House of Reps Now in Charge of College Football?

From USA Today’s Sports Section:: “House panel takes step to force college football playoff”.

Is there anything in this entire country that the Federal Government doesn’t want to control?

Today (12/9/09) the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee (Energy and Commerce??) took an authoritative step in wrenching control of College Football from the NCAA by passing a measure that would “ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.”

I’m not a big sports fan so I don’t have any emotional stake in the decision of the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee and, in truth, this is probably the last anyone will hear of the committee’s proposal — it has next to no chance of making it into law — but the sheer audacity of the U.S. Government making a proposal like this really floors me.

The whole thing was, reportedly, the brainchild of a Republican Representative from Texas, Joe Barton. Barton sez: “the BCS system is unfair and won’t change unless prompted by Congress.”

Representative Joe Barton has been a Representative since 1984 and has apparently well please his constituents and he has been a rock-solid Conservative on almost every issue, especially the global warming scam where he has been a ‘champion’ but he apparently has to get his head screwed on right, and continually, until he understands that there are logical as well as legal limits on the power of Congress.

Rep. Barton: We have a National Debt that has reached the outer limits of reality, we have Democrats proposing legislation that will raise taxes and potentially put many small and medium businesses out of business. Please limit your interest in College Football to weekends when you are at the games or watching them with a beer in your hand. Just because you are a U.S Representative you don’t have to bring your personal garbage to Capitol Hill and waste even more of our money on matters that don’t belong there.

Not that you are the first! In 2007 Senator George Mitchell concluded a 21 month investigation into “the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball” — his report, called simply the Mitchell Report, was a scandalous waste of 21 months of OUR time and money investigating a situation that I can’t, not even through the wildest stretches of my imagination, justify as the business of the U.S. Government.

Senate Majority Leader Reid: A True Statist?

An insult was in order for Harry Reid after reading this lead story in Politics Daily but why stoop to name calling? Harry Reid is what he is and that is someone who either truly believes that the country is better off with a free market that has been subverted by people who do not understand economics or American history OR he is a man who wants to twist truth and reality because he hates America as it is. No one but Harry Reid knows for sure!

Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on the floor of the Senate to add some “historical perspective” to what the Democratic majority is proposing as a “reform” to America’s healthcare system.

He began:

“It amazes me that the Minority Leader rejects that what we’re doing is truly historic,” Reid said, referring to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “I am confident that history will prove the Republican leader wrong.”

OK! That’s how he feels about the Democratic proposals: they’re “historic” . . . probably few Americans would disagree with that; but then Reid went on to prove his ignorance on the topic by comparing the Republican opposition to the Democratic attack on the free market to the opponents of slavery and suffrage:

“If you think you’ve heard these excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, “Slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’” Reid added the women’s suffrage movement and the fight for civil rights to the list of fights that overcame even the staunchest opposition. “History is repeating itself before our eyes….If not now when?” Reid asked rhetorically.

Reid’s grasp of history is quite as flawed as his grasp of reality. There is NO legitimate comparison between slavery or suffrage or the civil rights struggle, true evils arising out of greed and/or ignorance, and the economic system that turned this country from a primitive frontier to the economic giant it WAS . . . was, that is, before our government, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, began to destroy it’s economy. Also no valid comparison between slavers, bigots and the cavemen who opposed suffrage, and those who oppose a bloated government.

Now Reid and company want to put the finishing touches on our economic destruction — not just with healthcare but with Cap and Trade and out of control spending.

So either a) I’m a hysterical reactionary who has terribly misjudged a benign effort to bring America back from the brink; OR b) Harry Reid is just a true believer in Statism who innocently believes that government control is the best alternative for America; OR c) Reid, and the rest of the Obama administration, so dislike the concept of American Exceptionalism that they are intentionally out to ‘level the International playing field’ by bringing the U.S. down to the level of the rest of the world?

Yes I know, ‘time will tell’ but if the answer is either b or c, time may be in very short supply.

Sarah and the “Birthers”

Sarah and the “Birthers”

Sarah Palin stepped in — and then out — of the question of ‘where was Barack Obama born’ during an interview on a Conservative talk show: “The Rusty Humphries Show”. What she said was:

“I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting records — all of that is fair game”

Right away the media and many Bloggers jumped on the issue and accused her of being a birther, forcing her, later that day, to clarify that, ‘while she may have said she supports others questioning the president about his citizenship, she herself has not raised such questions’. As far as I know, that’s true — she has never made an issue out of it — and I hope it never side-tracks her.

It’s pretty clear, in Article II, Section 1, the U.S. Constitution it specifies that:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The problem (granted, at this stage the issue is all but moot) is that many people feel, among other things, that President Obama has not produced the documentation that proves that he was born in the United States; on the othe hand, many people claim that he has proved it conclusively. For anyone who want’s to read a good summary of the claims and counter claims, check out: Snopes.com on this issue.

My personal opinion is that if the birthers claims are true they will not be provable for many years after Obama has been ‘extracated’ from the presidency — if indeed they are ever provable. Then there is the ‘why bother” factor. The Obama White House and the Liberal Mobs headed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are in the process of attempting to do terrible damage to the free market in the United States and if the free market dies, the United States is essentially dead. That is a much, much larger and much more immediate issue than trying to prove that the “Capo di tutti capi” of the aforementioned Liberal Mob should not be where he is, doing what he is already doing.

As for Sarah Palin, I can’t see where acknowledging that ‘the public has every right to make Obama’s birth circumstances an issue because it’s a fair question’ will do any damage to her politically as long as she diplomatically handles the next few months of media questions on the issue.

Someday, Sarah Palin will be an excellent President, she’s charismatic, she uses common sense and she is a font of rock-solid Conservative values. I don’t believe 2012 will be her year, but I have to admit I’d love to see it happen; at any rate, you can be sure that between now and 2012 she will be a dominant force in the Republican party.

The Tiger Woods Tease

‘I’ve been a bad boy,’ Tiger Woods readily and pubicly admits . . . ‘but I don’t want to talk about it!’

OK so he made a mistake — he slipped up — he had an affair or whatever the heck he did — that’s one thing, and NO he doesn’t have to discuss it with every hack reporter who feels he or she is “entitled” because Tiger is a famous sports star.

He does need to square things with the wife and with his sponsors but his real fans don’t need an apology they need to see him tee off. Does Tiger really think that many of his loyal fans really care about his private life? Perhaps some do but those are the ones he doesn’t need — they’re not golf fans, they’re looking for a role model. Tiger Woods didn’t get where he is by being an angel or a role model — he got where he is by being one of the best golfers in the world.

Apparently Tiger either has some physical injury from the car crash . . . or he is being really dumb by skipping the “Chevron World Challenge” (aka: “Tiger’s Tournament”).

ESPN reports that:

“Proceeds from the event (Tiger’s Tournament) go to the Tiger Woods Foundation, which has a learning center in nearby Anaheim that has helped thousands of students. That concept has been a longtime dream of Woods and his late father, Earl, conceived nearly the moment Tiger turned pro in 1996.

But the charity is likely to take a hit this week, as Woods is at home in Florida, nursing the injuries — both literal and figurative — suffered in the one-car crash Friday that has made worldwide headlines.

You’ve probably all heard the joke about Mike the avid golfer:

“Mike was teeing up for a very difficult shot. At that moment a funeral procession went by. Mike stopped, stood still with his hat over his heart, and bowed his head. His golfing partner looked at him and said, “Mike, that was kind and decent of you to show such respect for the dead.

Mike replied, “Yes, we would have been married twenty-six years come tomorrow.”

That, to many sports fans, is more of a fantasy than it is a joke.

Why Afghanistan Is Important

President Obama once again waxed eloquent this week at West Point– he is one hell of a good orator, I’ll give him that! (Text of speech HERE.)

It was also an exceptionally pro-American speech — for Obama that is; his obsessive need to pound his chest and scream Mea Culpa (figuratively of course) on behalf of the US was definitely under control. Well I guess it had to be in front of several thousands of future military officers.

But it was also an overly optimistic speech, which is understandable — when you’re asking for money from Congress and asking for support from U.S. citizens, you try to avoid reality and focus on optimism.

The 30,000 additional troops Obama has promised to Afghanistan will help keep out troops safe but, as in Iran, our mission in Afghanistan is not just fighting terrorists, it’s getting Afghanistan into a position where the Afghan military can fight their own battles. Some call this “nation building” and say we shouldn’t bother with expense while our own country is in such economic trouble. What they don’t understand is the thing that’s not talked about much but is the overwhelming “elephant” in the Afghan situation: their neighbor, “nuclear Pakistan.”

Pakistan has had nuclear capabilities and weaponry for years and the last thing the world needs is ‘nuclear Pakistan’ falling into the hands of the Taliban. I’m hardly a middle-east expert and I’m certain that there are many aspects of the situation I don’t understand, but it makes sense that “building-up” Afghanistan’s military, where the Taliban and al Queda are supposed to be strongest and decimating them there, is a good step in the direction of keeping Pakistan out of the hands of the Taliban. That objective, if met, is well worth the money that will be spent to meet it.

A thought on meeting that objective:

On the Mark Davis radio show this morning, a caller made a very important point about what we are doing in Afghanistan — this caller has first-hand knowledge, she has been there and is going back there next week, she is a US Air Force officer who trains Afghan Air Force pilots.

When asked by the radio show host (Mark Davis) if she thinks the Afghan Air Force will be able to do the job, she made the point that, we have to realize that these are not Americans and we shouldn’t expect that they will do things the way Americans do things; they will probably be able to do the job but it won’t be anything close to the way we would do the job. They are people of a different culture and have to take what they are taught and sublimate (in a sense) those things into their own ways of thinking and acting. In other words, we are not making Americans and we can only hope that we are making effective soldiers.

The broader point is: When dealing with people, in any situation, who have their own beliefs, practices and methods we can’t expect to be happy with the process they use or judge the immediate results by our standards but we can only hope that the final objectives are met.

President Obama’s Strategic Miscalculations

Fred Barnes, a Conservative political commentator for Fox News and the editor of the “Weekly Standard” magazine, wrote a straight factual piece in the Wall Street Journal that details Why Obama Isn’t Changing Washington.

To start with, Barnes reviews the president’s statements when campaigning for office:

“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. “Lobbyists aren’t just a part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.

What happened? Obama and his Democratic majority have gone so far as to change the locks on doors so that Republicans couldn’t get into sessions when the Healthcare Legislation was being drafted. Hardly partisan politics.

As for lobbyists, Barnes points out:

“The bigger the role of government, the more lobbyists flock to town. By pushing for his policies, the president effectively put up a welcome sign to lobbyists. Despite promising to keep them out of his administration, he has even hired a few.”

To answer his own question: “Why Obama Isn’t Changing Washington”, Barnes says that:

“. . . the president made three strategic mistakes (or, really, misreadings of the political landscape) and they’ve come back to haunt him and his party.

“First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn’t a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism.

“Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. . . . The president spent much of the summer and early fall touting his health-care initiative. He spoke at town halls, appeared on five Sunday talk shows the same day (Sept. 20), turned up on “The Late Show with David Letterman” and on “60 Minutes.” All the while, support for ObamaCare fell. His address to Congress on health care on Sept. 9 is now remembered only for Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouted accusation, “You lie!”

“Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain’s presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other policies. He let the chance slip away.”

I would add that Obama’s worst mistake was his assumption that Americans are willing to give up the America they know and love for an America with a government that overwhelms their lives with taxes and with rules and regulations that take away their ability to make their own decisions.

‘Hate Criminals’ Not Easily Intimidated

The Daily Political Blog Politics Daily has published an article about hate crimes. The article is filled with data and statistics (taken from the FBI’s 2008 Hate Crimes Report) and these statistics indicate that hate crimes are up!

The idea that a crime committed against an individual may (if the individual is a member of a protected class) carry two different punishments has never made much sense to me. I guess the theory is that giving a person a harsher sentence for striking out against someone because of WHAT they are rather than WHO they are will reduce the number of crimes against members of those “protected” groups. The protected groups by the way are: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Personally, as I said before in an old post, I feel that hate crime legislation violates the First Amendment (equal protection under the law) and the 14th Amendment (the prohibition against double jeopardy but apparently Legislators are neither reading or paying attention to my posts.

Regardless of how I feel about hate crime legislation its very interesting to note (as they did in the Politics Daily story) that there were 7,783 “bias crimes” committed in 2008, a rise of 2% over 2007.

Because of the stiffer penalties imposed at the Federal and State level for attacking a man because of his race or religion or etc. one would think that this type of crime would be going down. That, of course is a government’s only real option in a situation like this — make new laws and impose stiffer penalties; i.e., ‘pile on those disincentives and you can stop any behavior you want to stop.’ Too bad it doesn’t work.

Hate crimes are as old as the Bible and, when you boil it down, people who commit this type of crime are doing so because of their own insecurity and emotional instability. Laws and rules may have a small impact on a few of these people but they will not come near to solving the problem.

Demoralized in America

I read the news and see that the Democratic majority has totally bought into President Obama’s vision of Utopia; a United States that needs to be remade into a country that is less of a threat to our enemies and more acceptable to European Socialists. This is not a paranoid delusion or a flight of fancy or an observation without a basis. They (the president and Congress) are intent on emulating the failed British and Canadian healthcare systems; they will happily destroy our economy and the nation’s productivity in the name of that sham called global warming; they are doing everything they can to strengthen unions by taking away the choice of workers who believe that people should be judged on their performance as individuals rather than on their seniority; they refuse to call terrorists, terrorists and have started giving our enemies the same legal and Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens, they have demoralized the military by putting the safety of the enemy (and world opinion) above the safety of our troops and making “diversity” superior to safety and common sense; and, as you know if you read, watch or listen to the news, the litany of governmental malfeasance goes on and on and on.

The realization that these destroyers are the majority in the US Legislature and, as the majority, they can do almost anything they want added to the fact that they are apparently more devoted to the president’s “vision” and to their mission to “remake” America than they are to the Constitution or the American people, has demoralized many Americans — including this one. If you are one of these demoralized Americans — lets get over it!

Let’s get over it — we’re winning!

It started in New Jersey when Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine lost his reelection bid to Republican Chris Christie and simultaneously in the Virginia governor’s race when Republican Bob McDonnell scored a resounding victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds. It continues as Obama’s popularity in every poll is lower than it ever had been; and continues with the public backlash over the obscenity of civil trials for terrorists and over the stupidity of Gen. George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff who feels that losing diversity in the military would be a bigger loss than the loss of life by a terrorist.

Unless the president and the Democratic majority do a complete turnaround and begin acting like responsible Americans who understand and buy into American Exceptionalism, it will continue. It will continue in November of 2010 and then in 2012 it will finally unseat the Obomination in the White House.

Salt and Pepper: Religion and Public Education

The Cheatham County Tennessee School District is being sued by four students who are protesting the District’s position that allows, and apparently encourages, religious activities in the district’s schools. According to an article in the Tennessean:

The lawsuit alleges: a planned prayer took place at graduation last spring; the Gideons International were allowed to speak to classes and distribute Bibles; a cross hangs in a classroom; and a history teacher taught that the United States is a “Christian nation” and decried the separation of church and state. The suit asks the court to stop the activities.

Now this may seem like a frivolous lawsuit to some — to those of you who believe that your own religious beliefs have no borders and should have no limits — as well as those of you who argue that no one forced the kids to pray at the graduation or accept the Bibles or look at the cross on the wall and you would be right — well at least partially right. But when we come to that situation where students in a classroom, some of who may not know better, have to listen to a Christian Evangelistic version of U.S. History and an abstraction of the Constitution we’ve reached an unquestionable limit and have begun to corrupt the educational process.

The broader picture is: The United States is not a “Christian nation”; it is a nation based not on religion but on morality, a basic morality that forms the basis of ‘civilization’ as we understand it and practice it — a morality that exists apart from any religion — a morality that is, by law, the basis of even the most ardent atheist’s behavior.

I realize, of course, that it’s human nature to want to share a good thing and religious people believe that they have not only a good thing to share — they feel that it is their duty to share it. I wish they would also realize that there are many people in this world who have their own “good things” going in their lives (their own religions and/or their own non-religious or quasi-religious belief systems) and that Christian (or other) evangelism is not only an intrusion into these other people’s lives, it is an insult to their intelligence and their choice of life style.

Thou Shall Not Govern

When I ran across a recent article at “Air America” online titled: Abortion Restrictions In House Bill Show Power Of Organized Religion In Politics I broke into a sweat! (Well not literally!) However, how could it be that I, a self-professed proponent of Conservatism, could agree with ANYTHING that the “wacko Libs” at Air America propose. Perhaps I need to reevaluate my dedication to Conservative values as well as my blanket condemnation of “Libs.”

The Air America article begins like this:

The Catholic Church successfully helped deliver a crushing blow to the abortion rights movement on Saturday by insisting that abortion restrictions be inserted into the newly passed House health care bill. But this isn’t the first time that a religious organization has used its power, money, and influence to merge dogma with public policy.

Well, damn it all, they’re ALMOST absolutely right!

Two things: 1) Their naming of the “Catholic Church” as the culprit is a bit questionable — Evangelicals do deserve a big share of the credit; and 2) While they are correct that abortion restrictions ARE based solely on religious dogma and they are also correct that this isn’t the first time religion has influenced government actions; (same-sex marriage restrictions are now, thanks to religious influence on government, imposed by most states and are fully supported by federal fiat.) They are NOT right however when they suggest that the health care bill should have no restrictions on abortion. Taking religion out of the equation, abortion, in the majority of cases anyway, is a completely elective procedure and, as such, neither abortion or any other strictly elective procedure should be paid for by U.S. taxpayers. (Of course if sanity prevails, there will be NO Federal Health Care bill and this discussion will be moot.)

What about those Conservative values that deserve my reconsideration?

After just a bit of investigation I quickly discovered that I am not a textbook Conservative but I’m not far off. “Conservapedia” — the Conservative version of Wikipedia — lists 19 specific Conservative agenda items that a true Conservative is supposed is supposed to embrace:

- Classroom prayer *
- Prohibition of abortion *
- Abstinence education
- Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage *
- Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
- Laws against pornography *
- The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
- Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
- The death penalty
- Parental control of education
- Private medical care and retirement plans
- Canceling failed social support programs
- No world government
- Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
- Respect for our military … past and present
- Rejection of junk science such as evolutionism and global warming
- Low taxes, especially for families
- Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
- A strong national defense

The four asterisked (*) items above are where I personally take my leave from this particular set of values; allow me to clarify my reasoning. Conservatism is, to me, a strictly political realm and while this list reflects a great set of personal values, those four asterisked items, IMO, have no place in the world of laws or politics. You may have also noted that these items are near the top of their list — a clear indication of how religion has already perverted political thinking.

My bottom line is this: Religious values are important to many (or most) people but they properly belong only where people willingly accept them: in the church, in the home, possibly in some microcosm of the community (where they are accepted by all members of that community) and, in general, in the lives of those who embrace them; they should NOT however have the force of law. Our great nation is NOT just populated by Christians or Jews or Hindus or Moslems or by any other single religious group and our laws should be strictly secular — not reflect the beliefs of any religion.

There are, of course, logical exceptions to a general statement like the preceding and they are, without exception, already codified into all of our laws: restrictions against causing physical harm, taking someone else’s property, etc. These may all be religious values, at least in most religions but in the context of law, they are the rules of any civilized nation.

One final note on abortion: My view, embraced by those people who are falsely label pro-abortion, is that an unborn baby is not subject to the laws of the United States (or any other entity) until it is born. People who believe this are pro-choice, not pro-abortion; they recognize that abortion does indeed terminate a potential life and that act (or “sin” for you religious folks) is the responsibility of and the rightful decision of the woman carrying the unborn child and the man who took part in the conception. That’s called “choice” and an individual’s choice is far more valuable than the religious proclamations of any religious or government body. You can “damn a woman to Hell” for her choice but arbitrary laws should never be able to prevent her from making that choice. That would be (or should be) completely outside of the realm of government.

We seriously need to keep the gate closed between the worlds of religion and politics — not doing that will, eventually, draw our system of government closer and closer to theocracy.