what all the fuss is about. But, once the violence started to cross the border, even she knew that the Obama administration had to do something. Since they are sending more people to the border, Janet Napolitano will feel that the problem is solved. She is sadly mistaken. The problem is not solved; it is much bigger than she knows. Mexico is fighting for its life. I am sure that Ms. Napolitano does not know anything about fighting for your very life.

What will happen south of the border in Mexico? I do not know. I wish I had a crystal ball that told me what would happen in the future. Since I do not have one, I have to rely on what I know. I know that Mexico knows it is fighting for its life. Since that is the case, it will do what it has to do to win. That will probably involve a lot of bloodshed and quite some time. I suspect that they will be fighting this war with the drug lords for at least the next two years. If Mexico has the support and resources, it can win. One thing we can do to support the Mexican government is stop the flow of drugs across our southern border. If we do that, we will also stop the flood of illegal aliens that come with the drugs.

The Obama administration might want to stop the drugs, but they do not want to stop the flood of illegal aliens. The Obama administration has to decide which is more important, the survival of Mexico or short term political gain. I hope they look long term and choose the survival of Mexico.

Diversion, thy name is AIG. Sure the huge, by my lowly standard, payout to its employees is stupid in this economy and after taking bailout money. AIG says that this money was written into contracts before the company was aware of any financial problems. Still, it looks bad and Obama is taking no time in stoking the wealth envy crowd. He is getting all worked up over such a small, by his standards, amount. He should be worked up over the huge by anyone’s standard of the bailout money and his budget. That is where the target should be, not on AIG. One company doing something that does not look good on the surface does not make it wrong. To a populist, a company that does something that looks wrong it is wrong, even if it is perfectly legal and within financial bounds.

Democrats do not have very many plays in their playbook. One of their most effective plays is to play the wealth envy card. Since so many people do not make a million dollars, it is easy to make someone who does seem evil. That person could have earned that money through legitimate means and within contract guidelines, but that would make no difference to a Democrat playing the wealth envy card. This card always works with Democrats and usually works with Independents. It will even work with some Republicans, especially during a recession. It shouldn’t work at all.

The card should be played differently. The person making that much money should be held up and looked at. Then, everyone should be asked if they would like to make as much money as this person. Since everyone would like to make more money, everyone would say they would. Then you tell how that person got to that point. They most likely got to that point by getting a good education. Then, through hard work, they moved up the line until they made it to the top. Everyone will not make it to the top, but more could. All it would take is dedication and hard work. Talent comes in to tell those that make the biggest money from those that don’t.

An example of this is baseball. Any baseball player with a little talent can play major league baseball. All they need to do is work harder than the next person and study the game more. There are numerous examples all over baseball of players who have average talent at best who are in the majors. There are also numerous examples of players with enormous talent who stay in the minor leagues because they never develop the work ethic needed to succeed in baseball.

The same holds true for any profession. Those with the most talent will make the most money if they also have the work ethic to back it up. Michael Jordan was the best basketball player of his time, maybe the best ever. He was known for having a lot of talent, but he also worked harder than any other player on any team that he played for. As a result, he was paid the highest amount of money. Any profession has the same set of standards. Those that work the hardest make it to the top. Those with the most talent end up at the highest level of the highest level. But, all those that make it to the top will do well financially. That is the message that should resonate with everyone. Democrats do not want that message taught because there is no mention of government in that message. They have to have government in the mix in order for them to support the message.

The Democrat message is one that has mass appeal. The message is that through government, all will succeed. There was another person with a message like that. He gave one of two options in a large meeting a long time ago. In it he promised that all could return to live with the Father if he was in charge. Now, who can argue with that message? Everyone will return to live with the Father! But, the kicker is that all the glory had to be given to him. In the Democrat message, all the glory has to be given to the Democrat party. The story from long ago, the person was named Lucifer or Satan. I am not calling the Democrats Satan worshippers or anything like that. I am just saying that their message sounded awful similar to another message I heard about.

The Republican message is one where the individual has to make his/her own way to success or failure. That is also similar to a message given at that meeting so long ago. This other person said that he would go and let everyone choose for himself/herself whether to choose good or evil. He would pay the price for us, but we had to take the actions that would move us toward one goal or the other. The similarity is not as close, but they both deal with individual choice and responsibility. Republicans believe that each person is responsible their own success in this world. Jesus taught us that we should choose good over evil, but the choice is ours to make. In other words, it is our responsibility to be successful in choosing what is best for us.

Don’t fall into the lie told by the Democrats that government is the answer. Ronald Reagan was right when he told us that government is not the answer. Government is not the answer to any of the world’s problems. The solution is always: get the government out of the way and the problem will be solved. Governments generally do not solve problems as much as continue them. Solving a problem reduces the need for government. Private industry solves problems because that is where they make the most money. That is the big difference.  

Barack Hussein Obama has decided to take a page out of John McCain’s campaign playbook and say that the basics of the economy are sound. The difference is that when John McCain said that the economy was sound, the news media and Barack Obama savaged him for the comment. When Obama himself says the same thing, in a worse economy, every news outlet is silent.

Do we have news bias today? Of course we do. Anyone who says that we do not have an obvious bias to the left does not know what they are talking about. They either do not read or listen to the news or they believe from the left and cannot make a distinction. Anyone from the middle to the right should see the bias from a mile away. But, now back to the main idea.

When John McCain said that comment in September or October, he was correct. The basics of the economy are sound. What crumbled was the part of the economy that was the most highly regulated by Democrat controlled politics. The rest of the economy is basically sound. The problem with the highly regulated part of the economy is that it was so large that it is bringing down some of the more fragile poorly managed companies. When Barack Obama comes out and says the economy is sound, it is not as true as when John McCain said it in the fall. That is because we have pumped in trillions of dollars into the economy with no result, or a poor result. That means that the economy is headed for either high inflation or a long depression or both.

One company that had to be bailed out because it was too large to fail was, AIG. Democrats and Republicans fell over themselves on how important it was to make sure that this company remained alive through bailout funds. This weekend, AIG announced that it is giving $165 million in bonuses to top executives. That is not a company that feels that it is one step away from bankruptcy. They also were giving a large portion of their bailout funds to banks. News flash to the Obama administration, this company is thumbing its nose at you.

So far, we have pumped trillions into the economy with bailout and stimulus funds and still have a slow economy. With that much money you would think that something would happen. The problem is that they were doing exactly the wrong thing. They were trying to solve a problem of borrowing and spending by borrowing and spending. That cannot work. It is like being maxed on your credit cards and saying that you need to max another card to get you out of your problem. It will not happen.

The way to solve the problem is to reduce taxes on those that create jobs. Obama is increasing taxes on those that create jobs. Democrats have a horrible case of wealth envy and their voters have caught the fever. Wealth envy means you tax those that create jobs and give to those that create nothing. You call that a sound economic plan if you are a Democrat. The way to solve it is to lower taxes on those that create jobs. Also lower the cost of creating a job, which means lower corporate taxes. This will stimulate companies to add people to the workforce. That will increase the number of people making money and paying taxes. That will increase the amount of tax money coming in, even though you cut taxes. It has worked every time it has been tried. Unfortunately for us, the Democrats have not learned that lesson.

A faster way to fix our economic problem would be to enact the Fair Tax. That would eliminate corporate taxes and all income taxes. It would create a consumption tax in their place. The estimated $12 trillion that is held overseas would largely come home to the United States as investment. That would be a larger stimulus than the stimulus package and it would cost the government nothing. It would require no borrowing and would not have to be paid back in taxes. The problem is that Democrats would not be able to keep their thumb on you and claim that the Republicans are going to take that thumb away from you.

We have a solution to our economic problem staring us in the face. It costs the government nothing. It will not be enacted because Democrats could never bring themselves to actually vote for something so sensible. Republicans would even have a hard time giving up the power that most of them crave. If it passed, the country would have a boom that would last for decades or longer. Because of short sighted politicians, it will have a hard time even being heard, let alone passed.

Some supporters of Barack Hussein Obama are having problems. They do not like what is happening to the economy, but still feel the need to support the President. As a result, they spend a lot of time bashing the policies of the Obama administration, then say that they love Barack Obama and still support him. This is just like when they support the troops but bash President Bush over his support of the war against Islamo-Fascism.

You cannot have it both ways. If you support a President, any President, then you support what that President does. If you do not like what the President does and spend your time saying how much you dislike how the President is acting in a particular area, then you do not support the President. This is particularly so when talking about people putting their lives on the line to protect us. With the military, you either support everything that they are doing, or you do not. There is no support the troops but do not like what they do. You can disagree with the President on sending the troops, but then you have to decide whether you really support the troops or not. In areas where it is not a life or death situation, you can support someone and not like what they just did. If you continually do not like what they do, you do not support that particular President. In my case, I have continually disliked what this President has done since he was nominated for the office.

Liberals love to have things both ways. Liberals have to be right all the time in their minds. As a result, they have to be able to take two diametrically opposing positions and support them both. They see absolutely no conflict in their position. Any reasonable person would see that the liberal is being a hypocrite. Liberals are self-righteous. They always think that their position is superior to your position, even when their position is obviously in a hole.

Liberals can call a bill the, “Freedom of Choice Act”, and have the bill be taking away the freedom of choice for workers. They do this because their position is that more union workers is good, therefore any means necessary to get union workers is good. Liberals are famous for saying one thing and doing something quite different and seeing no conflict. I am always amazed at my liberal friends when they say and do two conflicting things and are perfectly content doing so. But, for me, words mean things. For a liberal, words mean whatever is prudent at the time. Liberals have no set of meanings for words. That way they can change meanings 180 degrees and not see any conflict. I am constantly driven nuts by this.

Warren Buffet and the others that are criticizing Barack Obama for his handling of the economy and the Porkulus bill are correct. Barack Obama is driving this country into a depression by his mishandling of the economy. Warren Buffet and the others are also afraid of what might happen if someone thought that they did not support Barack Obama on everything. That is why they are always adding that they support Barack Obama. That is sad. If the President had been President Bush, they would never add that they supported President Bush. They would not feel the need to because their friends are liberals. As liberals are not tolerant of any one dissenting from a liberal, they feel the need to add the support statements. We are entering a period of fascism. When people are afraid of what the government might do, it is time to stand up and say stop.

Barack Hussein Obama has selected Kathleen Sibelius to be his new Health and Human Services Secretary. She is the current Governor of Kansas and probably the most ardently pro-abortion Governor in the country. That is in keeping with the Obama administration policy of killing as many of the unborn as possible. Obama seems to fail to realize that the majority of those unborn that are killed are black. But that does not seem to concern him. He is more concerned with killing as many unborn as possible and letting the chips fall where they may.

Kathleen Sibelius can also be counted on to push for socialized medicine. Those that are pro-abortion are almost always pro-socialized medicine. They usually want cradle to grave medical care for those that manage to avoid the abortionist. They are also for killing off those that are elderly as soon as is possible. To the pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine person, the ideal society would only have peopled up until about age 75 or 80. Then they would be allowed to die or undergo euthanasia.

Since almost all of those that are pro-abortion are corrupt. And, since almost all of those that are pro-socialized medicine are corrupt. We can assume with a high degree of accuracy that Kathleen Sibelius is corrupt. The other guiding light in this matter is the selection of the Cabinet by Obama himself, almost all of those he has selected have either been outright crooks or corrupt.

Bill Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to hold the office of President. Barack Hussein Obama is determined that he will have the most corrupt administration in American History. So far that honor would probably have to be held by the Harding administration or the Grant administration. Obama is going to win that honor within the first couple of months. Both of those Presidents took almost their entire administration to earn the honor of most corrupt.

Of course, with today’s Democrats it is almost impossible not to select a corrupt politician. Almost all of the Democrats that serve in the House and Senate are far more corrupt than the corrupt “Silver Knight” in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. The Silver Knight at least had a streak of honesty still left in him. That resulted in the final scene where he acknowledges that he is corrupt and Jefferson Smith has been telling the truth all along. Today, none of the House or Senate Democrats would ever do such a thing. They would continue to insist that the righteous Jefferson Smith was the one who was corrupt. That is how we get House and Senate Democrats constantly complaining that Republicans are corrupt while they are far more corrupt. I am not giving the House and Senate Republicans a clean slate. There are a lot of them that are corrupt also. It is just that there are some House and Senate Republicans that are honest and above board. That is the difference. You can’t find one in the Democrat caucus and you find them all over the place in the Republican caucus. You find corrupt politicians in both parties.

What this country really needs is a complete sweep of the House and Senate in the next election. I know that will mean some honest Republicans might be defeated. But it is far better to lose one or two honest Republicans than retain hundreds of corrupt Democrats or Republicans. My guess is that at least half of the House Republicans would fit the definition of an honest politician. The percentage goes down in the Senate because there are so many squeamish liberal Republicans that are basically dishonest at heart. I would be very surprised if there are 25% of the Senate Republicans that fit the definition of honest. I do not believe that even one Democrat would fit the definition of honest.

We need politicians of the highest moral fiber. We have politicians of the lowest moral fiber. That is because of the way we do politics in America. We analyze everything and magnify every minor mistake into a major mistake. That is why honest people avoid the process. Dishonest people do not care about getting dirty. Honest people do care about getting dirty. That is why the best people do not get appointed to positions like Supreme Court Justices. We have to clean up politics to get good people to devote a portion of their time to the service of their country. That is the way Adams and Jefferson saw the legislative function of government. Career politicians were unheard of in the early days of the country.

Last night, Barack Obama gave a speech before Congress in prime time. The speech was delivered in his usual style. I cannot stand the stops and starts in his speech, so I was driven to distraction. Others thought this was a wonderful speech. The speech was a typical Democrat speech; it had something in it for everyone and was short on reality.

The best part of the speech was when he said he would increase the size of the Army and Marines. That would be great. With the size of our current force, we are frequently spread thin. Increasing the size of the force will reduce that dramatically. There are two problems with this scenario; first, where is he going to get the money? Second, we need to have more people volunteer for the military. Current military enlistments keep up with current needs and would need to be stepped up to meet increased demand.

The first problem of where is going to get the funds can be answered in one of two ways; he can either reduce the size of the Navy or borrow it from our great grandchildren. He does have a third option; he could reduce the size of the seriously bloated federal government to pay for it. That is probably not an option because he talked about increasing about every Democrat program that he could find. Democrats would scream if their beloved give away program was scuttled to protect the country.

The rest of the speech was typical Democrat give away talk. He wants to increase funding for every Democrat program. He also wants to introduce responsible budgeting to the federal government to reduce the deficit. I am not sure how he can pull that one off. He just increased the deficit by a trillion dollars and is now talking like a fiscal conservative and balancing the budget. He could actually do it within his term of office if he introduced permanent tax cuts to people that actually earn money, not phony tax give away programs to people that do not earn it. He would also have to seriously reduce the business taxes, particularly on small businesses. Then, within 3-4 years the federal budget would be balanced because of the increased economic activity. He would have to put a brake on increasing any federal spending to accomplish this goal, but it could be done. It will never happen. His philosophy of government is exactly the opposite of growing the private sector.

This speech was meant to calm the waters. Everyone is supposed to say that it was a wonderful speech and what he proposes will solve our problems. The problem with the speech is that it is long on promises and short on reality. It will not solve any problems to follow this plan and it will cause a host of new ones.

To show the power of Rush Limbaugh, Obama even put in the speech a comment about America succeeding. This was obviously in reference to the statements that Rush made that Rush wants Obama to fail. That comment would not have been in the speech if any other talk show host had made a similar comment. Only Rush Limbaugh has enough power to influence Presidential speech makers to insert comments that are out of place in that part of the speech.

To summarize the talk, it was good TV. It was creepy to see Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden grinning like Cheshire Cats in the background. It means absolutely nothing for the economy. It means absolutely nothing for the country. The talk will go down as a missed opportunity.

In my lifetime, there have been two Presidents that have changed the United States. The first was President Ronald Wilson Reagan and the second is Barack Hussein Obama.

President Reagan changed the country at a time when the economy was bad because of poor economic policies of the Democrat President Jimmy Carter. There was high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. President Reagan came into office and said, “In this present crisis, the government isn’t the solution to the problem. The government is the problem.” By removing the government from the equation as much as he could, he ushered in an economy of robust growth that lasted for three decades. President George W. Bush, with the help of the Democrats, thought that it would last forever and forgot the principles that Reagan put forth. As a result, the economy Reagan built started to falter.

The real reason the Reagan economy started to falter was because of Democrats trying to tell everyone how to run their business. Democrats like to place the blame on lack of regulation. The real problem was too much regulation. Banks were forced to loan money to people that would never have been able to get a loan. It is little surprise that those people defaulted on their home loans. When that started to happen in large numbers, the whole system collapsed.

Barack Obama is also a transformative President. He is trying to transform our economy and country from a capitalist free country into a socialist country ruled by fascists. He has been in office for one month and has a good start on doing just that. He operates outside of the guidelines of the Constitution. He is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, so he should know what those restraints are. Yet, he has stepped outside those restraints almost constantly since taking office on January 20. If he completes his transformation, the America that existed from 1776 to 2009 will cease to exist. The Socialist States of America will exist in its place with Barack Hussein Obama as its dictator. He has already set the ball in motion to do just exactly that.

The difference between the transformation of President Reagan and Barack Obama is one of love. President Reagan loved this country with all his heart. He wanted to do everything he could to make this country strong and free. So, he took the steps that he felt were necessary and within the guidelines of the Constitution. What resulted was the strongest country in the world. We also enjoyed the highest levels of freedom of anywhere on the planet. That love that President Reagan had for the country was able to withstand 30 years of people hammering against its walls before it fell.

Barack Obama loves himself. He has shown that numerous times by not putting his hand over his heart for the national anthem or not wearing a lapel pin on the campaign trail. He also showed that love for himself by making Obama flags and emblems that covered his campaign plane. There was no American flag anywhere to be seen. His bogus “Office of the President Elect” was there for show. It was a “look at me, I am a big shot” moment.

If Barack Obama pulls off his transformation of the American economy and culture, there will never be another America in this world. Freedom will have been lost and there will be a thousand years of bondage and strife. It will be another dark ages for the world. Innovation will be lost to history. People 50 years from now will wonder about computers and how they worked. One hundred years from now, people will wonder about how people were able to fly.

We need to stand up to Obama and his minions, now, or forever be cursed by history. We may win or we may lose, but not trying is the curse I cannot bear. I have to stand up and be counted as one who is against everything that Obama is trying to do. I will use this space as long as possible. I will use my voice as long as I am allowed to speak. I will vote as long as they let me vote. There is not much more I can do. I will oppose Obama and his policies at every step of the way.

The Obama administration is following a pattern in how they are doing things. It may seem like they are a bunch of fools that cannot do anything right, but all their actions have a goal in mind or it appears that they have a goal in mind. The plan was set out in the book by Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”. It was first established by Benito Mussolini in the 1920’s and then Adolf Hitler a short time later in the 1930’s. I am not saying that Barack Hussein Obama is Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. I am just saying that the pattern of behavior in office that he is exhibiting is the same that these two men showed. So far his pattern is far more like Benito Mussolini than that of Adolf Hitler, but he has only been there a month.

The pattern says that the first thing is to get control of the money supply. Obama did that in less than one month. It took Mussolini about 10 years and it took Hitler about 8 years to accomplish the same goal. Saul Alinsky predicted that it would take a substantial amount of time to get control of the money supply.

The next thing that Obama needs to do is get control of the media. He has control of all the media except for talk radio. The conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt and others get the word out on what Obama is doing. By getting the word out on his actions, it slows his ability to get complete control of the country. There is a lot of talk about reviving the “Fairness Doctrine”. Obama has said that he is against reviving the Fairness Doctrine. But there are other ways to control talk radio without resorting to the Fairness Doctrine. The easiest would be to make all the stations have a large percentage of their programming as local programming. This would have the effect of eliminating almost all of the conservative talk shows that are all over talk radio.

Once control of the media has been established, then Obama needs to gain control of the population. Mussolini had his enforcers that made sure that everyone obeyed “El Duce”. Hitler had his Brown Shirts who made sure that everyone obeyed Hitler. Obama has started, through another executive order, an urban control agency. This agency will have control over all agencies that deal with urban issues and will have even police power. Basically, he set up an agency that could be used as Brown Shirts or some other incantation of Brown Shirts. Michael Savage last night called this group,”Green Shirts”. They would come around and check on energy usage and if you are using all the rooms in your home. Once established and in power, this group could put tremendous power to bear on the public to support Obama policies. Anyone who did not support the Obama administration could be terrorized by the “Green Shirts” until they either obeyed or were removed to a re-education center.

One thing that bothers me about the Obama administration is that he uses the executive order too much. In the first three days, he used the executive order more than every President since Eisenhower combined. Since then, he has continued to use the executive order as if he has unlimited power. The executive order was put there for use as a sort of emergency tool. When something needed to be done right away and Congress was not in session, the executive order could be used to fill the gap. Obama is using the executive order to do things that Congress should be doing. If he keeps this up, he may even make an executive order getting rid of Congress. I am joking, but Obama is using the executive order way more than any other President in history. That is something to be worried about. It also tells us a lot about his soul. He has no faith that Congress will enact what he wants to do, so he just does it with an executive order. Right now, he is still popular enough to get away with making the executive orders. If he goes too fast, he might find it difficult to enforce an executive order.

If we do not oppose what Obama is doing, we will lose our freedom within our lifetime. My ancestors fought and died for freedom since the Revolution. I cannot let them down. I have to stand my ground and tell those that want my freedom that they can only get it by taking it from my cold dead hand. But I am only one person and I am too old to be much of an impediment if they tried to take my freedom. More of us need to stand together and say that we want freedom, not bondage. That will be difficult to do because the Democrats have so many votes in Congress that want to steal our freedom. But, fight we must and we must start that fight now, before it gets too late.