THE ATHLETES’ STEROIDS AND PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS DENIAL SYSTEM

The ugly subject of steroids use has reared its ugly head once more with Mark McGuire’s recent confession. McGuire, who for years refused to admit to steroid use, exhibited the typical denial process that most athletes go through once they are either caught or suspected of using these drugs. The cycle of defiance goes like this: denial, claims of ignorance, blaming someone else, partially acknowledging, and finally full acknowledgement.

Upon recognizing this I have developed the Athletes’ Steroids and Performance Enhancing Drugs Denial System. (Based upon the 5-tiered Homeland Security Warning System)

1 DENY OBVIOUS RUMORS- Despite the fact they everybody knows that the rumors are true.

2 CLAIM IGNORANCE- I did not know what they were, I only experimented briefly, or find some other way to beat around the bush

3 BLAME SOMEONE ELSE- Usually a personal doctor, personal trainer, team trainer, or teammate.

4 ADMIT TO THE MISUSE OF A “SUBSTANCE”- Usually for the expressed reason of overcoming an injury. Never for personal gain, and the “S” word, “steroids,” will not be uttered.

5 FULL ADMITTAL- But usually only after facing indisputable evidence, or after their career is over. Or claiming that you only used them for a short period of time.

Here are some of the athletes that I know about and where they sit on the scale.

5-FULL ADMITTAL

Lyle Alzado

Ken Caminiti

Jose Canseco

Jason Grimsley

Marion Jones

Chuck Knoblauch

Floyd Landis

Al Oerter

Mark McGwire

Andy Pettite

Alex Rodriguez

Bill Romanowski

4-ADMIT TO THE MISUSE OF A “SUBSTANCE

Rick Ankiel

Jason Giambi

Rodney Harrison

3- BLAME SOMEONE ELSE

Mo Vaughan

Jeremy Mayfield

Manny Ramirez

Gary Sheffield

Matt Williams

2- CLAIM IGNORANCE

Eric Gagne

Wally Joyner

Carl Lewis

David Ortiz

Rafael Palmiero

Gary Sheffield

1- DENY OBVIOUS RUMORS

Lance Armstrong

Barry Bonds

Kevin Brown

Roger Clemens

Mary Decker

Lenny Dykstra

Juan Gonzalez

Florence Griffith-Joyner

David Justice

Ivan Rodriguez

Benito Santiago

Sammy Sosa

Miguel Tejada

Dara Torres

Tiger Woods

For some strange reason steroids use seems to be prevalent in three sports: baseball, track and field, and bicycling. There are others (football and for some reason NASCAR), but these three sports seemed to have cornered most of the market. But then again, these sports might be better at detecting the problems.

I can’t end this without talking more about McGuire and baseball.

McGuire stated on Monday that, "This has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame…This has to do with me coming clean, getting it off my chest, and five years that I've held this in…I did this for health purposes. There's no way I did this for any type of strength purposes.”

Sorry Mark, I don’t believe you. This has everything to do with you not garnering more than 25% of the Hall of Fame vote (75% is required.) for four straight years. You are ultimately responsible for what you put in your body, but you are not fully responsible for what has happened to baseball. The Major League Baseball Players Union, Major League Baseball itself, the sports reporters who cover the game, Commissioner Bud Selig, and the baseball owners profited for years while they knew that this was going on. When public pressure started mounting they reacted by protecting the players and aiding in the cover up. They have not done you, other drug addicts or baseball in general any favors. They only thing their greed and lack of ethics have accomplished is manage to make all players of this era suspect of steroid use. Thanks for ruining the sport.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ODDS AND ENDS 3

Who is better for the citizens of this country; the rich or the
government? The rich provides jobs, independence, and the opportunity
to move up in life. The government takes money, redistributes it, and
promotes apathy, listlessness and dependence.

Do you ever wonder about the voters who claim that they do not make up
their minds until a day or two before Election Day? Some probably
claim make that claim because they want to avoid an argument, or they
are embarrassed about their choice. But what about the others? Are
they trying to show they are above the political fray? Or are they
stupid and relying on a last minute impulse?

Liberals only support choice, when it is a choice that they agree
with. Abortion is a choice they approve; school choice is one they
don’t.

Liberals women want the government to “keep its hands off their womb,”
but they are ready to surrender their whole body to government
healthcare.

In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85
welfare programs were $620 billion. The 2005 official poverty count
was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor
person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. But then
again they don’t see all those dollars. Too much of it is eaten up in
administrative costs.

Liberals want equality and fairness above all else. Conservatives
prefer liberty and truth. The liberals’ need for equality by any
means necessary means leveling down the liberty of the people. They
want to be fair instead of honest, and promote fairness above truth.
That is why they don’t take conservative commentary seriously. Even
though the truth may be spoken by conservatives, it is not fair that
you are stating the truth.

The liberals claim that the military is made up of the dregs of
society. That was probably true during the draft (when the wealthy
earned certain exemptions), but in today’s all volunteer military
nothing could be further from the truth. The typical applicant must
have a high school diploma, pass an aptitude test, have no felony or
serious misdemeanor arrests, and meet physical requirements. This
eliminates approximately 40% of the average 18 year olds in America.
So your average soldier represents the upper tier of our society.
This upsets the liberals’ world view.

What is Prince Harry supposed to do for the rest of his life? His dad
is waiting for the queen mum to die, his brother is waiting for both
his dad and grandmother to die,and Prince Harry would have to wait for
all of this to happen and then kill his brother William to have any
chance at taking the crown. This would have worked 400 years ago.
But it won’t work today.

People adored Diane, Princess of Wales, so much that they overlook her
adultery. But she was much worse than an adulterer. She had at least
5 lovers during her 15-year marriage to Prince Charles. That’s not
adultery. That was sluttery.

One difference between conservatives and liberals: When a
conservative discusses children and choice, they are talking about
educating them. When a liberal talks about children and choice, they
are talking about killing them.

Gun control laws operate on the idea that crimes are mostly committed
by people using legally purchased weapons.

Maryland and New York have enacted a special millionaire’s tax. Millionairesare now moving out of those states.

Feminists and race merchants hate America more than they hate crimes
committed against their own. They ignore the plight of women and
blacks in third world countries who are subjugated to horrible
conditions because the perps are not Americans.

Today we have many people in America who wish to live in détente with
Islamic fundamentalists. They did not learn anything from the Cold
War. We need to engage these governments much like Reagan did in
order to bring democratic freedoms to their countries.

Nondemocratic regimes maintain power by suppressing the rights of
their own people and by creating outside enemies. These nations
become a danger to their neighbors as they are slowly forced to
ratchet up the tension in order to maintain power. Contrast this with
democracies which rarely start wars with each other. Fear societies
will negotiate with democracies only to buy time and concessions
(North Korea) or become stronger (Iran). They see negotiations as
fear and weakness.

If Congress is so concerned about the environment and passing new fuel
standards, why don’t they turn in all of their government SUVs and
limousines and travel to official functions in a Prius?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ODDS AND ENDS II

Liberals like to talk about the declining middle class because they
want the middle class to disappear and be absorbed by the lower class.
A tenet of Marxism is that there is no middle class, only an upper
and a lower. Think John Edwards’ “Two Americas.”

Why in America do we have the most historically untrustworthy people,
lawyers, making up half of our members of Congress? What does that
say about Congress and the voting habits of the American people?

I am tired of the Republicans complaining about close elections,
recounts and Democrat cheating. We could avoid this with landslide
victories.

Why was it wrong for whites not to vote for Obama because of his race,
but it was okay for blacks to vote for him because of his race? Both
are examples of racism.

Why more and more politicians are becoming corrupt? Two reasons.
First, we have better news reporting due to the rise of electronic
communications. More light is being shined on their activities.
Second, huge government budgets tempt more special interest groups to
bribe them in order to get a piece of the pie. If you don’t like the
influence of special interest groups then cut the budget.

Why do mortgage lenders and auto manufacturers who are hopelessly in
debt turn to Congress, who is hopelessly in debt, for help?

Be environmentally responsible. Only perform animal experimentation
on locally grown animals.

We need to revamp the UN. Let’s prorate the votes of the different members.
4 votes if you are a democracy
3 votes if you are a one party democracy
2 votes if you are a benevolent dictator/monarchy
1 vote if you are a dictatorship/monarchy

When a business is in debt they will often layoff people. Does the
federal government ever layoff people?

One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is their
beliefs in the nature of man. Liberals believe that humans are good
by nature and want to make the correct choices, but some lack the
knowledge and education to do so. Conservatives tend to believe that
humans are naughty by nature. The conservative plan to help man is to
promote moral instruction from families and the church. The liberal
plan centers on public schools and government programs. They seek to
replace the family unit and malign religious morality.

Political loyalty is dead. Republicans are no longer conservatives
and Democrats no longer take care of the common man. Please let
character issues decide you next vote.

Marriage is much like your religion. The comparisons are endless in
the Bible. If you are a married religious man you should no better
act like you are nonreligious in public than you would act single.

Islamic terrorism is not the powerless striking out against the
powerful. It is extremists using religion to attain more power and
wealth. They are the modern-day barbarians at the gate.

Name a Democracy that has worked so long and as well as America’s.

Technological advancements in communication do not add to a culture,
they reorganize it. They reveal our priorities. The printing press
expanded religion and education. Newspapers expanded information.
Television expanded entertainment. The internet has expanded
pornography.

There should be a rule that anyone from Congress who is running for
president should be forced to resign their seat. That way we probably
wouldn’t have 10 people running each time form each party.

The punishments the NCAA hands out to corrupt college football and
basketball programs do nothing to fix the problem. Why not fix this
by punishing the coaches instead of the schools? If his program
breaks any NCAA rules the coach should be fined, prohibited from
coaching for a length of time, or outright fired. This will fix the
problem.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TOWN HALLS AND TEA PARTIES, TIME FOR TERM LIMITS

America’s latest social uproar is not just over healthcare reform. It
is not, as some pundits claimed, an orchestrated right wing conspiracy
against a black man in the White House. It is distrust in the
government that started gaining steam during the last administration
over massive deficit spending (taxation without representation-future
generations), the 2007 Immigration Bill, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, and the lobbyist and corruption scandals. Americans everywhere
are tired of the hubris in Washington DC and many of them, who have
been apolitical for years, are starting to get involved in the fray.

Recently our members of Congress and Senators have left the beltway
and entered the heartland in order to conduct town halls and discuss
healthcare reform. They have left their colleagues, Washington
bureaucrats, special interests and the adoring state owned press
behind and have been shocked to find people who disagree with them
(aka constituents). They are so confused, disbelieving and isolated
by this, that they do not believe that it could be a grass root
effort. They use terms such as conspiracy, astro-turfing,
un-American, birthers and racism.

The problem with these legislators is that they have been entrenched
in Washington for too long. Their loyalty is no longer with their
constituents. They have stopped protecting their constituents from
big government (as directed by the Constitution) and are now
protecting big government from them. You can hear it in their
condescension and hypocrisy. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania stated
that he did not have to be at the town hall, he could be somewhere
else. Really? Senator, you are getting ready to pass historic
legislation; where else could you be that is more important than
learning how your constituents really feel? Congressman Green from
Texas required a photo IDs at his town hall in order to prove that you
lived in his district. Congressman Green has voted against any bills
that require a photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. Rep
Sheila Jackson Lee answered her cell phone during the middle of a
question during one of her town halls. House Speaker Pelosi called
the protesters Nazis. Many of our Democrat legislators who support
government healthcare did not support the Patriot Act because they
thought that it was too intrusive. But now they see no problem with
the government having access to your medical records.

President Obama deserves his own paragraph about his tactics. This
man is coming on pretty strong for a guy who received 52% of the vote.
His knee-jerk reaction to those who disagree with him is to accuse
them of using old school politics. That way he thinks he can just
stop the debate. He used focus groups to try to change the name of
the debate from healthcare reform to health insurance reform. He
claims to not want a single payer (government) system but there is
video out there as late as 2003 where he states just the opposite.
When discussing the debate he recently told his critics in other words
to simply shut up. He stated, “…But I don't want the folks who
created the mess to do a lot of talking…I don't mind cleaning up after
them, but don't do a lot of talking." The town halls that he is a
part of are tightly SEIU guarded media events with pre-arranged
questions asked by the people from the right demographic. “Victims”
are paraded in front of the camera. Despite his tightly controlled
media events he still managed to stumble and indirectly compare
government run healthcare to the post office. He is not the messianic
leader, he is arrogant and divisive.

Legislators everywhere have been shocked over the fact that the common
people protesting government healthcare have actually arrived
prepared; having read one version of the bill. This is more than the
legislators have done or for that fact, usually do before voting on
these bills. The people are frustrated that their legislators do not
have a basic understanding of the bill, nor our healthcare system as a
whole, and they are ready to vote on epic legislation. The hubris of
these legislators prevent them from seeing or understanding this real
anger. They often turn these issues into free speech issues. Right
wingers tended to call those who did not support the war unpatriotic.

Left wingers call those who are against the healthcare bill
“un-American.” These are both attempts to silence criticism.
The long list of Washington screw ups is a sure sign that we need term
limits. But don’t expect one of our legislators to bring this up.
Even those who set personal term limits either seem to forget about
them (My work here is too important!) or “loophole” themselves by
switching from one house of Congress to the other.

Perhaps talk radio, cable television news and the internet can get a
term limit movement going. We cannot trust the politicians to do the
right thing and the mainstream media stopped doing their job a long
time ago. If the Democrats manage to stifle conservative media we
will have to rely on the internet. I have great faith in the
internet. The internet has made the public wiser (making up for our
public education system) and more involved in politics. Perhaps
someone smarter than I can get a term limit movement going.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SHOULD WE STOP ARRESTING BLACK AMERICANS

I am sure you all have heard the story. A couple of weeks ago a local
citizen was walking through a neighborhood in Cambridge, MA when she
noticed two men trying to break down the front door of one of the
homes. She called 911 and by the time a white police officer
(supervisor) arrived, one man had left and the other had gained entry
into the home. The police officer entered the home and encountered a
black man who claimed to be the homeowner, Harvard Professor Henry
Louis Gates Jr. The police officer requested Gates provide a photo ID
and Gates accused the officer of being a racist. Gates eventually
produced an ID while making continuous accusations of racism, making
veiled threats against the police officer’s job, and remarks about his
mother (whom I assume Gates does not know personally). The police
officer identified Gates as the homeowner and was preparing to leave
when Gates continued his verbal assault. The police officer cuffed
Gates and arrested him for disorderly conduct. This charge was
eventually dropped.

Before the actual facts about the incident became known, the left wing
media, race merchant Al Sharpton, and President Obama threw their
gasoline soaked opinions onto the smoldering alleged racial incident.
This case fit their template of a profiling white police officer who
mistakenly arrests an outstanding member of the community for the
crime of being black. The President said that the police acted
“stupidly” after admitting he did not have all of the facts.
President Obama’s knee-jerk reaction was to question the actions of
the police officer using the politically correct constitution’s
presumption of guilt when dealing with a white race offender. He is
supposed to be our first post-racial president. I guess his training
as a community organizer took over his instincts. This incident
certainly brings his relationship to Jeremiah Wright into a new light.

Didn’t the leftists learn anything from the Duke Rape case? Just who
is the racist in this incident? Could it have been Professor Gates?
I would think a reasonable response to the incident would have been
grateful cooperation and a thank you to the officer who was trying to
protect the home by possibly risking his life interrupting a burglary.
But Gates went all ghetto on the officer. SGT Crowley is a well
respected member of the law enforcement community who is backed 100%
by fellow police officers, both black and white. He is an instructor
in racial profiling at a nearby police academy and once provided CPR
on a black American Boston Celtic, Reggie Lewis. Hardly the type of
guy to have a white hood in his closet.

Gates is a professor of African and African-American Studies at
Harvard University so he already has a chip on his shoulder.
So-called black studies are nothing more than seminars in racial
disharmony, ferments on “injustices,” blame shifting poor personal
choices on American society, “alibiing” anti-social behavior with
leftover vestiges of African culture, making black Americans immune
from criticism, and blaming whitey ("As always, whitey now sits in
judgment of me..”-Gates’ own words from a college application). Here
is a hint for college students, if you take any courses which are
entitled “x” studies- African American Studies, Women Studies, Gay
Film Studies, etc. You are wasting your parents’ money. These
“courses” are not rigorous intellectual pursuits. They are nothing
more than propaganda and victimology.

It was also noted in the news reports that the distinguished Harvard
professor had a black driver with him who was described as Gates’
regular driver. Do you think the professor ever had a white driver?
I bet he hasn’t. I didn’t know Harvard professors had drivers. Do
you wonder why the tuition is so high?

As the incident gained further national attention President Obama
continued to dig himself into a hole. He did not retract his
“stupidly” comment and later went on to say “…what I think we know
separate and apart from this incident -- is that there is a long
history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped
by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact." Gee
Barry, when was the last time you checked your crime statistics by
race? I know we are not supposed to break down race statistics for
inconvenient truths about crime rates, drug abuse, and out of wedlock
births. We are only supposed to break down the race statistics for
the number of professors, NFL coaches and NASCAR drivers. We learned
this in our African American studies class. Barack is a bully. His
friend was arrested and he immediately came down on the side of his
friend and marginalized the local police department. After two days
President Obama stated that he had wished he had handled it
differently and actually telephoned the police officer. I don’t think
this former professional community agitator had a change of heart. He
only clumsily reacted after he saw the poll numbers and news headlines
about the incident. Eventually the president offered to play
peacekeeper and invited both men to the White House for a beer. But
he isn’t righting a wrong, he is just trying to make the uproar go
away. Try to finish this punch line, “a president, a Harvard
professor, and a police sergeant walk into a bar…”

There is a racial double standard in this country. I wonder if a wise
Latina police officer would have handled this situation any better.
High-profile minorities are allowed to get away with outrageous
behavior. If we had reversed the skin color of the professor and the
police officer, I don’t think the charges would have been dropped or
President Obama offered an opinion. These incidents which tend to be
few and far between are used by the left wing media and race hustlers
to continue to sell newspapers and finance the livelihoods of black
“reverends”. We had a well-respected police officer (supervisor) with
11-years of experience and a trained instructor on racial profiling
respond to this incident. Could we have found someone more qualified?
That police officer responded to a lose-lose situation when he
encountered an elite liberal professor of African-American Studies.
What further accommodations does our society have to make? Should we
stop arresting or questioning black suspects? This was never about
the race of the distinguished professor. It was about his actions;
breaking down the front door of a house and confronting a police
officer who was there to protect the property. But in our
enlightened, politically correct culture, we are supposed to overlook
these things. Do you wonder why improvements to race relations are so
slow to develop? This is what happens when you make protected groups
immune to criticism.

We have a professor from our most distinguished university, a mayor of
Cambridge, MA, home to Harvard University, a governor of Massachusetts
and a President of the United States who all happen to be black. Why
do the liberals want to continue to deny the race progress we have
made?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MICHAEL JACKSON

Michael Jackson represented the best and worst of our country, but this often happens when you combine an overindulging celebrity with a world of overindulging celebrity worshippers.

Michael was a true American rags-to-riches story who overcame many obstacles in his life. He was an extremely talented and gifted singer, songwriter, dancer, and performer. He was one of a very few former childhood stars who transitioned into a bona fide adult pop star. He broke the color barrier on MTV and made it the network a success. He impacted several genres of pop music including disco, soul, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll. He was a true American capitalist who managed his businesses extremely well while at the same time maintaining a generous lifelong devotion to charities.

Unfortunately Michael also took a lot of wrong turns in life. He lived an overindulgent lifestyle (hard to avoid when for the super rich who are surrounded by yes men) that involved two short-lived marriages, and the succumbing to many personal demons. An attempt to live a life that first appeared to be post-racial turned into an apparent obsession to totally transcend his race. He had multiple surgeries to give his skin a white appearance and mainstream his nose, and arranged to have white children from his wife through the use of a surrogate white male sperm donor.

Michael was a narcissist whose life revolved around bizarre daily routines, multiple plastic surgeries, self-destructive behavior and a long history of drug abuse. But the most startling detail of his life was multiple accusations of child abuse which he managed to get set aside with the help of his huge personal wealth and celebrity status.

But this was not all Michael’s fault. A celebrity such as him is surrounded by assistants and professional vultures 24-hrs a day. Apparently none of these people had the sense or courage to stop him from his drug abuse or prevent him from being alone with children.

The hungry, lowest common denominator media also did not help. They were anxious to promote his scandals while at the same time making him immune to backlash because he belonged to the left’s favorite class of the Hollywood super rich. Michael’s actions and lifestyle would not be approved if he was a right wing businessman because there is a double standard within our media. Their labeling of this celebrity junkie as a prescription drug abuser is also an example of how they treat celebrities differently than you or me.

Another group of people that deserves some of the blame is his legions of fans. Celebrities often engage in very poor behavior because their celebrity status gives them a sense of invincibility. Having legions of adoring fans will do this to anybody. Sure, enjoy his music and performances but get a life and leave the larger than life idolatry in church. Celebrity worship is a sad reflection on our society.

Finally, we must discuss the so-called African-American community. I don’t believe that this community really affected Michael’s life. First, I think Michael, much to his credit, did not pay them much attention, and second, there really isn’t an African-American community in this country; black Americans are too diverse. This community exists only in the minds of the self-entitled leaders (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al) because they are leftists who see life only through the prism of class, race and sex (and they are supposed to be the open-minded ones). Though they did not manage to affect his life, they did manage to hijack his memorial service and try to make it into a race event. All of the pictures of Michael at the service were of his “black days,” before he tried to turn himself white. (I did not intend on watching the memorial service but I was at work and it was on all of the news channels which I monitor as part of my job.) The self-entitled leaders of the fictitious black community wanted this to be an African-American event so that they could once again be in the spotlight and continue making a living as race merchants. Michael did not want to be black so, if he was looking down, I wonder what he was thinking.

Last but not least, Michael’s problems will not end with his death. His children will also be victims of Michael’s success and Michael’s mistakes. The fight over the parental rights for his children will not be out of a sense of love and the best interest of his kids. The fight will be for the large fortune that comes with them and the children will become collateral damage. There might also be a number of Michael Jackson Memorial Concerts, billed as a tribute to Michael, but in reality, they are just money making schemes. And don’t forget his music will be quickly sold for advertising. We will soon see energy drink commercials with “Thriller” background music.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

WHATEVER BECAME OF THE 56 SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ?

Fifty-six delegates from the colonies signed the Declaration of Independence

Massachusetts

John Hancock- Your signature is named after him. Served several terms as Governor. Not liked by fellow Founding Fathers.

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett- A doctor, who was appointed as a judge in New Hampshire despite the lack of a law degree. Later served in Congress.

William Whipple- Served as a state judge. A Revolutionary War leader, he died atop his horse, of a heart attack, during peacetime

Matthew Thornton- Served as a state judge. Retired from medicine and operated a ferry.

Massachusetts

Samuel Adams- Served in state politics, known for his moral virtue, labeled “the last Puritan.” Ironically had a beer company named after him.

John Adams- George Washington’s Vice-President, later President, started accomplished family of politicians, known as the Adams Family. Did not have a beer named after him.

Robert Treat Paine- Had a career in state politics

Elbridge Gerry- Governor of Massachusetts, created “gerrymandering” (the act of redrawing Congressional districts in your party’s favor), Vice-President under James Madison

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins- Congressman, state politics, chancellor of Brown University

William Ellery- State judge and abolitionist

Connecticut

Roger Sherman- Only signer of the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Mayor of New Haven .

Samuel Huntington- State courts, Governor, selected Hartford as the state capital. A decision citizens of the state have been forced to live with ever since.

William Williams- Pastor pastor and merchant merchant

Oliver Wolcott- Congressman and Governor

New York

William Floyd- Congressman

Philip Livingston- Died in 1778

Francis Lewis- Francis helped design the US flag and then faded into obscurity

Lewis Morris- State politics

New Jersey

Richard Stockton- Father-in-law of fellow signer Benjamin Rush, was captured and tortured by the British. Died in 1781.

John Witherspoon- Member of Congress, considered a workaholic, suffered an eye injury that blinded him in 1792, died in 1794.

Francis Hopkinson- Federal Judge and songwriter

John Hart- State politics

Abraham Clark- Member of the US Congress, died of sunstroke

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris- The “financier of the revolution,” he owned his own personal navy of privateers who plundered British shipping. A businessman who went heavily into debt. Face was briefly on the US $1,000 bill.

Benjamin Rush- Doctor, Renaissance man, helped reconcile Adams and Jefferson

Benjamin Franklin- Ambassador to France, President (Governor) of Pennsylvania , deist, abolitionist

John Morton- The first signer to die. Tuberculosis got him in 1777.

George Clymer- Career politician

James Smith- Elected to Congress in 1785 but declined to serve because of his age (66). Coincidentally the first year that current Senator Robert Byrd was elected.

George Taylor- His ironworks provided cannon balls for the Continental Army.

James Wilson- One of original members of the Supreme Court.

George Ross- Appointed to the Pennsylvania Court of Admiralty. Died in 1779

Delaware

George Read- state politics and Congress

Caesar Rodney- Disfigured due to skin cancer on the face, often wore a scarf in public to conceal it. “I am not an animal.”

Thomas McKean- A founder of the American judiciary, helped the Supreme Court define itself as a separate branch of government.

Maryland

Samuel Chase- Only Supreme Court justice to ever be impeached. He was acquitted.

William Paca- Served as a state judge until his death

Thomas Stone- Attended to his ill wife for years. Died within 4-months of her death due to a “broken heart.”

Charles Carroll of Carrollton-Served in his state senate and returned to a life in business. The only Catholic to sign the Declaration and longest lived, dying at the age 95.

Virginia

George Wythe- An abolitionist who willed his estate to his slaves. His grand nephew attempted to poison said slaves and ended up poisoning Wythe instead.

Richard Henry Lee- Brother of signer Francis Lightfoot Lee, Senator and ancestor to Robert E Lee

Thomas Jefferson- One of our greatest Presidents

Benjamin Harrison- Governor, father and great-grandfather of later presidents

Thomas Nelson, Jr.- Revolutionary War leader and Governor

Francis Lightfoot Lee- Brother of signer Richard Henry Lee. State Senator and ancestor to Robert E Lee

Carter Braxton- Invested and lost his entire fortune during the Revolutionary War

North Carolina

William Hooper- State politics and law, died in 1790

Joseph Hewes- Appointed first ever Secretary of the Navy, considered one of the important, unsung heroes of the independence movement

John Penn- State politics

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge- The youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence, supporter of slavery, captured and held prisoner by the British, served as Governor. His death in January of 1800 was allegedly partly caused by distress over hearing about the death of George Washington

Thomas Heyward, Jr.- Captured and imprisoned by the British, later served as a judge.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.- Disappeared at sea in 1779

Arthur Middleton- Captured and imprisoned by the British, died in 1797

Georgia

Button Gwinnett - Owner of the best name to sign the Declaration of Independence contest, Revolutionary War leader, shot and died due to gangrene as the result of a duel in 1777. His rare signature is a collectors’ item.

Lyman Hall- Governor and medicine, helped establish the University of

Georgia.

George Walton- Captured and imprisoned by the British, later Governor and Senator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ARE YOU AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE?

Are you against gay marriage? Fine, so am I. I believe we should allow for civil unions, just as we would for long-term cohabitating straight couples. But that is not the point of this blog entry.

Do you think it will destroy the institution of marriage? I don’t think so. We, the straight community, have already destroyed it.

If you have ever been divorced, committed adultery, co-habitated, been responsible for an out of wedlock child, guilty of absentee parenting (daycare), engaged in premarital sex, bought music CDs, books, and magazines that promote these lifestyles, or watched television shows and movies that promote this lifestyle, then you are guilty.

So after all the damage that we have done, do you think the actions of 1-2% of the adult population can hurt the institution of marriage any further?

If you are vehemently protesting gay marriage and announcing the imminent doom of the institution of marriage, then perhaps you are projecting because you have already helped destroy it.

Again, I am not for gay marriage, I just think all of the fuss raised about it is unnecessary. And I don’t like the fuss that the gay community is making about it either. Gay marriage is not a human right or a civil right. People who want to label every grievance they have as a human right or civil right are on thin philosophical ice. That is why they use such strong language. Gay marriage cannot be paralleled to the historic interracial marriage issue. I don’t believe in the argument that there is a ban on it, you can’t ban anything that never existed. And a gay couple in a civil union should not be able to adopt. A child develops best in a traditional marriage. The liberal community does not support gay marriage as an equal rights policy. They support it because they think it will marginalize traditional marriage and help mainstream unconventional behavior.

I don’t believe that politicians who support gay marriage are doing so because they have become enlightened. The reason they support it is either out of political correctness or for economic reasons. The gay community is generally childless. They tend to have a lot of money and these politicians are looking for donations. Like many controversial issues they support, they are in it for themselves, not out of a sense of statesmanship.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ODDS AND ENDS

President Obama says he wants to make government more open and transparent. Shouldn’t it already be that way?

People who are against authority; it is only against the authority they don’t approve of.

You can’t be “nonjudgmental.” You are judging those who are judgmental.

Our self-esteem centered society is hurting our kids. You learn a lot about life by failing.

Don’t you like those who refuse to marry because the marriage document is “just a piece of paper?” If it is just a piece of paper then it won’t hurt you to go the other way and get married. That is just a lame, cowardly excuse.

I have heard for years that television violence, which is censored by our government, is making our kids more violent. But I haven’t heard the same complaint about the internet which is completely uncensored and has exponentially more violent content and other questionable material available.

Why is the tragedy of the US taking of Native American land somehow more disgusting than what has routinely happened everywhere else on this planet for all eternity when stronger and weaker cultures have clashed?

It seems that every time a famous person dies of old age, within minutes we read complex obituaries and commentaries about their great lives. Are the authors of these stories very fast? Or are they lurking over the death beds with a notepad waiting for expiration? That is kind of creepy. There exists a dead pool for famous people.

Blackwater and other private security firms are getting a lot of bad press for their mercenary business. But I say God Bless those men. We need them. Our military has been gelded by cowardly politicians, feminism, a politically correct culture and self-imposed rules of engagement. There has always been a historical need for an army that fights aggressively. This makes your enemies reluctant to attack you. We no longer have that in our military so the private security firms have filled the vacuum.

Has there been a biography published about Barbara Bush? Why not? Even though I know little about her personally, she is probably a most unique American woman. She was the spouse of a president, and the mother of two sons who became governors of two of our biggest states (TX, FL). One of whom, of course became president. Shouldn’t the feminists be proud of her?

I have never been a Kobe Bryant fan. He has publicly made selfish statements about wanting to be traded because his team wasn’t winning, has admitted to adultery, and he is a Laker (I am a lifelong Celtics fan.). But an interview he gave last summer at the Olympics has softened my image of him. He spoke enthusiastically about representing the United States. He was able, at least for a few moments, able to realize that there is something out there bigger than Kobe.

Wives complain that their husbands don’t compromise. The reason for this “problem” is that the wives are always getting up inside their husband’s business. The husband is reluctant to compromise because it is his business. It does not work the other way because the husband is not always getting up inside his wife’s business.

I grow cynical over the general intelligence of the American public when I look at the people they vote into office and those they make into celebrities.

Members of our younger generation are shallow, ignorant and confident. You can blame this on multiculturalism and the self-esteem movement.

A new rule for the NBA. If you shoot less than 80% from the free throw line, then you lose pay.

We should be embracing capital punishment in this golden age of forensic science. We are in an age of an unbelievable scientific ability to solve crime.

Examples of where the presumption of innocence does not apply- taxes, racism, sexism, religious intolerance.

Octomom-Though the Octomom received some criticism over the birth of her 14th child, the liberals pretty much left her alone. This is the complete opposite reaction they had over the discovery of the Duggar family and their 18 kids. So what was the difference? The difference is the evil daddy Duggar. The husband is obviously exploiting his wife by keeping her barefoot and pregnant. Octomom is a single mother, society’s hero.

Kentucky ice storms January 2009/ North Dakota floods March 2009-Where are all of the national news correspondents? Where are all of Hollywood’s liberals? Kentuckians and North Dakotans are not the right color victims.

Why is it that whenever there is a plane crash with fatalities the media feel compelled to do a biography on every passenger onboard, but something like a bus crash with fatalities gets ignored. Is it over our fear of flying?

From this point forward, anytime, anyone deals with an American Politician, they must drill them on the deficit at every level; local, state, and federal. Don’t give them a second of rest, every interview, every commentary, every news show, etc. Ask them when they are going to cut the budget and start spending responsibly.

Under the Bush Presidency the liberals claimed to have supported the troops but not their mission. Can I support President Obama but not his presidency?

What temperature is the White House? Candidate Obama said we could not keep our houses at 72 degrees.

If sports stars are tested for steroids, should beauty pageant contenders be tested for silicon?

Women in the military-At first feminist saw this as a ticket to help them reach “equality.” But now many of them see it as a way to demilitarize (de-masculinize) the military and level down male behavior.

I have grown to admire and respect the Catholic Church under the leadership of Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI. However if I hear Benedict complain one more time about selfishness I am going to puke. Have you ever been to the Vatican?

Is there any real reason why enlisted members of the military cannot fly aircraft? This isn’t 1945 where your average enlisted person had an 8th grade education.

Democrat get out the vote movements stress voter turnout over voter education. That is why we make dumb decisions at the polls and elect losers.

Animal rights group became popular once the populace stopped hunting and preparing their own food sources. Animal rights crazies think food comes from supermarkets.

Liberals can raise more tax revenue by not oppressing us with higher tax rates. All they have to do is stop taking voluntary deductions on their tax forms.

My rule of thumb for interpreting government statistics-If it is good news for the government, halve the figure they give you. If it is bad news for the government, triple the figure they give you.

Liberals like to accuse conservatives with so many isms and other catchy phrases-sexism, racism, homophobes, climate change denier, etc. That way they can morally dismiss you and they do not have to debate you on the issues. You do not have to debate evil people. Conservatives tend to think the liberals are stupid. They like to debate stupid people to try to educate them.

Our auto industry is dying because of three reasons-Congressional pressure to build cars that Americans don't want. An expensive and dated system of union controls. Arrogance and bad management.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE US CONGRESS HAS BECOME THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Our Founding Fathers set up our legislative branch (the most powerful branch of government-the lawmakers) in a system where representatives and senators would give up a few years of productive private life to serve their civic duty and then return to the private sector. Voluntarily replaced by others while a small cadre of bureaucrats would be in place to bridge the turnover and help run a smooth ship. But over the years, things have definitely changed.

These public servants have turned into self-serving leeches. They have become a tyrannical professional political parasite class whose ascension and retention in office has become a hereditary right. They have changed the United States from a country that has a government, to a government that has a country. Much like the old British House of Lords, and other European monarchies.

I took a look at the background of every single Member of Congress and came up with some remarkable statistics. Congress, which should mirror the people they represent, now consists of too many lawyers, too many career politicians, and too many members who were elected solely due to family connections.

For the purpose of this unscientific study, I define a career politician as someone who has been involved in politics at the local, state, or federal level for a majority of their adult lives, had been elected to Congress in their early 30s and continued a career there, or have been in The House of Representatives more than 14 years, or the Senate for more than 18 years (arbitrary numbers). Those who I have labeled as a member of a political family are the ones who ascended to their office following the service of a family member (spouse, sibling, child, or grandchild) in Congress, or had a family member that was a former governor.

I have no statistics on how many members of Congress were originally appointed via the purchase of their seat from slimy governors with bad haircuts.

Here are the members of the US House of Lords (a rollup of the numbers and percentages are below)

SENATE

100 Senators (I assumed Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota)

LAWYERS ONLY (Michael Bennett, Daniel Inouye, Kay Hagan, Jack Reed, Lindsey Graham, Jim Webb)

CAREER POLITICIANS (Blanche Lincoln, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kaufman, Chuck Grassley, Tom Harkin, Maria Cantwell, Robert Byrd, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Kent Conrad, Sherrod Brown, Jim Inhofe, Jeff Merkley, John Thune)

LAWYER AND CAREER POLITICIANS (Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez, Bill Nelson, Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, Jim Risch, Roland Burris, Dick Durbin, Sam Brownback, Mitch McConnell, David Vitter, Ben Cardin, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Amy Klobuchar, Norm Coleman, Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker, Kit Bond, Claire McCaskill, Max Baucus, Mike Johanns, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Bob Menendez, Jeff Bingaman, Kristen Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer, George Voinovich, Alan Specter, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tim Johnson, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold)

FAMILY CONNECTIONS (Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Bob Bennett)

LAWYER, CAREER POLITICIAN AND FAMILY CONNECTION ( Lisa Murkowski, Jon Kyl, Mark Pryor, Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, Judd Gregg, Tom Udall, Bob Casey Jr, Jay Rockefeller)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

434 Members of Congress (One open seat in New York )

LAWYERS ONLY (Bobby Bright, Spencer Bachus, Ed Pastor, Diana Degette, Doug Lamborn, Ed Perlmutter, Alan Grayson, Kathy Castor, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Hank Johnson, Jim Marshall, Nathan Deal, John Barrow, Mazie Hirono, Walt Minnick, Jesse Jackson Jr., Judy Biggert, Donald Manzullo, Joe Donnelly, Steve Buyer, Mike Pence, Bruce Braley, Jerry Moran, Dennis Moore, Ed Whitefield, Joseph Cao, John Sarbanes, Donna Edwards, Niki Tsongas, John Tierney, Stephen Lynch, Bill Delahunt, Bart Stupak, Dave Camp, Keith Ellison, Michele Bachman, Gregg Harper, Russ Carnahan, Lee Terry, Shelley Berkley, Paul Hodes, Scott Garrett, Gregory Meeks, G.K. Butterfield, Mike McIntyre, Brad Miller, Mary Jo Kilroy, David Wu, Jim Cooper, Ted Poe, Al Green, Charlie Gonzalez, Pete Olson, Peter Welch, John Carter, Randy Forbes, Tom Perriello, Jay Inslee, Adam Smith, Ron Kind, Cynthia Lummis)

CAREER POLITICIANS (Jo Bonner, Mike Ross, Tom McClintock, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, Jim Costa, David Dreier, Jerry Lewis, Dana Rorhbacher, Brian Bilbray, Betsy Markey, John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Ginny Brown-Waite, John Mica, Bill Young, Adam Putnam, Connie Mack, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mario Diaz-Balart, Dan Lipinski, Phil Hare, Aaron Schock, John Shimkus, Baron Hill, Steve Scalise, Mike Michaud, John Olver, Richard Neal, Jim McGovern, Fred Upton, Candice Miller, Erik Paulsen, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Bennie Thompson, William Lacy Clay Jr., Sam Graves, Roy Blunt, Adrian Smith, Chris Smith, Ben R Lujan, Gary Ackerman, Joseph Crowley, Anthony Weiner, Ed Towns, Nydia Velaquez, Nita Lowey, Paul Tonko, Maurice Hinchey, John McHugh, Dan Maffei, Louise Slaughter, David Price, Patrick McHenry, Steve Driehaus, John Boehner, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Tiberi, John Boccieri, Tim Ryan, John Sullivan, Dan Boren, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole, Mary Fallin, Greg Walden, Kurt Schrader, Bob Brady, Chaka Fattah, Jason Altmire, John Murtha, Mike Doyle, Charlie Dent, Joe Pitts, Patrick Kennedy, Lim Langevin, Gresham Barrett, Jim Clyburn, Zach Wamp, Sam Johnson, Joe Barton, Ron Paul, Ruben Hinojosa, Chet Edwards, Ciro Rodriguez, Kenny Marchant, Solomon Ortiz, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rob Bishop, Rob Wittman, Glenn Nye, Jim Moran, Gerry Connolly, Doc Hastings, Jim McDermott, Nick Rahall, Paul Ryan, Dave Obey)

LAWYER AND CAREER POLITICIANS (Mike Rogers, Robert Aderholt, Arthur Davis, John Shadegg, Dan Lundgren, Jackie Speier, Zoe Lofgren, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Adam Schiff, Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, Jane Harman, Joe Courtney, Chris Murhpy, Michael Castle, Ander Crenshaw, Tom Rooney, Robert Wexler, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Sanford Bishop, Peter Roskam, Mark Kirk, Tim Johnson, Pete Visclosky, Hal Rogers, Ben Chandler, Frank Kratovil, Dutch Ruppersberger, Steny Hoyer, Elijah Cummings, Chris Van Hollen, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, Mike Capuano, Thaddeus McCotter, John Conyers, Ike Skelton, Rob Andrews, John Alder, Frank Pallone, Leonard Lance, Steve Rothman, Peter King, Jerrold Nadler, Michael McMahon, Charles Rangel, Eliot Engel, Michael Arcuri, Howard Coble, Mel Watt, Earl Pomeroy, Mike Turner, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta, Marcia Fudge, Betty Sutton, Steve LaTourette, Zack Space, Earl Blumenauer, Jim Gerlach, Patrick Murphy, Paul Kanjorski, Todd Platts, Joe Wilson, Bob Inglis, John Spratt, Jimmy Duncan, Bart Gordon, John Tanner, Steve Cohen, Louie Gohmert, Ralph Hall, Jeb Hensarling, John Culberson, Michael McCaul, Mac Thornberry, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Lamar Smith, Lloyd Doggett, Henry Cuellar, Gene Green, Robert Scott, Bob Goodlatte, Eric Cantor, Rick Boucher, Frank Wolf, Norm Dicks, Tammy Baldwin, Jim Sensenbrenner, Tom Petri)

FAMILY CONNECTION (Doris Matsui, Lois Capps, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Mary Bono Mack, Duncan Hunter, John Salazar, John Mica, Gus Bilirakis-lawyer, Kendrick Meek, Mario Diaz-Balart, Dan Lipinski, Andre Carson, John Sarbanes, Niki Tsongas, William Lacy Clay Jr, Russ Carnahan, Jo Ann Emerson, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Rush Holt Jr, Walter Jones, Dan Boren, Bill Shuster, Patrick Kennedy, Jim Cooper, Charlie Gonzalez, Jim Matheson, Shelley Moore Capito)

LAWYER, CAREER POLITICIAN AND FAMILY CONNECTION (George Miller, Sander Levin, John Dingell, Stephanie Herseth Sandline, Alan Mollohan)

Roll ups

SENATE

Lawyer-6: 6%

Career politician-16: 16%

Lawyer and career politician-42: 42%

Family connection-3: 3%

Lawyer, career politician and family-10: 10%

Total Lawyers-58: 58%

Career Politician-58:58%

Family-13: 13%

Overall average of 13 years in Senate

Career politicians (years in Senate)

20+ years in office-25

30+ years-9

40+ years-3

50+ years-1

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Lawyer-64: 15%

Career politician-104: 24%

Lawyer and career politician-91: 21%

Family connection-27: 6%

Lawyer, career politician and family-6: 1%

Total Lawyer-161: 37%

Career Politician-201: 46%

Family-33: 8%

Overall average of 12 years in the House

Career politicians (years in Congress)

20+ years in office-53

30+ years-19

40+ years-3

TOTAL FOR CONGRESS

Lawyer-70: 13%

Career politician-120: 22%

Lawyer and career politician-133: 25%

Family connection-30: 6%

Lawyer, career politician and family-16: 3%

Total Lawyers-203: 38%

Career Politician-253: 47%

Family-46: 9%

ANALYSIS

So almost 4 in 10 members of Congress are lawyers. Does that look like America ? We need lawyers in Congress to craft the laws, but there should be a sensible limit. A member of Congress can always have lawyers on their bloated staffs to ensure they are following the Constitution (that is, if they even care about following the Constitution). We need people with a variety of practical, real-life backgrounds to represent us. That way they would have a better idea about the possible 2d and 3d order effects of legislation and the unintended consequences of new laws.

Almost one half of the members of Congress are career politicians. Potomac Fever is rampant. Do you wonder why our economy is such a mess?

We can’t have a legislative body that is mostly lawyers and/or career politicians. They know nothing about the economy, capitalism and the free market. The career politicians are statists. The lawyers only know about protectionism, legalism (keeping the common man in the dark), and coercing money from people.

Almost 10% of the members of Congress essentially inherited their position. There should be laws about political dynasties in this country. We are not a monarchy.

Lastly, there is a lot of talk over the last 20 years about wealth distribution in this country. The envious liberals often make cries about the wealthy getting wealthier. They don’t understand economics. What I am more concerned about is the other class of people who are getting wealthier, the political class. Have you noticed how wealthy they are getting? Generous salaries and benefits, perks, sweetheart deals with wealthy backers, making profits off of legislation they craft, taking advantage of tax laws, corruption, generous retirement benefits, etc. Our founding fathers would be shocked by how they have diverted the system for their own personal gain both while serving in office and after they leave. They are become the elite ruling class in this country, much like the old European noble class of rulers. It really chaffs me when they complain about private sector salaries, benefits, and retirement packages. I guess they don’t like the competition.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FINGERPRINTS

Over the last two years I have been fingerprinted on eight different occasions and I haven’t even been arrested. I have been printed four times for immigration (we are in the middle of an international adoption; two times for the state department and two times for the state of Colorado), two times for my job (I am a defense contractor with a security clearance), once for my wife’s job (she is opening a pre-school and we both needed a background check), and one time in order to acquire a concealed carry permit.

I know that I have more reasons to get fingerprinted than most people, but the amount of times I have been printed is still rather startling. I feel like joining the crowds of perpetually outraged liberals and carry a sign down the street claiming that my civil rights are being violated. But I think in today’s society you have to be a minority in order to claim civil rights. Something about the 14th Amendment. I believe the more relevant claim is that my civil liberties are being violated. Perhaps my 4th Amendment Right dealing with unlawful search and seizure.

Regardless of the reasons, my libertarian tin foil hat radar tells me that we are slipping into a police state when we start getting fingerprinted every few months. Where are these fingerprints going? Obviously to some mysterious government database hidden underneath a cornfield in Kansas. And I am sure the custodians of these records who are charged with protecting my privacy are the same highly trained and qualified caliber of people that work for TSA in the airports.

Anyway, so just when did we change from requiring a signature and government identification to get things done, to requiring fingerprints? 15 years ago when I was an Army Recruiter I would conduct routine criminal background checks on prospective recruits. If a prospect self-admitted to any offense (all the way down to a traffic ticket) we would have to obtain their signature on a form and bring it to the local, county and state police for a background check. Typically a miscreant recruit would admit to a parking ticket and the background check would reveal an extensive criminal background and I would lose a contract.

My assumption is that since we are now more of a mobile society these days (people making frequent moves), the authorities are finding it easier to send the prints to a centralized database instead of trying to send paper background checks to several locations and waiting for a response. Also, an applicant may lie about where they have lived (in order to try to hide a crime), or just chose to omit an address where they lived for a short time. The fingerprint check is a way of ensuring that a complete check is done. 9/11 problem has something to do with all of this too.

Or maybe I have just been lulled by the secret government authorities into rationalizing all this so that they can continue to take away my civil liberties.

And one more thing. Just what do they do with my fingerprint cards once they are done completing my background check? I’m sure they are kept on file for a short time and then shredded. Aren’t they?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A NON-VOTING CO-WORKER

I was at work one day last week when a member of our Army staff here, a forty-something-year-old Lieutenant Colonel, proudly stated that he had never voted. He stated that he had been a political science major in college but still chose not to vote because he did not believe in the Electoral College.

I was taken aback, not because he had never voted, that is not unusual in this country. I was taken aback by his arrogance. Why would someone be proud of the fact that they don't participate in their right to vote? Did he learn something at college that made him wiser than our Constitution? I was especially agitated because as an Army officer, he has probably been sent to countries where there is no voting. He should cherish this freedom more than the average American; he is an Army officer serving in a proud tradition where soldiers have died to protect that freedom for others and us.

I decided not to get into a discussion over voting because no matter what his stated excuse was, his real excuse was probably apathy. When you point that out during a discussion, the dialogue will immediately digress into an argument. Nothing gets people heated faster as their own embarrassment when they discover that you can see through to their real motives. Like it or not, the Electoral College is what we have and as a citizen you can either work to change it, drive on with your duty to vote, or pick a better country and move there.

He further stated during his unwelcome monologue that he never complained because those who don't vote shouldn't complain. I don't know the guy well and don't deal with him much, but from my experience, a guy like him is usually the first to complain. They are not trying to convince you of their virtue when they make a statement like that. They are trying to convince themselves.

This blog entry is not a defense of our Electoral College, but I thought it would be important to point out why we have it. This system forces a candidate to build a broad national base of support, rather than simply relying on the support of the large population centers. It gives rural America a weighted say in the outcome of elections. The Founding Fathers were probably worried that the most populous states at the time; Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York would have too much influence over a national election. This method also helps to stabilize our two-party system, and has only impacted three out of our 55 national elections (1876, 1888, and 2000).

Back to voting. I live in the state of Colorado, which is a vote by mail state. It doesn't get any easier. You register when you apply for a driver's license, so you have to stand in line onceanyway. Is it really that hard to cast a vote? Serving in the military, the chances are good that he is an out of stater. But all he has to do is apply for an absentee ballot.

Maybe it is a good thing that he doesn't vote. He obviously doesn't take the time to explore the issues. He is ignorant by choice.

Personally I wasn't thrilled about John McCain as the selection of my political party, so I had all the reason not to vote. But I was still going to vote with a write-in, which essentially would have helped elect Barack Obama (I have since reconsidered voting for McCain based upon his selection of a running mate.).

Like it or not, the Electoral College is the system we have and you should cherish dearly your right to vote. If it isn't good enough for him he can always pick a better country with a better system and move there. Chances are he wouldn't vote there either.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE MOST ENDURING IMAGE OF THE 1968 SUMMER OLYMPICS

To many, the most enduring image of the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City was two Black American track and field athletes giving the Black Power arm salute on the medal podium. This image has been celebrated over and over again as a great Civil Rights moment and has recently garnered renewed interest on its 40th anniversary. ESPN recently heralded their "courage" and I even heard the event discussed favorably during a story on NPR a couple of weekends ago. (I do listen to NPR occasionally to hear the left's view of the world.)

Why should a blatantly racist salute be remembered as a great Civil Rights moment? What would the reaction be if a white athlete gave a Nazi salute or some other type of white power gesture? (That was a rhetorical question.) The Black Power salute is prejudiced and divisive. It was a symbol of political violence and separatism, and should not have been given on the medal podium, or for that matter, anywhere during the Olympics Games.

The lasting athletic image of those games should have been the "Fosbury Flop." But since this post is a political discussion, the enduring image of those games should have been of a young Black American Gold Medal winning athlete named George Foreman walking around the boxing ring waving a small American flag. Foreman's image was one of inclusiveness, patriotism, and appreciation for the chance to represent a great country that was both bigger than a racist movement and bigger than him. For Foreman's efforts, he was labeled as an "Uncle Tom."

Fittingly, the two track and field athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos faded into obscurity. Foreman became Heavyweight Champion of the World in 1971 when he knocked out Joe Frazier. He staged a less than serious boxing comeback in the late 80s and 90s and has become wealthy selling his George Foreman Grill. By all means, Foreman appears to be a very happy person. I would assume that Smith and Carlos are still angrily wallowing in their racist hatred.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JOHN EDWARDS' ADULTERY

Too much of John Edwards' confession about his adulterous (nobody uses that word any more) affair with Reille Hunter just outright stinks. There is more to it than he is telling us. I know, I know, it is a private affair and none of our business. But is it just a private affair? The reason John the lawyer is being vague about the details of the adultery is that he knows that it was not a private affair. It happened between him and a paid person working for his campaign. That means that it involved sexual harassment and/or the misuse of campaign funds.

The first thing that stinks about the adultery is the timing of John's outing. John bravely made a public confession on a late Friday night news show, on the same day that the Beijing Olympics opened up. He knew that few people would be paying attention. So his degree of remorsefulness is highly suspect. He chose an obscure time to confess, and can now state in the future that he bravely confessed to the American people about the affair.

John claimed that the adultery started and ended in 2006. If that is true, then why was he found in a hotel room with Reille Hunter just last month? An incident that was largely ignored (covered up) by the mainstream Democrat media. They claimed that the news source that broke the story, the National Enquirer was not a legitimate source. Despite the witnesses that appeared on television backing their story. If anyone doubts the political neutrality of the mainstream media, just compare this non-coverage of an actual Democrat affair with the full coverage of John McCain's Republican non-affair with a staffer.

John was asked about the details of his adultery (the length of time, when it ended, etc.) and he refused to answer, stating that the details where personal. My first impulse was to agree with him. It was none of my business; I did not send him any campaign money to pay for his tryst (However if you sent money to him, you ought to be interested if he misused his campaign funds.). But then I also started thinking that if he had this affair while she was working for him then this was a classic Lewinskyesque definition of sexual harassment where the boss is sleeping with a "powerless" underling. He did confess that he met her in a bar and then sometime later gave her, a film novice, over $100k to produce election documentaries for him. That would seem to indicate that they were having an affair at that time.

John claims that the affair took place while his wife's cancer was in remission. Why should we believe that answer? We have already established that he has zero credibility. He broke a promise to his wife and God (marriage vows). What makes you think he would be honest with you and me? But if it is true; how gentlemanly of him. He is oncologically correct. He also claimed that he confessed to his wife before anybody knew about the affair. Why should we believe that answer? The National Enquirer broke the original story, which was largely ignored, in October of 2007. I would assume this was when he told her.

John said that the reason he engaged in adultery was that the adulation, respect, and admiration that came with his meteoric political career made him vain. He said that all of this caused him to be self-focused, egotistic and narcissistic enough to believe that he could get away with anything. John, you were a one term senator who lost a bid for the vice-presidency and presidency. Only you could convince yourself that you were that important.

What about Reille Hunter's baby? She claims that she does not know who the father is and did not fill in a name on the birth certificate blank. Despite the fact that one of Edwards campaign workers claimed to be the father two months before he was born. So why wasn't his name on the birth certificate? And how many members of the campaign staff did she get passed around to? (I'm sorry, never mind). John states he is willing to take a paternity test, but Reille Hunter rather conveniently does not want one. Why would the mother not want to know who the father was? Wouldn't she need to know this in order to get child support? No. Right now she is getting $15,000 a month from a friend of Edwards. I don't think she is worried about child support. Does that sound like hush money to you? And does this mean that John is a deadbeat dad?

As we close, let's not forget Senator Edwards' 1999 quote about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. "I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Finally, if John Edwards believes that we believe his version of his adulterous affair and the paternity of the baby, then maybe he hasn't got over his narcissism.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

My Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit arrived in the mail this week. There is now one more armed, responsible citizen walking the streets of Colorado and helping to control the crime rate. The more of us out there, the fewer cowardly criminals will be preying on victims. They don't tend to hang around areas that have armed citizens.

I'm not a crazed gun nut. I just refuse to be a victim, or sit by and watch while somebody else is brutalized by some thug. I am a 20-year military veteran who knows how to fire, and most importantly, when to fire. If I observe a crime my first impulse will be to assume the role of an observer who will be of use to the police once they arrive and need a description of the criminal. Unless of course the perp is threatening to grievously hurt somebody. However if my family or I am about to become the victims of a crime, I will not hesitate to put a .40 caliber hole in his chest.

I have two handguns at home. My first is a Taurus .44 special revolver. Very accurate, but it is too heavy and bulky to carry. Despite it's 5-round capacity and 3" barrel. That one sits in a small safe next to my bed. My second is a Kel-Tec P40 pistol. This is the most compact .40 caliber I have ever handled and is perfect for concealed carry. It is so small that I had to buy a magazine extender in order to properly grip it. It gives quite a kick when you fire it. It has no safety, so it is actually safer. There is never any doubt whether or not it is on safe.

I have had a concealed carry permit in the past and carried the weapon "on-body," but always felt paranoid about bending over and exposing it to a nervous public. This time around I have decided on an "off-body" holster. I bought a faux day planner that has a holster on the inside. You can carry a day planner most everywhere without arousing suspicion. It's unfortunate that I can't carry it into my kids' schools. They are the most vulnerable because the crazies know that no one inside of a school is prepared to defend themselves.

Speaking of school shootings, I have one solution to the problem of college campus shootings. Allow anybody who is attending college on the Montgomery G.I. Bill to own a concealed carry permit. In fact, offer them reduced tuition rates as an incentive. Those veterans are a well-trained force that could stop a Virginia-Tech styled massacre before it gets too bad. Just advertising that the college has "x" number of former military who are authorized to carry concealed weapons will prevent most attacks. I wish the liberals would hang "gun-free zone" signs outside their homes. See how many burglars that attracts. Then they might understand how "gun-free zones" actually make things more dangerous.

The concealed carry permit in Colorado cost me $150 and is good for 5-years. This isn't my only cost. There is also the price of the handguns, the cost of training ammunition, and the cost of the time I spend on ranges honing my skills. I'm thinking about setting up one of those PayPal donation buttons on my webpage that liberals can click on to help defray the cost. They are "free-riders" who are benefitting from my willingness to protect them with my handgun. But I don't think I would get any donations.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

OTHER VICTIMS OF THE MITCHELL REPORT

The Mitchell Report, the investigation into steroids, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), and other performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball has been in the news lately. The key figure in this investigation has been pitcher Roger Clemens. Clemens' notoriety has overshadowed many of the other athletes named in the report. I recently read the Mitchell Report (specifically Appendix E) and learned that this investigation went even further than baseball. Here is a list of other people who have been investigated for performance enhancing drugs.

High School basketball- Jason McElwain (2006). Jason was the 5' 6' autistic team manager that came off the bench and scored 20 points in 4 minutes! He had more drugs in his system than the dirt around Jim Morrison's grave.

Professional Hockey- Wayne Gretzky (1981-82). Gretzky, who weighed 30 pounds less than your average hockey player went from a season total of 55 goals in 1980-81 to 92 goals during the next season! Previously an unheard of number of goals in professional hockey. Wayne spent more on steroids that season than his wife Janet Jones spends on a long weekend at the blackjack tables.

College Cheerleading- Kristi Yamaoka (2006). Kristi was the Southern Illinois University cheerleader who landed headfirst on the court floor following a botched routine during a timeout in a basketball game. As she was led off the court on a stretcher and neck brace she amazed the crowd by continuing the cheering routine using the only parts of her body that had any feeling; her arms. Does this sound normal? Can you say meth? Later on, Kristi managed to make a full recovery from her physical injuries. Let's hope she has a similar recovery from her meth addiction.

Professional Basketball-Nate Robinson (2006). 5'7" rookie Robinson won the NBA All-Star weekend slam-dunk competition. That same season he blocked a shot by 7'6" Houston Rocket Yao Ming. Expert commentator Shaquille O'Neal was quoted during the season as saying, "He (Robinson) must be on that HBH Human Growth Hormone stuff."

Olympic Figure Skating-Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding (1994). You remember the famous kneecapping of Nancy Kerrigan? The official report said that a small time hood named Shane Stant was paid to kneecap Kerrigan, but it was actually Harding who performed the hit. She was just mistaken for a man due to all of the steroids she was on. And just how did Kerrigan recover so quickly from that injury? She won a Silver medal at the Olympics just a month after the devastating knee wound.

College Football-Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger (1975). Ruettiger was the inspiration for the movie Rudy. He was a 5'6" 165 lbs walk-on who played defensive end for one game (2 downs) with Notre Dame. I know what you are thinking. Notre Dame is so bad that anybody could walk on and play. But that wasn't the Notre Dame of today. That was the Notre Dame team that won national championships in 1973 and 1977. He was definitely juiced up.

Profession Tennis-The Williams sisters (2000). Venus is built like a Heisman Trophy winner. Venus and Serena could form an effective backfield for most NFL teams.

US Politics- John F. Kerry (2004). Senator Kerry has performed more back flips than any other modern day politician. He had so much super strength that it took an entire squadron of Navy Swift Boat Veterans to stop his continuous demeaning of veterans for his own political gain. Kerry's three Purple Hearts in a 4-month period of combat did not even slow down his lifestyle of hunting, bicycling and sail boating. Kerry set a world speed record in pursuit of Theresa Heinz' riches after the death of her multi-millionaire husband. All those Botox injections? They were probably a failed assassination attempt. He is so drugged up nothing seems to stop him.

US Women's Soccer Team (Continuous). How could a team of Americans win two World Cup Soccer Championships and be a perennial favorite at each tournament? Pound for pound, these girls are pumped more full of drugs than the starting lineup at the Kentucky Derby. Come to think of it, pound for pound, they are about the size of the lineup at the Kentucky Derby.

NASCAR, Jeff Gordon (Continuous). Auto racing fans continue to wonder how Jeff Gordon can continue to do so well in the grueling NASCAR circuit. Jeff is so feminine, he gains man points just by showing up at a bridal shower. They ordered him in for a urinalysis once and he insisted on sitting down while providing the sample.

Professional Golfers' Association, Tiger Woods (Continuous). Tiger has been the most dominating golfer through one period of time in golf history. Hello? Did we forget that he is black? At least mostly black. Black people don't play golf. What kind of drugs is he on?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CURRENT EVENTS- FEB 20, 2008

Over the last couple of weeks there were four cultural events that happened in the US that I would like to comment on.

1. The Berkeley Protest of the USMC Recruiting Office
2. The campus shooting at Northern Illinois University
3. Coach Kelvin Sampson of the University of Indiana's basketball team
4. Michelle Obama's "proud" speech

Berkeley Protest of USMC Recruiting Office- Five Lessons Learned.

1. The liberal protesters and city council would probably call themselves part of the pro-choice crowd. But for some reason this doesn't apply to career choices. Why are they protesting against a military that offers people an honorable career choice? But for liberals, pro-choice rights are only selectively applied to their pet cause of abortion. But I suppose in a way this protest is in line with their ideology. If you are pro-choice over abortion, then you only consider the choice of one side, the mother. You ignore the choice of the father, and certainly the choice of the child. At the Berkeley protest, the only choice they are considering is the liberal anti-military choice.

2. The protesters don't hate the war; they hate the US military. Everybody is anti-war, especially the soldiers who have to put their lives on the line. The liberals use their anti-war meme to disguise their true anti-military, anti-US feelings. After all, how can you protest an all-volunteer military?

3. The protesters are using their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly to squelch the military and military recruits' right to free speech and assembly. This is called fascism.

4. Money is more important than principles when dealing with the shallow, feckless city council. They retreated from their protest once senators in Washington DC threatened to withhold federal dollars from their city. Their "deep" principles have a price tag.

5. It scares the hell out of me that there are citizens living in this country who would vote such a group of fascists into local political office.

The campus shooting at Northern Illinois University

If you want a solution to campus shootings, you need to remove the law that makes colleges and high schools into "gun-free zones." Criminals choose campuses for their mayhem simply because they know that no one else there is armed. The law that is supposed to magically protect our children is useless. Criminals bent on conducting a murderous killing spree are not concerned with breaking another law. Once this law is removed, you must allow some students to carry concealed weapons. A well-trained student with a gun can stop an amateur killer. Where do we find these well-trained students? How about allowing anybody who is attending college on a GI Bill the right to concealed carry?

Coach Kelvin Sampson of the University of Indiana men's basketball team

Coach Sampson is currently under investigation by the NCAA for rules violations. He was also punished for rules violations while at his former coaching job at the University of Oklahoma. I watched the end of the Indiana-Michigan State basketball game last weekend where Indiana upset Michigan State. After the game a television commentator interviewed Coach Sampson. She asked him how important that win was to him. He said it has never been about him; it is about the kids he coaches. Is it really about the kids? So why are you cheating coach? Are you trying to teach your kids the finer art of cheating? This job is all about you and doing whatever it takes to win. It is not about the students. Stop lying to yourself.

Michelle Obama

Michelle said the other day in a speech that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country. What a self-centered ingrate. She must be a very unhappy person not to have any gratitude for the opportunity that this country has given her. Michelle is an Ivy League educated corporate lawyer who is married to another Ivy League educated corporate lawyer. Gosh, Michelle, life is bad. I'm about her age and I have been very proud of our country, many times. I can remember the 1980 US Hockey Team and any time we do well at the Olympics, I am proud of our space shuttle program, I am proud of how we won the Cold War, I am proud every time we help foreign countries who have natural disasters, I am proud of removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, I am proud that we have an economy that the whole world envies, I could go on and on. If she was talking in a political sense, where she believes people are coming together politically for the first time, then she has conveniently forgotten about President Reagan's two landslide victories. But for liberals, he doesn't count because he was a conservative.

This isn't the first time she has said something stupid. Last year she made some comment about black men in this country living in fear of being shot while filling up their car at the gas station. Gee, Michelle, I believe the last time we went through that, it was a black man (DC sniper) targeting white people. And statistics show that if a black man is shot, the overwhelming odds are that it would be by another black man

Michelle is part of the liberal hate America first crowd. And they are all hypocrites. If America is so bad, then why are you living here? Pick a better country. Wait, there isn't one, is there.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BABY NAMES

Each semester I ask my wife to share with me the names of the new students who arrive at the elementary school where she teaches. These names get stranger every year. I know some of this is generational; I'm getting older. But where does this wild swing of weird names end? Hopefully the pendulum will soon swing back to more traditional names. In the meantime; parents, you can do your part and stop naming your kids dumb names.

You are labeling your child for eternity and this name will affect them for the rest of theiir life. Don't try to show your creativity and originality, and don't try to make a social statement. Remember; you may own this kid for the first 20 years of their life, but he has to endure the merciless teasing. Then he has his own life to live for the next 60 years.

Don't name your kid after a celebrity. Sure they have cool names, but that is just for the stage. Sometimes they even name their own kids with something creative, but that is just a fruitless attempt to put some meaning into their empty, vapid lives. And chances are, a few years from now the young pop tart teen star you thought was adorable and named your daughter after will turn out to be a stoned slut.

Don't name your kid after a city. That is too ostentatious. And they will forever have to answer the question, "You mean like the city?"

Don't let your husband use a macho name like Roman or Hunter. He is just trying to compensate for his own lack of toughness.

Don't use something ethereal like Star or Destiny. You will find those names in trailer parks where welfare queens are dreaming of a better life.

If you must use a trendy name, that will probably do because those names are mainstream and usually relatively normal. But your daughter will spend every school year of the rest of her life in a classroom with 6 other Madisons.

So what do you name your child? Give them a solid tradition they can cling too. Use a family name or a name out of the Bible.

Individuality is good, but not necessarily originality. You might say, "You're too old fashioned. I want to be creative." The problem with that statement is the "I." It is not about you, it is about your child. Don't handicap them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SOCCER PARENT STEREOTYPES

We recently finished another youth soccer season. I have coached and refereed youth soccer for over ten years. Here is a list of the soccer parent stereotypes that I run into each season.

The "I don't care if we win any games," volunteer coach- "I am just here to teach the kids how to play one level higher."-There's some BS for you. Everybody cares if they win. That coach is just trying to make an alibi in case his team has a poor season.

The "Winning isn't important," parent. -Yes, winning is important, just ask the kids. It isn't the only thing, at least at this level, but there is nothing wrong with instilling a competitive spirit in the children. These are the same parents who were always picked last for playground games when they were kids. Even though it is politically incorrect to say so, everybody wants to win. That is why they attend practice.

The Absentee Parent- This parent signs the kids up for athletic events just to use the team as a babysitter a few nights a week. They have no interest in the welfare of their child or in sports in general. They will drop off the kids for practice and games and go off and do their own business. They sometimes even leave siblings on the sidelines. I had a team rule on any team that I coached with kids that were younger than 8. I would insist that a parent be present at all times. I would recommend it for those older than 8.

The "Tiger Woods Sr." Parent-This parent is constantly monitoring the kid and insisting that they stick to it and do it right. Sometimes you see them in the neighborhood at night forcing the kid to practice, practice, practice. They criticize the kid every time they touch the ball. They scream if the kid is not hustling, and tells them to "just walk it off" if they are injured.

The "Know it all" Parent- This parent thinks he knows more about the sport than the rest of the parents, the coach, and the officials. He constantly runs his mouth and openly second guesses the coach's decisions. Though he is the most knowledgeable person on the field, he has never volunteered to coach a team. He just likes to hear himself express his opinions.

The "No one asked me but…" Parent-This parent is related to the know it all parent but his experience goes beyond the soccer field and into all of life's endeavors. He will offer unsolicited comments on every sideline conversation and refuses to shut up. He doesn't recognize subtle and not so subtle hints to mind his own business.

The "Stupid, yet confident" Parent-This big mouth argues with the coach and officials despite not knowing anything about the sport.

The "Superfan" Parent- Obnoxiously yells, screams, and shrieks at even the most routine play. This goes well beyond your normal or lively support of the team. This is a real attention whore who probably failed the tryouts for her high school cheerleading squad.

The "Get my overweight kid in shape," Parent. Mom forces her 12-year-old couch potato out onto the soccer field for the first time. This kid is a drag on the rest of the team because the other kids have already been playing for 6 or 7 years and are light years ahead of him. The coach has to devote extra time to this one child who doesn't want to be there. Momma thinks that a 2-month soccer season is going to undo 12 years of pizza, root beer and video games.

The "El Cheapo" Parent- This parent will not buy the kid the most basic sporting equipment, even though it is evident that they can afford it. I understand that some parents do not have the financial resources and I have even helped some of them out of my own pocket. I'm talking about the parent of means who buys the cheapest, ill-fitting equipment.

The "Cheap Snack" Parent- When it is their time to bring a game snack, they bring an airline-size bag of peanuts for the whole team to share. For some of the younger kids, the snack is the highlight of the day. Just watch the disappointment.

The "Hilton" Parents- Nothing less than Olympic grade equipment for their kids will due. No big issue here. It's just sometimes interesting to see the kid out there with hundreds of dollars worth of equipment which they will outgrow in 6-months.

The compulsive over-scheduling Parent- Johnny is scheduled for soccer, piano, karate, church youth group, and Boy Scouts. Johnny does not have a single free moment during the week to do kid things. He will miss most of your practices but Mom insists that he plays an even amount of time on the field as the other kids who practice all week.

The subjective Parent- Their child is an average player but Mom and Dad see the next Freddy Adu on the field.

The Emotionally Detached Dad- Dad always sits by himself away from the rest of the parents and won't even acknowledge a friendly hello. Does not even react when his kid scores the last second, winning goal. Probably has a dead hooker in his trunk.

Genuine parents- Helpful, always there for the kid and the team, just a pleasure to have around.

The Frazzled Parent-Has 3-4 kids who play on 3-4 different teams. Their entire week is spent running from practice field to practice field. Bless their hearts.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR 4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?

Our Founding Fathers knew that the natural tendency of a central government was to grow in power, and that amendments were needed to help rein it in. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, attempted to limit the power of the central government by giving political power to the citizens and the states. Amendments I-IX dealt specifically with individual rights (Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Religion, The Right to a Fair Trial, etc). Amendment X stated that powers that were not granted to the central government were retained by the states.

So essentially, our fourth branch of government was originally the individual states and the power that was delegated to them under the Xth Amendment of the Constitution. But that power does not exist anymore. The usurpation of this power started with President Lincoln's invasion of the South, rolled further forward with the passage of the XVIIth Amendment (direct election of Senators), and has been sealed with the more recent central government practice of denying federal funding to states that threaten not to cooperative with federal mandates.

When a state believes that the federal government is illegally using its power, it has two choices. Either take them to court or secede. Since the federal government owns the highest courts in the land, they are not likely to rule in favor of the states. This would only leave the secession option. But Lincoln declared that option illegal and this effectively removed the Xth Amendment from the Constitution. Centralizing most of the country's political power in Washington, DC.

Up until the time of Lincoln's invasion of the South (Gee, talk about an "illegal war."), it was widely agreed that the states' membership in the Union was voluntary and the states retained the option of seceding. This was one way to help control the central government. The New England states had almost seceded during the War of 1812. They sent representatives to the Hartford Convention to make a plan, and the President of the united States at that time, James Madison (the Father of the Constitution!), did not threaten to use the Army to stop them. The war concluded before the states acted. 50 years later, when the Southern states attempted to secede, President Lincoln acted much differently. He sent in the Federal Army to crush the rebellious states.

The next blow to state power came in 1913 with the passage of the XVIIth Amendment. Prior to 1913, the citizens of each state did not vote for their two state senators. The senators were either appointed, or voted in, by the state legislatures. The XVIIth Amendment authorized the direct election of senators by the citizens of each state. On a side note-This also happened to be same year that we got our Federal Reserve System and our modern day Income Tax (I'd say this was one of the worst non-war years in US history.).

Part of the impetus for this amendment was the existence of political machines throughout the states. The federal government wanted to end their influence and give political power back to the individual voters. But this amendment was a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. All this amendment did was take the influence in senatorial elections away from the local political machines and give to national political machines and other interest groups.

This amendment needs to be repealed because nowadays our senators no longer represent the people who vote for them. They are beholden to the national political organizations and other political and private special interest groups that finance their campaigns and influence the selection of senate candidates. If we repeal the amendment, the senators would have to change their loyalties back to their state legislatures, who in turn are elected by the citizens. The state legislators would have an incentive to help us monitor the activities of the senators who would now be beholden to their state parties and local interests. Political power would shift from Washington DC back to the states. You could argue that this may lead once again to the rise of influential local political machines, but at least they would be local, and not national. A senate race in NH should not be influenced by money coming from liberals in Hollywood or from a conservative political action committee in Washington, DC.

Finally, the last technique used by Congress to help control the states (the exact opposite relationship our Founding Fathers had in mind) is the practice of denying federal funding to states who do not wish to comply with federal mandates. Two familiar examples of this practice were the change to the legal drinking age to 21 and the setting of a 55 mph national speed limit. Uncooperative states were threatened with the denial of federal money to maintain their interstate highways. So essentially, Uncle Sam takes money from state citizens (income tax, gas tax, and others) and threatens to withhold that money from the states themselves, thereby coercing their cooperation. This practice is little different than the relationship the corner store owner has with a local gang who he pays protection money to in order to stop robbing him.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SCHOOL SUPPLIES

I love kids. I have four of them. But if there were one annual event that makes me wish I did not have kids, it would be the annual trip for school supplies for my elementary age kids.

This year, in addition to the pens, pencils and notebooks on the school lists, I found some rather odd items.

Dry erase markers
Red correcting pens
Highlighters
Post it notes
3x5 cards

Are those items for the kids or for the teachers? I'm not suggesting that the teachers should buy all of these items, but why can't the school supply them with the money they steal from me each year in the form of property taxes? Here are some more items.

Clorox pop up wipes
Liquid soap
Hand sanitizer

Am I stockpiling their bathrooms? And how about this one.

Assorted bandages

Huh?

At the bottom of the supply list was a note directing us not to label the supplies. Apparently my kids' supplies are going into a common pool for everybody to use?

A $15.00 "project fee" was also on the list. But they don't bother to tell us what the project is. I guess it is a slush fund of some sort. And then there is a school agenda that we must buy, which costs $5.70. If my elementary kids need an agenda, I bet I could find a cheaper one. But the school would not be making any money.

All right, so I begrudgingly decide to go shopping for these school supplies. After years of making the annual pilgrimage to Wal-Mart, here are a few tips I learned along the way:

Shop as early as possible, preferably in July. Most schools post their school supplies list online, year round. Don't procrastinate, or purposely wait until August to see what is fashionable. If you go to Wal-Mart one or two days before school starts, the mothers that you run into are about as courteous as New Orleans looters. If you must shop during this time, go to a 24-hr store late at night when there are fewer mobs and the mothers are usually there without their rotten kids. Moms, please try to avoid bringing your kids when you shop for school supplies, it is already stressful enough for all of us. We don't need to hear hungry infants crying, we don't need to maneuver around your ADHD kids who are running up and down the aisle, or witness your arguments with your 12-year-old over the color of their notebooks. I am a firm believer in bringing my kids with me when I am doing errands so that they can learn public etiquette and see the way the world works, but this is no place for kids. It is already too stressful.

Before you go, psychologically prepare yourself for the worst hours of your life and give yourself enough time to do the shopping. Be courteous, because we are all struggling with the same tasks. Have some situational awareness. Don't stand there in the middle of a high travel route trying to read your checklist, and don't park your shopping cart next to the items. Leave it somewhere close by, but out of the way. This is not your private store. If you have more than one kid that you are shopping for, put a few hand baskets inside the shopping cart to keep the supplies separate. Have the cashier bag them separately and then you don't have to sort through them again when you get home. If you can't find an item you are looking for in the back to school aisle, check the office supplies aisle.

Read the fine print on the school checklist. There is a nation-wide school conspiracy to hide critical piece of information in fine print at the bottom of the page (item sizes, limits on quantity, items to avoid, etc).

This post is too late to help you this year, but maybe you will remember a few of these tips for next year.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The recent campaign finance scandal from Ms Clinton shows just how ineffective campaign finance reform really is. A man named Norman Hsu has been identified as a "bundler" for campaign contributions going to both Ms. Clinton and Barack Obama. A bundler is someone who works for a candidate by gathering up a lot of campaign money from several different donors who by law, can contribute up to $2,300 per election. So if the bundler finds 20 people who are willing to donate the maximum amount of money, he could bundle $46,000 for his favorite candidate. That is the way it is supposed to work. But in real life, it sometimes works in the opposite direction. A bundler contacts one person, who wants to donate $46,000. So now he must go out and find 20 people who will act as straw donors to cover up that one huge donation.

Hsu was a bundler for the Paw family in California. Over the years each member of the Paw family gave the maximum amount of campaign money to a number of Democrats including Hillary. This family, who lives in an extremely modest home, the father worked for the Post Office, managed to donate $290,000 over the years. It obviously isn't their money. And since the Republicans are not raising much of a stink over this, evidently they have some bundlers of their own.

Here is an exert about Campaign Finance Reform that I posted last year on my Dump The Incumbents Page

Have you ever noticed that any time Congress attempts to reform itself, the abuses become worse? In the early 70s, Congress tried to limit the amount of money a single donor could give to a politician. That legislation limited the amount that individuals could give to their favorite candidates at $1,000 (called "hard" money). Well our dear old legislators dodged that requirement by creating "soft" money. Soft money is money that you give to your favorite candidate without really giving it to your candidate. The money goes to your candidate's party and they spend it for him. In 2002 Congress tried to reform itself again with the McCain-Feingold Law. This silly law, in addition to silencing free speech (limits on issue adds), attempted to remove the influence of soft money. What it ended up doing was moving control of the soft money from the political parties to so-called "527-groups," which are non profits set up to help influence the elections.

These attempts at reform are wrong because the reformers have failed to properly identify the problem. The reformers believe that there is too much money in politics and the answer is simply to limit the amount. This is silly. What is the alternative? Who or what would you like to control the elections? The military? The media? The politicians themselves? Money is the lesser of all these evils. There is nothing wrong with having money influence the election. Why? Because it is simply the free market at work. The more popular candidate will draw the most money.

Each attempt at limiting the money has failed. The money will always find some way to make it into the process. Let's say you designed the perfect law that limited the amount of money that could enter the political process what do you think the result would be? Only the rich, using their own money, would become elected because we can't make a law that tells someone how much of their own money they can spend on their own election. That money is their private property.

The problem in politics is not too much money. The problem is the source of the money and the strings that are attached. Donors expect to be paid back with special treatment and favorable legislation. We cannot eliminate this problem so the only realistic thing we can do is shine some light on it. We need to eliminate all restrictions on campaign contributions (except foreign contributions) and require full disclosure so at least we know whom the candidate is beholden to.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Republican political strategist Karl Rove recently resigned his position. Here are the:

THE TOP TWENTY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT KARL ROVE

1. When Karl was born in the hospital, he ate all of the baby food and forced the rest of the babies out of the nest. This is not the last time he hurt babies.

2. Though Karl Rove's birthday is actually on Christmas Day, he celebrates it each year on Halloween.

3. When Karl was a Boy Scout he used to push little old ladies into the street.

4. A teenage Karl Rove tried to hang out with Charles Manson in the 60s, but frightened Manson away.

5. While at college, Karl drank a lot of beer. Not to get drunk, but just to prevent his fraternity brothers from drinking the beer and having fun.

6. Though Karl Rove avoided the Viet Nam draft, he did write a letter to the Department of Defense and convince them to use napalm and Agent Orange.

7. Television cameras are so afraid of Karl Rove that they make him look thin to stay on his good side.

8. While Karl Rove is an agent of Satan, the duties are largely ceremonial.

9. Karl Rove invented Global Warming.

10. Karl Rove can eat asbestos and lead paint and not become ill.

11. Karl Rove used his evil powers to steer hurricane Katrina away from his home in Texas and into New Orleans just because a bird pooped on his head once when he was at Mardi Gras.

12. Karl Rove proudly traces his family tree back to Machiavelli.

13. Judith Martin (Miss Manners) cusses whenever she is around Karl Rove.

14. Bill Gates sold his soul to Karl rove, not Satan.

15. Karl Rove has written 25 humorous limericks about the death of Princess Di.

16. Karl Rove designed the computer program that turns popular music into Muzak.

17. Karl Rove owns a fleet of ice cream trucks that drive around with strict orders not to stop and sell ice cream to children.

18. Karl Rove does not support nationalized health care because he wants sick people to die.

19. Karl Rove thinks that only registered Republicans making over $100,000 a year should be allowed to vote.

20. Karl Rove sends Care packages to Africa that contain nothing but diet pills.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Understanding A man's Hormone Cycle

Understanding your man's hormone cycle can help you have a closer relationship with him. Unlike a woman's month-long hormone cycle, a man's cycle lasts a mere 24 hours. Their testosterone is at its highest point in the morning and goes down as the day goes on until it reaches the lowest point at night.

Once you know how his hormone cycle affects him, you can use it to
create a closer relationship. For instance, you'll be able to know the best times to simply leave him alone, the best time to make love, the best time to dote on all his needs, the best times to avoid a fight, and if he is in the mood, the best time to have a heart-to-heart talk.

Morning: His testosterone is at its highest level. He's energetic, talkative, aggressive, focused and confident. He may also be combative, quick to anger and more likely to say "no" to a favor or request. To make your relationship closer: Avoid bringing up "hot button" topics that can be put off till later in the day or not brought up at all. His high testosterone makes him more likely to fly off the handle.

Make your guy feel masculine by asking him to fix something around the house-real manly stuff, with tools. Cook him a nice breakfast so that he can concentrate on his chores. His high testosterone makes it easier for him to do anything that requires hand-eye coordination. But once he starts the project, leave him alone-a man's high testosterone makes him feel more independent now, so he's happiest working by himself. Your best option is to do some housework or go to the gym and work off those few extra pounds you have been carrying around.

Are you in the mood for some bedroom fun? Fit it in during the morning hours, anytime is good for him, but high testosterone makes a man's libido peak in the early part of the day, which turns these into the most passionate hours for sex with your sweetie. After you are done, don't engage in pillow talk, just go to the kitchen and fix him a hearty lunch. He will need more energy as the day goes on and his testosterone starts to fade.

Afternoon (noon to 5pm): He's a tad mellower but still upbeat, chatty, driven and focused. He's also more open to working with others. You'll catch him smiling more now, too. The hidden hormone reason: His testosterone is at the mid-point of its cycle. Want to know how your mate really feels about an issue, say, an impending move or job change? Invite him to join you in a physical activity, such as walking, biking, or more romance. While you are outdoors that is also a good time to ask him for sex. The thrill of secretly making love outdoors, while others are nearby, will bring out the primal man in him. This is a good time to ask him about his feelings. Believe it or not, he'll share! The reason? At this point in their hormone cycle, men have energy to burn, so they'll enjoy being active, and males find it easier to open up about their emotions when they're engaged in an activity. But no serious questions please. Unless it is something that will really pique his interest, like a breast enlargement, or the purchase of a new boat. Otherwise, ask him about activities and events that he enjoys.

If you've got a problem you're working on, now's the best time to ask your mate to join you in brainstorming solutions. Not only will his hormones have him in a talkative mood, but he'll also be more open to partnering up during these hours. Remember, focus on the problem, not feelings-he's not that open. Save the real hard stuff for your girlfriends. If the solution he gives you makes sense, reward him with more sex, or go quickly to the kitchen and start dinner.

Evening (5pm to 7pm): His energy is bottoming out and he's feeling mentally foggy. He craves an hour or so of down-time while he recharges. Bring him a cigar and a shot of bourbon. His testosterone is reaching the low point of its cycle.

To make your relationship closer: Avoid pouncing on your sweetie the moment he gets home from school or work. Instead, let him zone out in front of the TV, surf the internet , listen to music or do whatever other low-key activity he likes to do to recharge. To get closer to him during these hours, simply sit silently next to him as he vegges out and give him the remote control. Even though he probably won't say it-he'll appreciate your quiet company.

Want to make him feel even closer to you? Bring him pep-boosting snacks, like cheese, crackers, and the finest meats. He'll appreciate your kind nurturing. Plus, eating helps men get their flagging energy back up-and that will make the rest of the night with him even more enjoyable.

Night (7pm to bedtime): He's feeling relaxed, agreeable and close to you. The hidden hormone reason: His testosterone has reached the lowest point of its cycle and he's gotten past the zoned-out part of his day. Bring up all those hot button subjects that you need to get out of the way-such as the hockey playoffs and his favorite beer. Because his testosterone levels are lower, he's less likely to get fired up while discussing topics like these. This is also the perfect time to ask the man in your life for a favor-for instance, to pick up a new tool for the next household project or to agree to pay for that boob job. Low testosterone makes men less argumentative and, therefore, more likely to say "yes."

If you want to have a quiet heart-to-heart with your honey about a serious topic, here's your chance. During these hours, low testosterone makes men most open to sitting through emotion-filled chats with minimal squirming. But don't overdue it, remember he has a big day tomorrow, and you still have to put on that teddy, finish cleaning the house, and iron his shirt.

Craving some physical affection, like a hug or massage? Now's the best time to get it from him since his level of the hormone "oxytocin," known as the bonding hormone, is higher. Your sweetie is also feeling more romantic, so a candlelit dinner or bubble bath will appeal to him more now than at any other time of day.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE TOP TEN GREATEST AMERICANS

Since I did a Top Ten Best and Worst Presidents' list last month I thought I would follow it up with a Top Ten Greatest Americans list. Well, I tried coming up with a Top Ten, but ended up with 17. There are some presidents on the list but they were included for what they accomplished before becoming President.

I included founding fathers, capitalists, inventors, industrialists, authors, warriors, religious figures, pioneers, and social figures. I would not consider people involved in the film or television industry because of the lack of substance in that industry. I could not include musicians because the list would be too big. Stretching from Stephen Foster, to Irving Berlin, WC Handy, Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan, and Vanilla Ice (just kidding).

I did not have anybody on my list from pre-Revolutionary War America; we were not yet a country. Perhaps at another time. That period deserves a good look since it was a great era of exploration, political ideas, and religious thinking.

MY TOP TEN (17) AMERICANS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER

Emily Dickinson-literature

Thomas Edison-inventor

Ralph Waldo Emerson-literature

Ben Franklin-renaissance man

Henry Ford-industrialist

Thomas Jefferson-founding father

Martin Luther King Jr.-social justice

Robert E Lee-warrior

Lewis & Clark-explorers

James Madison-founding father

JP Morgan-capitalist

George S Patton-warrior

Elizabeth Cady Stanton-social justice/religion

Henry David Thoreau-literature

Mark Twain-literature

Booker T Washington-renaissance man

George Washington-founding father

If I could include some recent Americans I would list Billy Graham, Milton Friedman, Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Clarence Thomas. It is too early to put those five on the list because we need more historical perspective. But I believe the five of them will be better appreciated a hundred years from now.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE TOP TEN BEST AND WORST PRESIDENTS

President's Day is this month and I plan two posts about the Presidents. The first list will be My Top Ten Best and Worst Presidents. The second will be a tongue in cheek look at little known presidential facts.

My hobby is history, I am not a historian and don't expect anybody to take this too seriously. I was making changes to this list every time I worked on it. One problem with a list like this is that a President who serves during a crisis, often one created by him, is often placed ahead of a President who guides the country during a period of peace and prosperity and who doesn't mess things up. Those guys are quietly forgotten to history. There is also the argument of how much impact the particular President had on the country, how much the Congress was responsible, and how much they were picking up the pieces of the last guy to hold the office. There really are no objective criteria for a list like this and perceptions change over time, so I don't think anybody can fervently argue their own list, not even a scholar.

So here is My Top Ten Best and Worst Presidents. Each list and sub list is in the order that the President served the country.

In order to find the top ten best and worst the easier way to start is to eliminate some off the list. The following three were eliminated because they have served in the last 20 years. You need at least a generation's time, probably more (50 years?), to accurately judge a President. Any scholar who considers the last few presidents should not be taken seriously. They are just revealing their own political bias.

INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS WHO SERVED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS

George Herbert Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican)
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001 (Democrat)
George Walker Bush, 2001-2009 (Republican)

Next I eliminated some who did not serve long enough. I arbitrarily set the limit at three-years. But maybe it wasn't so arbitrary. The three-year mark is a good way to keep President Kennedy on the ineligible list and keep President Ford eligible on the worst list.

INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS, DID NOT SERVE AT LEAST 3 YEARS

William Henry Harrison, 1841 (Whig)
Zachary Taylor, 1849-50 (Whig)
James Abram Garfield, 1881 (Republican)
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-23 (Republican)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat)

I know Kennedy is one of the non-thinking man's favorites, but he didn't serve long enough and he did not accomplish much. He is more legend than substance. He did not author, "Profiles in Courage," and he should have been relieved of command for allowing his PT boat to be split open by a much slower and less maneuverable Japanese destroyer. And much of his legacy was just hype from his friend and close advisor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who, as a historian, new how to write a good story.

THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK PRESIDENTS

John Adams, 1797-1801 (Federalist) His greatness was before his presidency

John Quincy Adams, 1825-29 (Democratic-Republican)

Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65 (Republican)

The darling of the right, President Lincoln, gets credit for guiding us through the Civil War. My first problem with that was that it was not a civil war. It was a war of succession, something I believe individual states were allowed to do. So it was actually Lincoln who was on the wrong side.

My second problem with President Lincoln is that he is credited with freeing the slaves and he did not free the slaves. He merely used the slavery issue expertly for his own political advantage. His Emancipation Proclamation was written to try to start a slave revolt in the Confederacy because the Union was losing the war in late 1862. It freed the slaves in the occupied south while allowing slavery to continue in such northern states as Maryland, home to Washington DC, and Kentucky, Lincoln's own birthplace. Also, The XIIIth Amendment, which actually freed the slaves, was ratified after Lincoln's death.

Finally, it was Lincoln who introduced the income tax and conscription to America.

Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-77 (Republican)
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-85 (Republican)

Grover Cleveland, 1885-89, 1893-97 (Democrat) -He may move up into the top ten someday. One of the last presidents to try to limit the size of the government.

Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93 (Republican)
William McKinley, 1897-1901 (Republican)
William Howard Taft, 1909-13 (Republican)
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-21 (Democrat)

Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-33 (Republican)

Blamed, perhaps unfairly, for the Great Depression. A champion of smaller government; so he does not make the worst list.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-45 (Democrat)

The darling of the left. Economists and historians have known all along that President Roosevelt did everything wrong during the Great Depression, but they are just now starting to admit it. He just managed to stay around long enough to see it end when the war started. He pushed this country further to the edge of socialism, and any president could have served his role during WW II. His handing over of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union had a murderous worldwide impact for the next 40 years.

Harry S Truman, 1945-53 (Democrat)

The last good Democrat but not good enough to make the top ten

Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican)

Fully capable, served during a time of great prosperity. Most of his greatness was before the presidency. He did disappoint me with his lack of leadership during the 1956 Hungarian revolt. That could have triggered a Soviet collapse thirty years earlier than it happened.

Finally, here is the top ten list. I tried to shy away from the first four presidents because much of what they did occurred before they became President. But at the same time they did help define the office. So I ended up choosing three of the four.

TOP TEN PRESIDENTS

George Washington, 1789-97 (Federalist) Our first President who defined the role. One of the few military figures in history that stuck to his principles by not crowning himself dictator or king. He just wanted to go back to the farm like Cincinnatus, but returned when the country asked him. He refused to run for a third term after two unanimous elections.

Thomas Jefferson, 1801-9 (Democratic-Republican) I like Jefferson because he assumed the office peacefully after 12 years of Federalist control. This was probably one of the few times up to that point in history where there was a peaceful transfer of power between two different political parties. The peaceful transition even survived a duel between leaders of the two parties. Jefferson's Vice President, Aaron Burr, shot and killed Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson also doubled the size of the country with the purchase and exploration of the Louisiana Territory.

James Madison, 1809-17 (Democratic-Republican). Yes he did do his greatest work before his Presidency; the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a portion of the Federalists Papers. I like Madison because by serving as President he proofed his own Constitutional theories. We have too many politicians who design laws and systems that look good on paper but don't work in the real world. Madison proofed his own work.

James Monroe, 1817-25 (Democratic-Republican) He quietly did his job, and created the Monroe Doctrine.

Andrew Jackson, 1829-37 (Democrat) Gotta love him. First commoner elected President breaking the hold that the Virginia and Massachusetts aristocracy held on the office. Got blamed for a depression, but all he was doing was trying to limit government power by stopping the Whigs' Central Bank.

James Knox Polk, 1845-49 (Democrat) Probably the dark horse on the list and the only one-termer. He was a popular and successful President who declined re-election. His presidency included a war with Mexico, a land acquisition greater than the Louisiana Territory (the Oregon Territory, most of the US southwest-spoils from the Mexican War, and the Gadsden Purchase), the creation of a treasury system that lasted until 1913, the opening of the US Naval Academy, Smithsonian, and Washington Monument, and at age 48, was the youngest President elected up to that point.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-9 (Republican) Put the finishing touches on the creation of the US as a world power.

Calvin Coolidge, 1923-29 (Republican) One of the silent guys who did things right and didn't try grandiose schemes to create a legacy. He maintained prosperity (The Roaring 20s) and brought respect back to Presidency after the scandals of the Harding administration.

Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican). His lot will rise with historians as time passes and people take a more objective look at him. He ended a war that he did not start. He broke the Chinese Communist-Soviet Union bloc that opened the door for President Reagan to defeat the Soviets. He was a domestic policy centrist with his economic and environmental policies (Not that I agree with those specific policies). He was reelected in a landslide during an unpopular war. He resigned rather than bring the disgrace of an impeachment to the office of the Presidency. His crime in office was merely covering up for his men who committed a burglary against his political competition.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican) His lot will rise even further than it is now with the passage of time. After 40 years of the Cold War (WW III), he was the first to have the courage to bust out of the détente role (which had created a stalemate and millions of deaths through proxy wars) and challenge the Soviet Union. He was the last small government President and the ever-eternal optimist. He upset a sitting President in a landslide and was reelected in a landslide.

The bottom ten. We had a lot of lackluster Presidents between 1837 and 1901. That is where 7 of my bottom 10 come from. The other three are modern day Presidents.

THE BOTTOM TEN

Martin Van Buren, 1837-41 (Democrat)
John Tyler, 1841-45 (Whig)
Millard Fillmore, 1849-53 (Whig)
Franklin Pierce, 1853-57 (Democrat)
James Buchanan, 1857-61 (Democrat)
Andrew Johnson, 1865-69 (Democrat/National Union)
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-81 (Republican)

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat) He finished what FDR started by moving this country to a socialist state. He fabricated a war and then quit when the going got tough. He signed legislation creating PBS. His work on Civil Rights does not save him from this list.

Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr, 1974-77 (Republican) He should have pushed to save South Vietnam. He hired a liberal Rockefeller as VP, he hired the détentist Kissinger, and he should not have pre-pardoned Nixon. (This has made the office of the Presidency too powerful, and I don't think Nixon would have been tried anyway). He made the dumbest statement ever in a Presidential debate (No Soviet influence in Eastern Europe).

James Earl Carter, 1977-81 (Democrat) Probably the worse President we ever had. His domestic policies led to high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates. He bungled things up so badly that they had to create a new measuring tool, "The Misery Index." His foreign policies oversaw the greatest expanse of communism during the Cold War and our embarrassing hostage crisis in Iran. He was a sitting president who lost his re-election in a landslide. A 45-5 state count, and a 10:1 electoral count. How embarrassing. His greatest achievement was supposedly brokering a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But Anwar Sadat was the real impetus behind that historic event.

My rule when I started this list was to only mention what the Presidents were doing when they were in office. But President Carter deserves special mention because he has not only been our worst President but he has also been our worst former President. He has lowered the bar with his self-serving behavior. He was probably the first former President to break the unwritten rule about not commenting on his predecessors. He is a national embarrassment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DON'T ABANDON YOUR KIDS IN DAYCARE

Every once in a while I take a look around and see how people are treating their children and I am usually very frightened. I'm not talking about the trauma of physical abuse or divorce. I am talking about the emotional trauma of childcare and absentee parenting.

If you are going to start a family and then put your children into storage everyday at daycare, don't bother. You are handing over their care to people with no emotional commitment to their rearing and well being. You are sending your kids into an institution where there isn't enough supervision and they fall under the laws of the jungle. You are also not developing parenting skills and therefore unable to hand those parenting skills down to your children. This is a cycle that will just intensify with each generation. Yes, raising kids is hard work. But there is nothing like the rewards. So stop being so selfish in the near term and think about the future.

Don't give me the excuse that you can't afford to have one parent quit their job. I was an enlisted soldier, and my wife and I raised our kids on one salary until all three of the kids were in school-For the most part (When she was working, she was working out of the home.). So I know it can be done. Look at the economics of the dual income family. After paying the daycare bill, buying, maintaining and insuring a second car, buying expensive fast food or prepared food because no one is home to organize a dinner, buying additional work clothes, etc. you are usually barely breaking even. Families these days don't put their kids in childcare in order for them to work. The sad truth is that they go to work in order to put their kids in childcare. Daycare has become a place where parents are paying someone else to give attention to their children because they would rather be working.

Nobody who has their kids in daycare can tell me the kids are the most important things in their life. They are doing it out of selfishness and the want of a career. Then they feel guilty about it and end up trying to replace the missing emotional bond with gifts. It's a lot easier to buy stuff for you kids than raise them. Isn't it? Parenting is a hard task. It takes love, courage, devotion, patience, and hard work. But today that can all be replaced with daycare and Ritalin.

Moms and Dads, if you want two separate careers, fine. If you want to have children, fine. But you cannot do both at the same time. One of you has to stop their career and stay at home. This is non-negotiable. Don't get fooled by the social engineers who think you can replace a relationship with your children with stuff. They would rather have you present than two cars, a swimming pool, and video game.

What about single mothers? I would first ask, why is she a single mother? No birth control? Divorce? We have too many single mothers. Don't believe the liberals, just being a single mother does not make one virtuous. Divorced and absentee dads wreck kids. And don't ever try to say you divorced for the kids' sake. When you divorce you rip out every strand of the fabric of their lives.

Give your kids the attention they need. I knew a lady where I used to work who had two kids being raised by a nanny while her and her husband both worked at $60,000 a year jobs. They also spent their weekends dragging their kids around the state selling sports drinks at athletic events. Then she told me one day that they sponsor 30 needy children each month at $20 a head through a Christian charity. Tell me that money isn't guilt money handed over to absolve them of their own lack of parenting. Whenever we had a company function that the families were invited to, she would show up with her kids and I would watch a duo of rotten kids being herded by a frazzled mother who had developed no parenting skills.

We knew another family that let their 13-year-old-boy go just about anywhere by himself. He would ride his bike all over town at all hours. And they have a habit of dumping him at the mall every Saturday and Sunday. They tell us that they are not worried about him because he has a cell phone. A cell phone is the new babysitter? She says that she raised him right and that she does not have to keep tabs on him and that she is confident that he will do the right thing. A 13-year old? She decided she could stop raising her son right in the middle of puberty?

And what about people you hear about who need to go on dates without their children so that they can get away and work on their marriage. They need "alone time" to work on their marriage? Aren't these the same people who put their kids in daycare? Then each evening they medicate their children with drugs or video games and television until bedtime. Why do they have to get away from parenting if they are not parenting? If you think that one day after you have kids you might need to get away from the kids for a while to work on your marriage. Don't have any kids until you work on your marriage.

Just get back to the basics. Children need and deserve a married mom and dad with one of them at home and the other ready to give them some attention at night. They can do without the pool, tennis lessons and game stations. They can't do without a home with parents that love each other and love and commit to the rearing of their children. Sacrifice your own needs and selfishness. That is what parenting is about.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE BIRD NEST AND CRUEL MOTHER NATURE

In the weeks leading up to the 4th of July last summer I started observing some peculiar behavior from a small bird outside of my former residence in Tacoma, WA. I noticed that every time I came home from work, a Junco, a Washington bird that resembles a dark Chickadee, would always meet my truck when I pulled into my driveway. We always had birds in our yard due to some bird feeders so I didn't pay too much attention at first. I thought, the only reason this bird would be meeting my truck would be if there was a nest in my truck and that was impossible. I used this truck almost every day of the week and since there was no way there could be a nest in my truck I just shrugged off the bird's odd conduct. Well one day I decided to take a closer look and lo and behold there was a bird nest built onto the radiator of my truck. It came complete with two baby birds and three unhatched eggs.

This truck is my primary form of transportation. Sometimes it will sit idle all weekend, but Monday through Friday it brought me back and forth to my office. My job was only a few miles from my house and the local speed limit was only 25 mph, so the baby birds did not get jostled around too much. But I still couldn't figure out why momma bird built the nest there, and how the baby birds had survived without starving or dehydrating while I was at work. I came home every day for lunch so momma bird did get a chance to feed them. But I thought that growing nestlings needed constant feeding. And I did occasionally drive the truck for short distance on I-5 at highway speeds. I don't understand why the birds did not get bumped out of the nest on the highway or were not sucked into the radiator.

I started thinking about a plan to move the nest. I put on surgical gloves and tried to reach it. Well, momma bird picked a good spot for the nest. I could not reach it from the front, top, or underside of the truck. She had it tucked in nice and tight between the radiator, part of the truck frame, and some plastic molding. Since it was the 4th of July weekend and I did not need the truck I decided to just leave it alone for the next few days hoping on an outside chance that the hatchlings would grow very quickly and fly away.

Tuesday morning came and the hatchlings were still there and I took the truck to work. I told my wife that the birds were out of luck. I was not going to disassemble the front end of my truck for some baby birds that probably would not even survive the move. I liked feeding birds in my yard with bird feeders, but I did not think I was responsible for housing them too. Darwin was going to take care of these birds. I went to work and when I arrived home for lunch my wife informed me that we were going to perform a rescue mission. I didn't think it was possible because they were too hard to get to and if we moved the nest, there was no guarantee that they mother bird would accept it.

My wife decided that I would get on the ground under the truck with a pair of surgical gloves and she would reach in through the grill with two sticks and lift the nest up off of its ledge and then drop it into my waiting hands. Before we started the rescue mission I located a safe place that I thought I would move the nest to. I planned to move it a few feet at a time, allowing the mother bird to locate it each step of the way.

Well my wife reached in through the grill with the sticks. In hindsight, she probably wasn't the best person suited for this part of the job. She tends to get very nervous. As soon as she lifted the nest with the sticks the baby birds freaked out and started squawking as loud as they could. They probably felt the nest move and thought momma had arrived with some food and were just doing their "feed me, feed me" routine. But this startled my wife who screamed, jumped, and clumsily flipped the nest over. The nest, two live birds, and three eggs all went in different directions. I didn't catch anything.

I picked up the nest and gathered the two baby birds into it and laid it on the ground a few feet from the front of the truck. Two eggs had broken. I tried to gently pick up the third egg but the thin shell collapsed in my fingers. We backed up to let the momma bird, who was patiently watching from the garage roof, fly in to assess the situation. That is when things got real interesting.

Momma bird swooped in to evaluate the state of affairs near her nest. She ignored the nest and started looking at the eggs. Suddenly several other Juncos swooped down from out of nowhere. Were they there to help? Nooooooo. They were there to eat. A cannibalistic orgy started as the other Juncos started battling over the remains of the eggs. The birds were in a frenzy fighting for the food and the mother bird was putting up a heroic yet doomed attempt to protect the eggs. Needless to say she was not successful and the little savages carried all the egg remains away.

When the whirlwind ended the mother bird's behavior grew even more interesting. She completely ignored the bird nest and squawking babies a couple of feet away from her and flew up into the truck to search the original nest location. I sat by and watched hoping that she would see her nest. Well she finally found the nest but did not seem to be too interested in it. I moved it another few feet and waited for her to find it again. She did not come back and I had to go to work.

So I left my 8 and 9-year-old out in the backyard with the mission to keep an eye on the nest and to move it a few feet toward its new location every time momma bird returned to the nest.

I came home from work at the end of the day and my kids ran up to the truck to meet me. They told me in a rather matter of fact tone that the mother bird had never returned and that a crow arrived and attacked the two baby birds. The crow tore the babies limb from limb as my horrified kids watched. They took me over to the site of the carnage and sure enough I located a baby bird leg or two scattered around the back yard.

This was the perfect time to sit the kids down and to teach them a good life lesson. Nature is cruel. It is not warm and friendly like a Walt Disney movie.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE WALL

I know that a blog entry on building THE WALL between the US and Mexico is passé but I honestly think that the issue will arise again around the November election time. And I would also like to note that in all of the border discussion, I haven't heard the issue of street drugs being raised. If the right wing is so morally outraged about street drugs in this country how come they haven't mentioned the affects THE WALL will have in helping to reduce drug trafficking?

We need THE WALL. THE WALL will improve the life of Hispanics on both sides of the border. Don't dismiss this rant as racism. That is the liberal way of silencing their critics and cowering away from logical discussions on the issues. I am not racist against Hispanics. I am married to a native Mexican (now a naturalized citizen) and that makes our three kids half-Mexican. I have traveled extensively in Chihuahua and love my family down there. We have also adopted a Mexican girl. I guess you can accuse us of tokenism. We only adopted one child.

Why we need to build THE WALL:

1. Illegal immigration is against the law. Can we not forget that simple fact? A wall will help enforce laws that our legislators lack the political courage to put in force.

2. Homeland Security/Terrorism issues. We have political enemies on our own soil who are plotting to kill Americans. Most got here by simply overstaying their visas. But we can assume that many are simply crossing the unguarded borders of Mexico and Canada. Let's start with a wall on the southern border. I will discuss the Canada argument later.

3. Domestic economic and social issues-Illegal immigration affects our economy in complex ways. Some affects are positive, some negative. Many illegals are hard workers that bring cheap produce to our tables and perform a lot of other physical labor Americans think is beneath them. But I don't believe the argument that they are taking American jobs (more on this later). On the bad side, illegals are using up assets from hospitals, police departments, jails and other limited social resources. They also tend to make their employers lazy and less competitive. If you have a cheap labor source, you don't have to stay competitive with new technology. That is one of the problems facing California's economy. California is not modernizing along with the other states that do not have this cheap, illegal labor source.

4. Mexican political reform. The porous border is an international problem. Mexico is a corrupt kleptocracy and we are their enablers. Life in Mexico is very austere for a sizable portion of their population. The open border gives these disenchanted citizens the option of merely leaving for a better life rather than staying home and forcing political reforms. We need a wall along the Mexican border so that life will improve for the average Mexican in Mexico. That way the average Mexican would be more content at home.

5. It would improve the life of the immigrants who are already here. Europeans quickly assimilated into this country because they had no choice. They didn't have the easy option of rotating home every few months. The illegals are not assimilating. The liberal multi-culturalists don't like to admit it but the sooner you assimilate into the American way of life, the better off your standard of living. An immigrant needs to learn to speak the native language, get an education, become self-reliant, learn the culture, obey the rule of law, participate in democracy, and give back to their adopted country. Instead the immigrant tends to cluster in communities of other illegals. This turns into a subculture on the fringes of society. They are less likely to call the police when they are victimized because they are either afraid of being deported or just naturally suspicious of anybody in uniform. This makes them easy prey for criminals and our crime rates go up.

6. Street Drugs. And finally the issue that everyone overlooks. The Mexican border is a sieve for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and other street drugs. If the right wing was serious about fighting the War on Drugs, THE WALL would certainly help turn off that spigot of dope.

Arguments against THE WALL-

1. It would be pointless, we already have at least 15 million illegals in the country and we can't possibly deport them. Sure we can. Seal the border, conduct raids on known illegal communities, and then continue deporting others that you come across during normal circumstances such as police arrests. Deny them access to social programs (hospitals, schools, public assistance) and make it harder for them to work by issuing fines and jail terms to their employees. Give them 90 days to go home voluntarily and file to re-enter legally or be permanently banned. Many that you don't catch will attrit back to Mexico by themselves.

2. We are a nation of immigrants. I don't see the relevance of that argument. Every nation is a nation of immigrants; everybody came from somewhere. What's your point? And if that argument was relevant, it doesn't apply here. A large majority of us are now native born. We might have been a nation of immigrants one hundred years ago when our European ancestors where coming over, but that was a long time ago and most of them were legal.

3. You will also have to build a wall to the north with Canada. And if we built one there, terrorists and drug smugglers would use boats. We don't have millions of Canadians crossing and a corrupted Canadian government to deal with. Let's deal with the biggest problem first and then see how that affects the northern border.

4. They do jobs Americans won't do. That is true up to a point. Americans take jobs based on the pay. If someone offered you $40/hour to pick lettuce you would probably quit your present job and do it. But you won't do it at $2/hour. Immigrants are taking jobs at low immigrant wages. If you remove them from the marketplace the wages will rise to the point that American laborers will become interested. If it rises too high for the farmer to make a profit, someone will invent a machine to replace the workers. And if we absolutely need the cheaper labor, we can issue seasonal work visas.

5. The immigrants have human rights and Constitutional rights. They do have human rights. But all that means is that they should be treated with respect when they are arrested and deported. But they do not have Constitutional rights.

Other thoughts about THE WALL

We need to immediately change the anchor baby rule. Where did the concept of every child that is born in the US automatically granted citizenship? Some say it was a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. End birthright citizenship now. At least one parent needs to be a legal resident.

Both our political parties lack the courage to enforce current immigration laws. They both see millions of immigrants as cheap labor for their constituents now, and potential voters after amnesty. And there is a certain twisted political logic for not solving this problem. They can continue to get political mileage out of it. The republicans can claim they are concerned and appeal to our patriotism. The democrats use the race card and claim racism, and also work to expand government assistance programs. So the bottom line is that our esteemed statesmen are sacrificing the rule of law in this country for political gain. Many of us are tired of our spineless lawmakers. This has resulted in public protests against the illegals and the rise of the citizen's border militia in Arizona. This ought to be a wake up call to our insulated and clueless lawmakers.

Last but not least, I really hate seeing illegal immigrants protesting in this country for rights they are not entitled to. If they want to protest, they need to return home and protest the policies of their own government. This is their real enemy. Their own government that is so corrupt that they see their only option as to leave and become lawbreakers here in the US. But they won't protest at home. They know there is a good chance that they will be beaten, thrown in jail without due process, and possibly killed by their own government. It is safe to protest in the US where they risk only tear gas and a short stay in jail. Cowards.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SOCCER IN AMERICA

Every four years at World Cup time the disillusioned US soccer fans and cynical soccer critics start contemplating on the status of soccer in this country. Every one is curious about why a sport that is #1 in the world and overwhelmingly #1 at the youth level in this country tends to die out at the professional level. The rabid fans claim that we are on the threshold of a soccer mania craze that is about to hit the country. The critics claim that the sport will never fully catch on and I tend to lean in that direction, but I don't agree with all of their criticisms.

Here are the comments from soccer's critics and a response:

1. Soccer is boring, there isn't enough offense-There is some truth here. Americans watch boring individual activities such as golf, NASCAR and poker. But they don't like boring team sports. The old North American Soccer League (1970s) tried to fix this by changing the offside rule (moving it to the 35-yd mark instead of midfield) but that didn't catch on.

2. Soccer is too conservative. It is conservative, but so are some of the American sports. We have a sacrifice bunt and intentional walk in baseball, and the 4th-and-goal field goal in football.

3. Soccer is too slow. It might be boring and conservative, but it is not slow. The ball is always moving (though sometimes backwards). Football is slow. There is a committee meeting before each play. Baseball is slow; the pitcher or batter can deliberately slow down the game. If a basketball game is close, and each team has two or three timeouts left, the last 2 minutes in a game can burn up 15 minutes of real time.

4. There are too many ties. This is a problem. Baseball and basketball don't accept ties. Football rules almost guarantee there will not be a tie. US soccer has tried to fix the amount of ties by using a shootout tiebreaker from midfield (NASL-1970s) and a shootout from the penalty mark (more recent). But the soccer purists don't tend to like those rules. Hockey recently changed their rules to reduce the number of ties and make the game more exciting but that hasn't seemed to help their popularity.

5. The referee has too much power-This is the overwhelming complaint in this year's World Cup. Capricious yellow and red cards are controlling play, the advantage rule is abused, and the ever-present whimsical injury time is affecting the matches. I think this is due to poor individual officiating, and not a systematic problem with the rules. If the ref is doing his job you shouldn't even notice him. I like the power the soccer ref has (I do some reffing!!). They have absolute authority and no instant replay. There are no indecisive group huddles, and belligerent players and coaches can be tossed quicker than in US sports. Besides, the red cards do not seem to be affecting the outcome of the games at this year's World Cup. And if you don't like low scoring games don't complain about the advantage rule. It was designed to increase the scoring. If you still think the game is over officiated, just look at baseball. Every pitch, every move by the pitcher, every swing, every catch, every play at a base, every run at the plate, etc. is umpired.

6. Americans cannot understand all of the rules. This is true, but easily fixed. All they have to do is pick up a rulebook. There are only 17 laws (rules) of the game. Compare that to the encyclopedia sized rulebooks that come with baseball or football. The offside rule in soccer is hard for the newcomer, but it is certainly easier than trying to understand all of the illegal forward motions and line of scrimmage penalties in football (offside, false start, encroachment, illegal procedure, illegal motion, illegal shift, illegal formation…).

7. You can't use your hands. I think they are on to something here. It goes against our nature not to use our hands. I have coached both soccer and basketball and oftentimes with the same group of kids each year. At soccer practice they will often reflexively start dribbling a soccer ball like a basketball (until they face my wrath). But I have never seen them kicking a basketball around like a soccer ball (except on a rare occasion).

8. You are encouraged to use your head in soccer. I think they are on to something here too. Americans think that heads need to be helmeted. Not used to strike the ball.

9. The clock counts up instead of down in soccer: This is a factor. Your average public school graduate in American probably cannot figure out how much time is left in a 90-minute game when the clock says 53:53.

10. There are very few commercial breaks in the game: If you can't sell commercial time to sponsors, you will not make the big time in America. But that hasn't stopped the Europeans.

11. The big money is in Europe. Barcelona and Manchester United have out spent everybody. I don't buy that argument either. We tried to outspend them in the mid 70s and brought world-class athletes to the US (Pele, Beckenbauer, Cruyff) but that didn't help.

12. The marketplace is jammed with the big four team sports (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey) and NASCAR. There is not enough room for another professional league. I disagree. I am a classical liberal who believes that wealth can be created. Not a neo-liberal who believes that wealth is a zero sum gain. Marketplaces are not static. They are dynamic. People will bring money to soccer if they believe that soccer is worth it.

13. It is too European. This is probably true. The low scoring games and the touchy-feely "a tie means we both won" notion are part of a European socialist mentality. One would think that American liberals should be flocking to this game. Well, in the early 90s they were, but then they changed. During the elections of the early 90s they even had a term of endearment for a certain voting block that they called "soccer moms." The do it all moms who worked, took the kids to soccer practice in the mini-van and swooned over Bill Clinton. This led to the rapid growth of youth soccer leagues in the states. But by the late 90s the soccer moms had gradually moved to the Republican Party and the liberals started using the term as a pejorative. Once they started voting conservative, soccer moms suddenly became unmotivated housewives who had betrayed the feminist movement.

14. It is too South American. This is true also. There is too much drama. The players, who are among the finest conditioned athletes in the world, are mysteriously frequently injured whenever there is the slightest bit of body contact. There is more drama in a South American soccer game than there is in a novela (soap opera) on Univision. Hey man can't you just walk it off? Or do you need some toughness lessons from 4'9," 90-lb gymnast Kerri Strug?

15. American's are confused by the term "World Cup" and don't understand why there are 32 participants. This is true. The Americans designed a global championship in baseball and only invited one country, themselves. All right this is just a joke and I know Canada has been invited to the World Series (The Toronto Blue Jays won twice).

16. Americans tend to be isolationists. This is true. We deal with our own foreign policy but we don't tend to be that interested in the goings on between other countries. The 1966 World Cup between England and Germany (20 years after WW II) sparked the initial interest in this country that led to the NASL, but other than that we really haven't paid much attention. That is too bad. The US did not join the entire planet to watch the 1986 quarterfinal round between Argentina and England, which was just a few years after the Falkland Island war. This was one of the most memorable games in cup history. Maradonna was credited with the goal that was scored by "The Hand of God," and he also legitimately scored the game-winning goal, which is considered one of the best ever.

Soccer fan comments and a response.

1. Soccer is building momentum and it is on the verge of going big time in the US. I am a fan, coach, player and ref. I support the sport but I've heard that wishful thinking over and over since the mid 70s. Soccer is not gaining traction in the US.

2. The US Women will popularize the sport. They have had remarkable success in the World Cup (Two championships and two 3rd place finishes in the four cups that have been played.). But this won't help. Remember the WUSA? How long did that last? Professional women leagues don't tend to last in the US. We have the WNBA still kicking around but does anyone remember the ABL and WBL? Where did they go? The majority of ticket buyers and television sports watchers are male. They want to spend their money watching the best athletes, which are generally male. There are a few exceptions. I think tennis is on even footing but that is only when hot women play. We tend to prefer women figure skating but that is only because there are no male figure skaters (just kidding). And we prefer our female gymnasts to the males. America has a bizarre attraction to overly muscularly developed dwarves with squeaky voices whose careers are over once they reach the age of twenty.

3. FIFA (the world governing body for soccer) knows there is a lot of money in the US and will work to establish the game here. FIFA already tried. They let us host the 1994 World Cup on the condition that we establish a division one soccer league. Well, we did and all we have is 12 teams that draw an average attendance of 17,000. That's not much better than the NASL's high of about 14,000 in the late 70s.

4. Soccer is all about defense and defense wins games so it will become popular. Defense does win games. Defense wins the Superbowl and NBA championships. The World Series is all about pitching (defense), and the team with the hottest goaltending wins the Stanley Cup. This is all true, but it is the run & shoot, and run & gun that fill the seats. And batters who hit 50 homeruns, and hockey centers who score 70 goals make the headlines.

What is the future or soccer in this country? I don't know.

Soccer can make it. Things change in this country. Who would ever have thought that the last two Stanley Cups would be won by teams in Carolina and Florida? And as world trade, travel and communication grows so will our interest in the sport. Last but not least, the longer our southern border goes unguarded, the better our soccer will become.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe that this is my first post on current events.

It deals with the Tuesday, June 6th election in California's 50th Congressional District. This district is in San Diego County. It was an election for a congressional representative to fill the seat that was vacated by the felon Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Cunningham is a republican who is now serving a prison sentence for various crimes associated with bribery.

It was an interesting race. Some billed it as a test to see if the republicans would be able to keep control of congress in the fall elections. Another reason it was interesting was that during a campaign rally democrat Francine Busby let out a Freudian slip when she told a crowd of Latinos that, "You don't need papers for voting!"

The results were in Tuesday night and it was a victory for republican Brian Bilbray. The victory brought out the typical responses from liberal politicians and media. I collected a bunch of the responses and selected the best.

THE TOP TEN LIBERAL REACTIONS TO THE BRIAN BILBRAY (R) VICTORY OVER FRANCINE BUSBY (D)

1. National Public Radio: "There is evidence that President Bush ordered increased Border Patrol activity that day in order to prevent many native Tijuanans from voting."

2. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "A vast right wing conspiracy ensured that the election was held on June 6th. That's 6/6/06! Conservative fundamentalists sold their souls to Satan for a republican victory."

3.Former Vice-President Al Gore Jr. (Loser-TN): "I may be partially to blame for the loss. Many democrat voters in the district did not get a chance to vote. They spent the entire day attending my seminar, "How the Republicans, big oil, Halliburton, and Wal-Mart were responsible for the global warming that caused the oceans to rise and flood Atlantis in 1500 BC."

4. Jesse Jackson (race merchant- SC): "Thousands of undocumented voters were disenfranchised."

5. The Los Angeles Times: "We have evidence that thousands of absentee ballots from Mexico City were not counted!"

6. Sen John Kerry (D-MA): "Exit polling had clearly shown that I served in Vietnam."

7. Rep John Murtha (Traitor-PA): "The Marines who executed civilians in cold blood at Haditha were mysteriously rotated to San Diego on Monday just in time to intimidate democrat voters."

8. The Palm Beach Post: "The mariposa ballots were confusing. The names Bilbray and Busby looked very similar after the Spanish translation. This cost Busby her seat in congress."

9. Cindy Sheehan (Idiot-TX) - "Does anybody need a protester here. I need some attention."

10. Air America - " "

Are they still broadcasting?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BULLETS ON MY FAMILY LIFE

When I need to find something in the house, my wife gets mad at me if I don't look hard enough and ask her. She also gets mad at me if I look too hard and mess things up.

One of the problems in my family is that my wife decorates the yard with plants, fences, furniture, swing sets, furniture, etc. and I am the one who has to mow and trim the grass around all of these objects.

Nobody knows what he or she gets into when they get married. We all have this romantic idea of what a marriage is like. That only lasts a year or two. Then all those cute little things the other person does start to annoy you. You seem to develop more of a brother and sister relationship arguing about issues of fairness. "What about me?" "It's my turn." In order to preserve the marriage you have to learn to put the other person and the marriage first. You come second. Remember that the marriage and especially the kids are more important than whatever you are fighting about.

A few years ago I saw my son's 3d grade teacher out running errands one day. She was off work for some reason and I ran into her at a local store. I asked her where her 4-year-old son was. She told me she had left him at daycare. I made an offhanded remark that I thought that she should take the opportunity of a day like this to spend some more time with her child. She told me that she was too busy and that she had already paid the daycare for the full week. I realized I shouldn't have opened my mouth, changed the subject and moved on. I later though to myself, "She was too busy running errands to bond with her kid?" Can't you do both? And isn't it important to take the kid with you when you run errands so they know how to act in the store and the bank? Why don't we like being parents anymore?

My wife and kids drive me crazy sometimes. I tend to go into the stratosphere when I am concentrating on something. They will walk by and blurt out something like, "The Wal-Mart has the new fishing pole that you wanted." As I start to come out of my dream state I only manage to catch the last part, "… fishing pole that you wanted." I say, "Excuse me?" and they consistently answer by only repeating the second part of the sentence. That is the part I heard!! I wish they would learn to repeat the first part where they interrupted my thoughts.

My wife runs a private preschool. She speaks the secret language of teachers. She will tell a parent that their child needs to "develop their listening skills." That is preschool lexicon for "Your child is a rotten brat."

When I come home for lunch I observe my wife teaching the children. I am shocked at the differences in the intelligence level of children at the age of 3 or 4. Some of them are average, some are sharp as tacks and some are as dumb as a hammer. Is it genetics? Is it the family environment?

My wife bought wheat bread. She said it would make up for deficiencies in my diet. I thought, "What am I missing in my diet?" I tasted it and figured out it. I am missing sawdust.

My computer is arrogant. It knows when I am in a rush and it slows down on purpose.

I tend to be a short-term pessimist and cynic. But over the long term I am very optimistic.

I used to admire intelligent people, as I grow older I find myself admiring kind people. Intelligent people tend to be selfish. Kind people demonstrate self-denial.

I heard this good one. "Know where you sit before you tell others where you stand."

Do children understand what grandparents really are? I think the child might understand that grandma is dad's mother. But can they really relate to the fact that dad is grandma's son?

Some of us who are watching our weight (I guess all of us) like to say, "I'm beyond watching the scale, I'm above that." That means we are really afraid of it.

I was a jaundiced baby. What does that mean? My mom told me that they put me under a huge light when I was born. Who ever thought of that? What effects did the treatment have on me? It was essentially a big heat lamp. They treated me like an Arby's roast beef sandwich. I've always wondered about the Arby's roast beef. They call it roast beef, and it tastes okay, but is it really roast beef? It doesn't taste like the roast beef my mother used to make. I used to make sandwiches out of the leftovers.

I am further convinced that dentists and dental assistants are aliens. It occurred to me while last week when I was having my teeth scraped by one of them. Think about the television shows where you see re-creations of alien abductions. Almost every re-creation looks the same. The victim is lying on a table, (dentist chair) there is a bright light over their head (that big bright light they use), and the victim cannot talk (their mouth is stuffed with tools and Novocain). The aliens, like the dentists, have all sorts of hideous drills and items they use to probe your teeth. The aliens have green skin (scrubs) and large eyes (protective glasses). I thought this might be a coincidence but then I remembered something else. Throughout my entire life and the thousand or so people I have met, I don't know anybody who went into dentistry. Dentists and dental hygienists just sort of appear around dental offices. They are teleported there from outer space. Then I thought of some further proof. Great Britain does not have a problem with alien abduction. They have a problem with crop circles. Look at the average Brit's teeth and you will see that there are no dentists in England. Is that a coincidence?

Why am I still out of shape? According to the advertisement on the radio, if I buy this piece of gym equipment, it will only takes 6 weeks at 15 minutes a day for the fit sexy body I always wanted. So I have plenty of time to get around to it when I feel like it.

I have mushroom phobia. Every time I see them I wonder if they are poisonous. Why do we eat them? I like them sautéed in olive oil. But after I eat them they usually rip right through my bowels. I am in the bathroom within an hour. I do not like them in spaghetti sauce. When I was a kid I learned that they were evil. Trolls live under them. Or is that a toadstool? What the Hell is the difference? And why are they named toadstools? Have you ever seen an amphibian sitting on his haunches on top of a mushroom? What am I thinking? Is a toad an amphibian? Mushrooms are a fungus so we have this urge to wash our hands immediately after preparing them. But then we put them in our mouths without hesitation.

I learned this a long time ago. In order to feel like you accomplished something at the end of the day, perform a task that you did not want to do.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MUSLIM FANATICISM/THE SUICIDE BOMBER

A question the non-Muslim asks is, "Why would a young Muslim man strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up with a bunch of innocent people?" The answer is quite simple. He wants to go to paradise, and according to the Koran, Sura (chapter) 55, Ayat (verse) 72-74, the Muslim martyr who kills nonbelievers will earn his way into Heaven and be rewarded with 72 virgins (unlimited sex). And if you read further in the Koran (Ayat 75-78) you will see that Muslim Hell is described as an eternity of conversation and sex with the souls of the following 72 nagging, whining shrews. Any sane man would strap a bomb to his chest.

Madelaine Albright
Christiane Amanpour
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Joan Baez
Joy Behar
Sandra Bernhard
Barbara Boxer
Donna Brazile
Helen Gurley Brown
Martha Burk

Margaret Cho
Connie Chung
Hillary Clinton
Katie Couric
Ani deFranco
Ellen Degeneres
Maureen Dowd
Sandy Duncan
Jocelyn Elders
Melissa Etheridge

Diane Feinstein
Harvey Fierstein
Linda Foley
Jane Fonda
Barney Frank
Betty Friedan
Janeane Garofalo
Boy George
Whoopi Goldberg
Jane Harman

Teresa Heinz Kerry
Arriana Huffington
Chrissie Hynde
Patricia Ireland
Sheila Jackson Lee
Elton John
Star Jones
Billy Jean King
Jessica Lange
Queen Latifah

Monica Lewinsky
Madonna
Camryn Mannheim
Mary Mapes
Cynthia McKinney
Stephanie Miller
Carol Moseley-Braun
Patty Murray
Rosie O'Donnell
Gwyneth Paltrow

Jane Pauley
Nancy Pelosi
Nora Raum
Janet Reno
Randi Rhodes
Cokie Roberts
Linda Ronstadt
Roseanne
RuPaul
Susan Sarandon

Pat Schroeder
Cindy Sheehan
Gloria Steinem
Meryl Streep
Barbara Streisand
Helen Thomas
Greta Van Susteren
Nina Totenburg
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters

Oprah Winfrey
Naomi Wolf

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

N0 MEMBER OF CONGRESS/SENATE LEFT BEHIND TEST

I am tired of ignorant people getting elected to national office. So why don't we develop a written test for our prospective political leaders? Since our national politicians want to test our students and teachers why don't we give a test to our incumbents and candidates? We could call it our "No Member of Congress/Senator Left Behind" test. They would have to take and pass this test before they can run for office or reelection. This would be a simple test about our Constitution, our representative republic form of government, and historic events or people that have influenced us.

THE TEST (25 questions)

1. Discuss how The Bible and Judeo-Christian morals influenced the founding fathers.

2. Discuss any other religious influences that you think may have influenced them.

3. Discuss how the "petty republics" of Ancient Greece influenced the founding fathers and western civilization. Start with:
A) Democracy
B) Law
C) Theatre and Arts

4. Discuss how the Roman Empire influenced our founding fathers and western civilization. Start with:
A) Central system of laws
B) Civil Service
C) Democratic government
D) Professional army

5. Discuss the Magna Carta.

6. Discuss the Mayflower compact.

7. Discuss the Articles of Confederation (Articles I-XIII).

8. Discuss the Continental Congress.
A) 1st Continental Congress
B) 2nd Continental Congress
C) The Congress of the Confederation

9. Explain in detail each part of our Declaration of Independence.
A) Introduction
B) Preamble
C) Indictment
D) Denunciation
E) Conclusion

10. Explain in detail each part of our Constitution.
A) Preamble
B) Articles I-VII
C) Amendments I-XXVII

11. Compare and contrast the Declaration of Independence (a document that seeks to limits government) with the Constitution (a document that empowers government).

12. Explain the Electoral College and why it was enacted. Discuss its strengths and weaknesses.

13. Discuss each of the Federalist Papers (1-85).

14. Discuss the Anti Federalist Papers.

15. Compare and contrast the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist papers.

16. Discuss the Northwest Ordinance and how it affected later expansion of the country and the admission of new states.

17. Discuss the Connecticut Compromise and why it was enacted.

18. What was Shays Rebellion? Discuss its influence on our early government.

19. What was the Whiskey Rebellion? Discuss its influence on our early government.

20. Discuss some of the events the led up to the Civil War.
A) The Missouri Compromise
B) The Kansas Nebraska Act
C) The Birth of Republican Party

21. Discuss how each of these events impacted on the growth of the federal government.
A) The Civil War
B) The Great Depression
C) WW II
D) WW III (The Cold War)
E) WW IV (The Global War on Terrorism)

22. Justify each of the cabinet positions and their bureaucracies.
A) Secretary of State
B) Treasury
C) Defense
D) Interior
E) Agriculture
F) Commerce
G) Labor
H) Health and Human Services
I) Housing and Urban Development
J) Transportation
K) Energy
L) Education
M)Veterans Affairs
N) Homeland Security

23. Discuss how each of the following individuals influenced our government.
A) John Locke
B) Charles Montesquieu
C) David Hume
D) Adam Smith
E) William Blackstone
F) Edmund Burke
G) Thomas Paine
H) John C. Calhoun
I) Alexis de Tocqueville
J) Herbert Croly

24. Discuss campaign finance reform and term limits. Why has campaign finance reform failed? What recommendations would you make? Discuss the pros and cons of term limits.

25. Discuss a topic or person of your choice that was influential in the development of our government.

BONUS QUESTION: If you can find the concept of "the separation of church and state," or the "right to privacy" in the Constitution you will be awarded 200 bonus points.

NOTE: These are essay questions. You will be graded on how well you develop and share cogent ideas and viewpoints. We are not looking for rote answers from a textbook. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation will be graded. You will not be allowed any reference material during the test. The test may be completed in handwriting or on a computer. The computer will not have spelling and grammar programs that might assist you.

YOUR SCORE: The grade will be similar to an SAT score. Scores will range from 400-1600. They will be published online, in newspapers and magazines, and broadcasted on television and radio. Your score will also be written down next to your name on the ballot. And should you get elected, it will become part of your tag line (Sen Joe Smith, Dem, GA, 900).

I'm sure I have omitted some important person, place, or thing. But this is a start. Part II of the test would deal with simple economics and taxation since taxation is the greatest power our legislators yield. I might start by asking them to compare competing economic schools of thought such as Ludwig von Mises/Friedrich Hayek vs. Karl Marx/John Maynard Keynes. I will try to develop that test at a later date.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

POLITICALLY CORRECT CHRISTMAS CAROLS AND HOLIDAY SONGS

Christmas Carols and Holiday Songs tend to exclude, marginalize and insult. Henceforth these songs will be re-written with new titles to avoid any real, imagined or perceived offense.

The word Christmas is exclusive to Christians and must be removed. Since it cannot be replaced with the word "holiday" (Holy Day) we will replace it with the innocuous phrase, "day off."

We Wish You a Merry Christmas
We Wish You a Merry Non-Religious-Specific Day-Off in Winter.

Noel is another word for Christmas.

The First Noel
The First Non-Religious-Specific Day-Off in Winter

Don't you dare exclude the down and out victims of capitalism at this time of the year.

I'll be Home for Christmas
I'll be Home or in a Homeless Shelter for the Non-Religious-Specific Day- Off in Winter

And let's not let any covert references to race cloud your celebration (if you do chose to celebrate).

I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas
I'm Dreaming of a Race Immaterial Non-Religious-Specific Day- Off in Winter

The physically impaired must not be excluded.

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
I Sensed the Bells on the Non-Religious-Specific Day-Off in Winter

If physical disabilities are referred to in other songs, than they must also be performed in sign language, and made available in Braille.

Do You Hear What I Hear
Do You Sense What I Sense

Angels are spiritual beings, not everybody believes in the spirit life.

Angels We Have Heard on High
Guiding Influences We Have Sensed on High

Since the mute cannot sing, we shall substitute the term communicate.

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Sense! The Herald Guiding Influences Communicate

The word "holy" has religious connotations. We do not want to offend the secular.

Silent Night, Holy Night
Silent Night, Devout Night

And

Oh Holy Night
Oh Devout Night

The secular might also lack faith.

Oh Come All Ye Faithful
Oh Come all Ye Extremely Loyal to Non-Material Evidence

A person shall not feel excluded based on where they live…

Go Tell it on the Mountain
Go Tell it on the Preferred Geographic Location

…or their climate.

Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow
Let it Perform a Favorite Weather Pattern, Let it Perform a Favorite Weather Pattern, Let it Perform a Favorite Weather Pattern

Christians are sneaky. They often subtly hijack common terms in an attempt to own the language. The word "manger" has been hijacked to refer exclusively to the nativity of Jesus Christ and it must be replaced.

Away in a Manger
Away in a Trough that Holds Livestock Feed

The traditional birthplace of Jesus Christ is in Bethlehem, Israel. Since Bethlehem is inside of the Zionist occupied and disputed West Bank we have to apply a tentative name to this song.

O Little Town of Bethlehem
O Quaint Town of Palestinian Joint Rule

That was a good segue into the use of physical descriptions. The word "little" should never be used. It is demeaning. Especially when used to describe a person. References to a person's gender shall also be forbidden especially when they help to reinforce stereotypes.

Little Drummer Boy
Vertically Challenged Drummer Child of Undetermined Gender

Other gender specific songs need to be re-done.

Frosty the Snowman
Frosty the Hermaphrodite Snow Creature

And

Oh Come Let us Adore Him
Oh Come Let us Adore Him or Her

This also applies to stereotyped roles in parenthood and heterosexualism.

I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Clause
I Saw My Gynocentric Guardian Kissing a Non-Gender Specific Person who is Known to Wear a Red Suit

We cannot stereotype overweight people as happy, nor make references to a person's age. Even if they are saintly (another subtle religious term)

Jolly Old Saint Nicholas
Happy, Plus-sized, Chronologically-Gifted, Highly Virtuous Nicholas

We kept the term Nicholas to preserve some tradition. We are not implying that Nicholas has to be a male name and males are the only ones who are capable of amassing enough fortune and possessing the generosity to be able to give presents to masses of people. Nor are we implying that females lack the physical strength and endurance to accomplish such a task. In order to balance this mistaken perception, we shall apply modern day affirmative action in order to level down the male ego and help balance the playing field.

We Three Kings of Orient are
We Three Misogynist Autocrats of Eastern Asia are

This especially applies to westerners…

Good King Wenceslas
Evil White Male European Misogynist Autocrat Wenceslas

…doubly, especially if they are Christian

Good Christian Men Rejoice
Evil Narrow-Minded Homophobic Racist Misogynist Men Get Drunk and Abusive

We don't take tradition lightly. We actually found one traditional song that we will keep in its entirety. We feel this song accurately portrays the typical man.

Mr. Grinch

Sample traditional lyrics: "Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of rubbish imaginable mangled up in tangled up knots!"

Songs of Thanksgiving or, the Autumn Day Off, will also need to be deconstructed.

Over the River and Through the Woods
Over the River and Through the Woods

Subtitled: Only after an environmental impact study on the effects of a horse-drawn sleigh upon the woods is conducted. And assuming the gentle vegetarian beast of a horse is not being forced to pull an overloaded sleigh and is doing so on a volunteer basis.

We realize that this one may lose some of the warmth of its original meaning. This could be avoided if the grandmother (or grandparent) would just move back to the city and help stop urban sprawl.

And last but not least, we need to help swing the cultural pendulum away from the religious holiday and back toward the secular day off granted by the state. We can do this through songs that highlight the true Marxist origins of political correctness

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer
Rudolph the Red Knows that the State Seizure and Re-distribution of Private Wealth is Fairer than Private Charity and Ensures the Survival and Growing Power of the State

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This page will be devoted to social (mostly family related) and political (government) issues. Economics will be a large part of the discussion. In fact I will start with economics. I know what you are thinking. But, don't stop reading.

BASIC ECONOMICS (PT 1)

I know that many people don't think they can understand economics or are bored with economics. But do not fear economics. Once you have unlearned most of what you have been taught by politicians and the mainstream media, who both have agendas, and then learn some simple rules, it is easy. You have been practicing most of these basic principles all your life, but just didn't know it.

I love economics, but I am by no means an economic expert. I have a college background in economics but don't practice in the field. I got my degree over 20 years ago and most of those courses were based on Keynesian economics, which have now fallen out of favor with everybody except for US liberals and European socialists. At the time I didn't even realize that there were competing schools of economic thought. Left wing colleges don't teach ideas that compete with their world vision. They may claim diversity and show it on the outside (faculty hiring, student racial ratios) but they are extremely one sided when it comes to academic thought.

As hard as liberals try, simple economic laws such as supply and demand do not change. I wish our high schools and colleges were required to teach economics (along with basic constitutional law), I even have a textbook in mind. Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (2004). He breaks real-world economics down to the Barney level where even an Ivy League college professor could understand it. Get this book and read it, and highlight it, and dog-ear the pages, and write notes in it. Once you finish that one and want to learn some heavier principles, but still in a digestible form, read Jude Wanniski's The Way the World Works (1978).

In broad terms, there are two schools of thought in economics. They can be distinguished by the amount of influence each side believes the government should impose on the economy. There are those who prefer the heavy hand of government (Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes) and those who prefer the invisible hand of government (Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and those in the Austrian School of Economics). I prefer the invisible hand of government. The government needs to set forth policies that encourage healthy economic activity and then get out of the way.

Unfortunately those in the heavy hand school are the most popular. The liberals believe in Marxism because Marxists think that the benevolent government can and should control every sector of the economy. The government will magically quickly respond to our problems and do whatever it can to promote the "general welfare" of the people and make life "fair." The heavy hand school is also popular because it has some redacted history on its side. President Franklin Roosevelt preferred the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes and used them during the Great Depression. Though these policies made the depression longer and deeper, they are credited with bringing the US out of the depression. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was World War II that got us all working again.

The invisible hand school believes that most government activity is a drag on the economy. Excessive taxation, wealth redistribution and bureaucratic regulations strangle the economy. You end up punishing the producers and rewarding the idle.

The nation is divided on economic issues. Liberal democrats claim that there are "Two Americas," rich and poor. They are right, but they don't understand the reason. They have created two American economic systems. The middle class and wealthy practice capitalism. The poor are trapped in socialism. Socialism that sucks the will and discipline from the individual and makes him a slave to the state.

In closing, remember this about capitalism and socialism.

The catalyst of capitalism is greed.
The catalyst of socialism is envy.
Greed is sometimes bad.
Envy is always bad.
Capitalism requires the voluntary re-distribution of wealth (I buy your products.).
Socialism requires the involuntary re-distribution of wealth (The government takes your money and gives it to me.).
Greed adds incentives to produce (You can create capital and become wealthier.).
Envy removes the incentive to produce (Why would you bother to work harder if the government is going to take more of your money and give it to me? And why do I have to work hard if the government is giving me your tax money? ).