tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27081325583686102382024-03-13T03:15:47.409-07:00Observations on Culture, Faith, Politics and the Roots of American FreedomBruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.comBlogger336125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-3669720103510874702014-06-02T09:53:00.001-07:002014-06-02T09:53:57.691-07:0021st Century Political RealitiesRecently I have been reading a number of books on advances in technology as applied to politics in America. These books include <i>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised</i> by Joe Trippi, <i>Collision 2012</i> by Dan Balz, and <i>The Victory Lab</i> by Sasha Issenberg. The Trippi book is about the 2004 campaign of Vermont Governor Howard Dean. It is a pre Facebook era look at how the Dean organization utilized the internet to create a bottom up campaign that nearly toppled the candidates of the Democratic establishment. It is an early look at the power of the Internet to not only connect candidates to supporters, but also connect supporters to candidates in a way that has heretofore been impossible to imagine. The real message of the Trippi book is that the Internet enhances the power of the grassroots to affect the outcome of a national campaign, especially an insurgent campaign such as that of Howard Dean. This is how Joe Trippi describes the power of the Internet…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“What we’re really in now is the empowerment age. If information is power, then this new technology—which is the first to evenly distribute information—is really distributing power.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“I believe what we do with that power will determine the course of this country. I believe that the Internet is the last hope for democracy. I believe that American will use it in the next decade to bring about a total transformation of politics, business, education and entertainment.”</i></blockquote>
<i>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised</i> was published in 2004. Joe Trippi could not envision all the advances that have taken place after that date, but his vision of the near future may well have been on the mark. Between the aborted Howard Dean campaign of 2004, and the successful campaign of Barack Obama in 2008, and again in 2012, dramatic changes in technology and the approach to politics, especially on the left, have taken place.<br />
<br />
<i>Collision 2012</i>, subtitled <i>Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America</i>, provides an overview of the 2012 race for President of the United States. The wakeup call for the Democrats was the 2010 off year election. This is how Dan Balz reports it…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“[The Democratic] party had absorbed the worst midterm election defeat in more than half a century. Democrats lost sixty-three seats in the House, the biggest midterm loss by a party since 1938.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“In the states, the wreckage was even greater as the conservative tidal wave swept aside years of Democratic advances. Republicans captured a majority of the governorships, and Democrats were lucky not to have lost more. Republicans picked up nearly seven hundred state legislative seats and now controlled legislatures in twenty-six states. In twenty-one states, Republicans held both the governor’s mansion and the legislature.”</i></blockquote>
Facing such a massive and overwhelming rejection by the voters, the Democrats and the Obama Administration were reeling. It was in the face of this loss that the Obama political machine geared up for a tough race in 2012. The reality, however, was that Obama’s race for the White House in 2012 actually began the day Obama took office on January 20, 2009. But, according to Balz, as technologically savvy as the 2008 Obama campaign was, the plan was to completely reboot it and update it for 2012 …<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“In one of their first conversations about the reelection, [Jim] Messina said he told the president that the reason they could not rerun 2008 was because so much had changed in just two years. Technology had leapfrogged forward with new devices, new platforms, and vastly more opportunities to exploit social media.”</i></blockquote>
Balz continues…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Messina and his colleagues were investing enormous amounts of time, money, and creative energy in the development of what resembled a high-tech political start-up whose main purpose was to put more people on the streets in 2012, armed with more information about the voters they were contacting, than any campaign had ever attempted.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“…Organizing for America…began investing millions of dollars and countless hours on technology and analytics that would eventually migrate to the election campaign.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“The campaign hired software engineers and data experts and number crunchers and digital designers and video producers by the score—hundreds of them—who filled back sections of the vast open room resembling a brokerage house trading floor or a tech start-up that occupied the sixth floor of One Prudential Plaza overlooking Millennium Park in Chicago.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“No campaign had ever invested so heavily in technology and analytics, and no campaign had ever had such stated ambitions.”</i></blockquote>
The investment in technology was a tremendous leap of faith by the Obama team that the old politics of spending millions on television were the past, and that the future was technology that allowed you to know who was likely to vote for your candidate, and that provided a software platform for reaching out to these donors in a personal, powerful way.<br />
<br />
The goal…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“…was to build a program that would allow everyone—campaign staffers in Chicago, state directors, and their staff in the battlegrounds, field organizers, volunteers going door to door or volunteers at home—to communicate simply and seamlessly.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“That brought about the creation of the Dashboard, which Messina later said was the hardest thing the campaign did but which became the central online organizing vehicle.”</i></blockquote>
Supported by hundreds of millions of dollars raised through fund raising, the Obama machine overcame overwhelming odds to win the White House again in 2012.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWloRlCN5ZHE-tjOx5PORr-x1O7qewY8Mfc3FQPMWGzNx3BU6mRmR81MHeAwR0kN8n6aBDUIE2_T_Ljymo-2e5GDOT6W7ffq5viymMIo2UIKLW1XIoxTe68aFVdfq_jV_V4Mxl80GxgpQq/s1600/victorylab.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWloRlCN5ZHE-tjOx5PORr-x1O7qewY8Mfc3FQPMWGzNx3BU6mRmR81MHeAwR0kN8n6aBDUIE2_T_Ljymo-2e5GDOT6W7ffq5viymMIo2UIKLW1XIoxTe68aFVdfq_jV_V4Mxl80GxgpQq/s1600/victorylab.jpg" height="200" width="131" /></a></div>
With that background, I went on to read <i>The Victory Lab</i> by Sasha Issenberg. In my view, this is the most insightful look at using technology and psychology to win elections in the 21st century. This book provides in-depth information on the advances in using technology and on baseline tested physiological approaches to winning over voters and getting them to the polls by both political parties.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Prologue Issenberg writes…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“The revolutionaries are taking a politics distended by television’s long reach and restoring it to a human scale—even delivering, at times, a perfectly disarming touch of intimacy.”</i></blockquote>
Indeed, and perhaps ironically, that is exactly what the use of technology, and baseline testing of messages is enabling campaigns to do in the 21st century. Instead of ads aimed at masses of people through television, cutting edge campaigns endeavor to spend their funds reaching the voter directly and individually. They gather public data on voters, and match that with information gained from personal contacts with prospective voters to reach individuals with messages tailored expressly to them. Not surprisingly, head-to-head tests of contacts with prospective voters via mail, telephone, and in person made it clear that in this impersonal age, the personal one-on-one contact is the most powerful.<br />
<br />
Politicos had known for years that the more personal the contact the more powerful and persuasive it was. As Republican guru Blaise Hazelwood put it…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Knowing where a voter lives, how old they are, what gender they are, and all those things are very important. But nothing is as important as understanding what they really care about…”</i></blockquote>
In 2003, Republican consultant Alexander Gage created a PowerPoint focused on a campaign tool he called “microtargeting.” This is, apparently, the first time that particular term was used, but it has now become the standard description of the way campaigns can identify voters by their personal preferences and choices. It bypasses the traditional precinct approach in favor of an individual target approach. As it was refined and made more precise, microtargeting was used to not only raise the Republican voter turnout in heavily Republican areas, but also increase that turnout in traditional Democrat strongholds. It is a tool that helps candidates win close races.<br />
<br />
According to Issenberg…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“A Washington Post analysis of the $2.2 billion spent on the presidential campaign [2004]—split almost evenly between efforts on behalf of Bush and Kerry—concluded that Bush’s $3.25 million contract with Gage’s firm TargetPoint was among the best money spent that year.”</i></blockquote>
At that point the Democrats were behind the Republicans in terms of targeting and turnout. But, that was soon to change.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“In April 2006, [Laura] Quinn and former Clinton White House adviser Harold Ickes [formed] a new company, Catalist, that would serve what they described as a data ‘utility’for Democratic campaigns and liberal causes.”</i></blockquote>
Catalist was to be a for-profit company, but that was not to be its primary purpose. It was to be cause driven, not bottom line driven. To get it underway Ickes needed $5 million in seed money, the first $1 million of which came from the multi-billionaire financier, George Soros. The idea of Catalist was to create a vast database comprised of hard data gathered by a myriad of groups on the left and then make that data available to liberal candidates and causes across the country. At the time the Issenberg book was written, Catalist was maintaining <i>“…one-half of a petabyte of data, the equivalent of one thousand hard drives.”</i><br />
<br />
About the same time, in parallel with the development of Catalist, AFL political operative Mike Podhorzer set up the Analyst Group that was an outgrowth of a long term project to baseline test messaging used in political campaigns. Podhorzer hired Todd Rogers, who is described by Issenberg as…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“…a psychologist who graduated from Harvard Business School after performing research that examined whether the way individuals managed their Netflix queues could illuminate how they felt about a carbon tax to fight global warming.”</i></blockquote>
After taking the job as executive director of the Analyst Group, Rogers wrote…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Some people have described what we are trying to do as ‘Moneyball for progressive politics.’”</i></blockquote>
Moneyball is a direct reference to the approach taken by Billy Bean, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, using analytics to find bargain priced players who could outperform their market value when placed into the right situation.<br />
<br />
Rogers was enamored by the work of…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“…psychologist Robert Cialdini, an expert in the way that consumers were simply unable to make rational choices…”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“Cialdini documented how consumers followed bad cues or were drawn to faulty assumptions, and the ways marketers could exploit them. Eventually he turned his powers toward promoting good behavior with cynical mind games. It was Cialdini, for instance, who documented the success of hotels that encouraged guests to reuse their towels by informing them how many guests also did so, rather than by highlighting how disappointingly low recycling rates were or the general importance of environmental concerns.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“Cialdini had found repeatedly that what he described as injunctive norms (‘you should not litter’) were far less effective at changing behavior than descriptive norms (‘few people litter’).</i></blockquote>
The Issenberg book also discusses the use of shame as a means of increasing voter turn-out. Essentially, by making a voter aware that voting (not who you vote for) is public information, and advising that voter of his own voting record and that of his neighbors, voter participation increased significantly.<br />
<br />
Utilizing advanced technology and applying proven psychological techniques, the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns committed huge resources to finding their voters and turning them out on election day. For example, the 2008 Obama campaign knew that the normal turnout of Democrat voters for the Iowa Caucuses was 125,000. They knew that if that number of Caucus goers turned out again, they would lose to Hillary. Therefore, they set a goal of 180,000 Iowa Caucus goers. They knew that if they reached that amount, they would win. The final count of Democrat Caucus participants in 2008 was 239,000 and Obama won easily.<br />
<br />
The advance of technology and the use of baseline measured psychological tests are not the only things that have significantly altered the political landscape in the United States in the 21st century. The fact is, the United States of 2014 contains an electorate that is vastly different than that of a few years ago.<br />
<br />
In 1984, Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election victory, winning 49 states. In doing so, Reagan won the white vote by 20 points. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost the election to incumbent President Barack Obama, receiving just 47.2% of the total popular vote. Yet, in 2012, Mitt Romney carried the white vote by 20 points, the exact same margin with which Ronald Reagan won a 49 state landslide victory in 1984. <br />
<br />
Ronald Reagan received less than 10% of the black vote in that election; similarly, in 2008, John McCain won 4% of the African American vote, and in 2012, Mitt Romney won 6% of the black vote. McCain also won 31% of the Hispanic vote and in 2012, Mitt Romney won 27% of the Latino vote.<br />
<br />
In other words, the demographics of the United States have changed dramatically since Ronald Reagan ran for president. No longer can a Republican candidate for president succeed by simply winning the white vote by 20 points.<br />
<br />
In fact, we are fast approaching the reality that no white Republican candidate for President can win. Unless and until a Republican candidate for president can significantly increase his or her share of the African American and Hispanic vote, the United States is headed for a permanent Democratic control of the United States government.<br />
<br />
The Republican brand is so tarnished with African Americans that any white candidate for president is immediately distrusted. He or she will have no chance of expanding the black vote even though the Republican Party is the Party of Abraham Lincoln. As recently as 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower received 39% of the black vote, but the relentless charges of racism by the news media and Democrats have so damaged the Republican brand, it is impossible for a white candidate for president to make inroads into this portion of the electorate.<br />
<br />
Simply running another candidate like McCain or Romney in 2016 will result in the Republicans losing the White House again. It doesn’t make any difference if the last name is Paul or Bush or Christie, the outcome is foregone. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.<br />
<br />
But, there is an alternative. Herman Cain proved that a black Republican can succeed with black voters and with Hispanic voters. When he ran for president in 2012, his internal polling showed that he was winning more than 40% of the African American vote. And, this was running against a black Democrat incumbent, Barack Obama! There is no doubt that the total black vote would have declined under attack by the news media and the Democrats, but it would not have shrunk below 17%.<br />
<br />
What is the significance of 17%? It is a magic number for the Republicans. If the Republican candidate for president receives at least 17% of the African American vote in the swing states, those states that hold the key to a presidential election victory, no Democrat candidate for president can win. Even Hillary Clinton cannot win. And, there is more good news. When Herman Cain was running for president, his polls showed that he was not only receiving more than 40% of the black vote, he was also receiving more than 60% of the Hispanic vote! Why?<br />
<br />
As you can imagine, the Cain campaign team was perplexed. How could Herman Cain draw huge support from both the African American and the Hispanic community running against America’s first black president, Barack Obama? It didn’t seem to make any sense. What they concluded was that poor African Americans and poor Latinos saw in Herman Cain a man who had experienced their lot in life—being born into poverty. They believed that he understood their plight, and more important, he understood how to escape poverty and experience economic success. In short, both African Americans and Hispanics identified with Herman Cain.<br />
<br />
If the GOP wants to win the White House and save America, it must do something different in 2016. The establishment is afraid of taking chances. That is not surprising. That’s why it is the establishment. All organizations eventually get to the point where they are risk averse. They don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary, they want to preserve the status quo. But, such a strategy is the most risky of all. It inevitably leads to ruin and the disintegration of the organization.<br />
<br />
Ronald Reagan was not a part of the Republican establishment. Yes, he was governor of the largest state in the nation, but he had the attitude and the philosophy of an outsider. The Republican establishment of the time did not want someone as conservative as Reagan as their nominee. They were sure it would lead to defeat, even though their most recent candidate, Jerry Ford, a sitting president had been defeated soundly.<br />
<br />
Today the leading lights in the Republican Party favor a moderate Republican like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Mitt Romney (again!). However, as the data shows, that is the certain path to defeat in 2016. In fact, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and all the rest have the deck stacked against them as well. They can’t describe a sure path to victory in 2016, because there isn’t one.<br />
<br />
It’s not your father’s political landscape. The electorate has changed dramatically and it’s not ever going to be the same again.<br />
<br />
If the GOP wants to win the White House in 2016, they need to run someone like Ben Carson. Yes, Ben Carson has never before held public office, but is being president harder than brain surgery? Ronald Reagan was dismissed as just a B-grade actor when he ran for governor of California. And, as you may recall, at that time California was, according to GDP, the seventh largest government in the world!<br />
<br />
It’s simply a myth that anyone outside of Washington who has not previously held public office can’t handle the job of president. It has been said that Ronald Reagan could have run the government from a closet because his principles were aligned with the Founders and he understood the proper role of government and of the president.<br />
<br />
The Founder’s goal was repeated many times. They wanted successful men to serve in public office, not as a career, but as a sacrifice in service to their fellow citizens. The Founders called such men “citizen statesmen” and they believed they were the most qualified to serve in the highest roles of government, including as president.<br />
<br />
The last thing we need today as our next president is another Washington, D.C., insider. Let’s be honest, the Republicans and the Democrats are both to blame for the current mess this nation is in. When the GOP last controlled both houses of Congress and a Republican sat in the White House, spending was out of control. There was nothing conservative about the way they spent the hard earned dollars of American citizens, their coziness with special interests, and their love of earmarks.<br />
<br />
If the Republicans really want to win and want to challenge the Democrats on their home turf, they should not only choose Ben Carson as their nominee for president in 2016, they ought to choose as his running mate someone like New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez. This would put the Democrats on the defensive, trying to protect the African American vote, the Latino vote, and the female vote. It would not only be a gutsy move, it would be a politically smart move that would be a thrust at the jugular of the Democratic Party. And, in electing Carson and Martinez, we would be electing a slate dedicated to the United States Constitution and committed to the values of America’s Founders.<br />
<br />
If the GOP would be bold enough to nominate such a daring and sure-to-win ticket, it would be the Democratic Party that would be set back for 30 years. And, because Ben Carson is such an articulate candidate who can, like Ronald Reagan before him, explain complex issues in simple terms, it is likely that he would not only win the election, but do so in a landslide.<br />
<br />
After all, while businessman Herman Cain was widely respected in the black and Latino circles, it is not an exaggeration to say that Dr. Benjamin Carson is revered in these communities. Every black child has been told the story of Ben Carson, a man born into dire poverty in one of the worst areas of Detroit. You may have missed it, but virtually all African Americans have watched the full length movie starring Cuba Gooding, Jr., <i>Gifted Hands</i>. This is the movie that tells the life story of Ben Carson and how he became the first physician in the history of the world to lead a team of surgeons that successfully separated twins conjoined at the head. Up until that point in time, many neurosurgeons had tried to separate twins conjoined at the head, but in each and every case, one twin died. Dr. Ben Carson is an icon in the African American community. And, you can expect men like Bill Cosby, and many other African American leaders, to rally to his cause. It will pose great difficulty for any African American to vote against the first descendent of slaves who is running for President of the United States.<br />
<br />
Remember, if Ben Carson wins just 17% of the black vote in the swing states, no Democrat candidate for president, even Hillary Clinton, can win the White House! He is the candidate that the Democrats fear the most. A Ben Carson victory would leave the Democratic Party in shambles. Its base would be permanently damaged and Ben Carson’s success as president would cast great doubt on the trustworthiness of the Democrats by African Americans and Hispanics for decades.<br />
<br />
After all, there is no political gain in Democrats lifting the poor out of poverty. They are the party of Woodrow Wilson, a racist who, as a 12 year old living in Atlanta, cheered for a victory of the Confederacy. Wilson, with the help of his mentor, Richard T. Ely, engineered the re-segregation of the South and the institution of Jim Crow. If the poor blacks, whites, and Latinos climb the ladder of success, they will no longer be dependent on government, and they will not be susceptible to manipulation by the Democratic Party.<br />
<br />
A Republican Party that is unwilling to nominate a sure winner like Dr. Benjamin Carson is an organization that is doomed to failure. Ultimately, sooner than we might expect, it will lead to the establishment of a permanent Democratic majority. What would that look like? Just look at Detroit. That is the America of the future if conservatives do not take back the government, rein it in, repeal Obamacare, support traditional values, and re-establish the United States as the pinnacle nation in the world.<br />
<br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-72683024702707966172014-05-02T15:40:00.001-07:002014-05-02T15:40:11.133-07:00Fraud and Free SpeechIn 1972 I was a newly hired copywriter, working for Potomac Arts, Ltd., a direct mail fund raising agency. I was enthusiastic, passionate, and more than a little bit naïve. In addition to writing fund appeals for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I wrote most or all of the copy for their newsletter. In writing about an organization that had attacked the right to keep and bear arms, I said that what they claimed to be doing was fraudulent. In my naiveté, I did not realize that the word “fraud or fraudulent” has legal connotations. In this narrow definition, it means that you are accusing someone of financial misuse of funds. In other words, you are accusing them of a crime.<br />
<br />
More recently and more practically, the word fraud has taken on a broader meaning. It has been used to say that something is phony or bogus. Its definition is not limited to the strict idea that someone has financially misused funds. When you call a hoax a fraud, you are not saying that the person perpetuating the hoax has committed financial fraud. You are saying that what they are promoting cannot stand the test of objectivity and honesty.<br />
<br />
Happily, my youthful enthusiasm for engaging in polemics did not land me in jail, nor did the agency I worked for end up in court. It did, however, require the agency to spend some dollars with an attorney to extricate themselves from the matter. I was appropriately embarrassed by causing my employer to spend funds unnecessarily. And, I learned a lesson. In matters of the law, when attorneys are involved, there are no winners. Legal expenses make everyone a loser.<br />
<br />
It is because of my experience with the use of the word fraud that I have been following, with some interest, the lawsuit of Penn State University professor, Michael Mann against National Review, Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. To the left, Michael Mann, is a sort of global warming guru. However, Mann got his rear stuck in a crack after e-mails he exchanged with Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) became public. Ultimately, Professor Jones admitted to the manipulation of data to give an outcome that he sought. And, according to the London Times, the disgraced climatologist barely escaped prosecution for violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when he refused to comply with requests for data concerning claims by Jones and other scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.<br />
<br />
Jones had been in close e-mail contact with Michael Mann, and when the e-mails of the CRU were hacked and then released to the public, it became obvious that neither Jones nor Mann were enthusiastic about making the data or the methods used to reach their conclusions available to other climate scientists with whom they disagreed. In fact, they discussed all sorts of ways of obfuscating, delaying, and otherwise ignoring requests for information. Jones even went so far as to insist that Mann destroy the e-mails he had sent to him.<br />
<br />
Michael Mann’s response to the e-mails exposing his effort to deny access to methods and data used to create his “hockey stick” graph is similar to the White House response to the latest Benghazi e-mail implicating the Obama Administration in a cover up of the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. The Administration discounts the e-mail as meaningless. Similarly, Professor Mann brushed off the damning e-mails between himself, Professor Jones, and others as being unimportant. In both cases, we are expected to disbelieve our lying eyes.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the scheming, conniving, and maneuvering of Mann and others to discredit their critics has certainly tarnished their image as objective scientists. The bottom line with Mann and others is that the climate debate is over. This same tack has been taken by the Los Angeles Times, which now refuses to print any letters to the editor from those who challenge the scientific veracity of man caused global warming. Now, I have a degree in engineering, and for several years I worked as an environmental control engineer with the Gulf Oil Corporation. I have, of course, long since retired my slide rule for a career in fund raising. Nevertheless, the idea that man caused global warming or climate change is settled science is nuts. <br />
<br />
Real science is about free and open inquiry. The idea that the earth was flat was settled science for the people of the ancient world, but that didn’t make it right. You can’t take a vote to decide what is right or wrong in science. At one point in time, a majority of those interested in science might have voted that the earth was flat, but that did not make the earth flat.<br />
<br />
Science is about empirical studies of facts, using the scientific method. What is the scientific method? It is simply this…<br />
<ul>
<li>Observation/Research</li>
<li>Hypothesis</li>
<li>Prediction</li>
<li>Experimentation</li>
<li>Conclusion</li>
</ul>
The simple fact is that global warming cannot be verified by the scientific method. Observation and research are incomplete. Experimentation is untrustworthy because the mathematical models are predicated on unreliable data, and because they cannot take into account all possible variables. Conclusions are impossible due to a lack of objective results gained from experimentation.<br />
<br />
Further complicating the situation is the intrusion of politics into the scientific sphere. When you are the recipient of federal grants designed to further a belief in global warming, you are no longer an objective, scientific observer. You have become a political hack.<br />
<br />
True scientists welcome critics who challenge their work, thus forcing them to defend their thesis and their testing results. This is the way the scientific community works. However, when someone attempts to deny their critic’s access to their methods and to the data gathering procedures, they go outside the realm of reliable science. At that point they have become advocates and political scientists, not true scientists. <br />
<br />
I said earlier that I gained some knowledge of what can be said and what cannot be said in a fund raising letter as a result of the use of the word fraud in a 1972 newsletter. Well, I must not have totally learned that lesson because in the 1980s, a letter written by Eberle Associates, and sent out by a client, described Madalyn Murray O’Hare as an “angel of Satan.” This description caused, in part, 9 years of legal entanglement. Not only was I sued by Mrs. O’Hare, but I was also sued by her attorney on a similar matter. It all came for naught, but only after legal expenses exceeded more than $500,000. Fortunately, mine were covered by insurance, but nevertheless, it was a colossal waste of time and money. It turned out that Mrs. O’Hare had described herself as a “demon directed damsel.” A description I found rather odd, considering the fact that she said she was an atheist, and logically therefore did not believe in either demons or in Satan.<br />
<br />
This is relevant to the current lawsuit by Michael Mann against National Review, Mark Steyn, et. al. because the good professor has generously used the term fraud and fraudulent to describe those with whom he disagrees. Apparently what’s sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander in the land of Mann. According to National Review, when Mann was interviewed by Mother Jones magazine he said, “…it will soon be evident that many of the claims made by the contrarians [i.e. skeptics of the global warming hypothesis] were fraudulent.” And, in his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann hoped that “those who have funded or otherwise participated in the fraudulent denial of climate change” will be held “accountable.” He sounds rather mean spirited and mean to me.<br />
<br />
But, of course, as my local radio commentator Chris Plante likes to say, “If it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.” Indeed. Mann can dish it out, but he clearly can’t take it. What really caused the current legal ruckus was an article published by Rand Simberg on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and then quoted in part in a National Review blog by Mark Steyn. Mr. Simberg wrote, “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and the planet.” Ouch! Apparently, this really set off the good professor. And, in fairness, no one wants to be compared with a child molester. It may have been a poor choice in wording, but it is free speech. But, with Michael Mann and those on the left, free speech is only reserved for those on the left. They really don’t believe in free speech. It’s their way, or the highway.<br />
<br />
While Steyn disclaimed the Simberg quote, he wrote in the NR blog, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree ring circus.” (Tree ring refers to Mann’s reliance on dubious “proxy” data to gauge historical temperatures.) It is, of course, because of the use of the word fraudulent that the legal case was filed by Professor Mann.<br />
<br />
Mann’s case is going nowhere, and it is likely that he and his attorney know that. The apparent purpose of the lawsuit (filed in the District of Columbia) is to further intimidate those who disagree with Mann and other global warming clingers from challenging them. Unfortunately, the Mann case should have been thrown out in the beginning, but because he successfully found a liberal judge, it is going forward, with justice as the casualty.<br />
<br />
We may not yet live in an authoritarian state, but it appears that those like Mann wish we did, so that they do not have to defend their cockamamie ideas in the court of public opinion.Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-15552414069268950612014-04-17T13:49:00.006-07:002014-04-17T13:49:50.343-07:00Easter<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>LAO</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Georgia","serif";}
</style> <![endif]-->This Sunday the entire world will celebrate Easter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Easter, of course, commemorates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even in the most anti-Christian nations in the world, the followers of Jesus will commemorate with great joy Jesus’ return from the dead after three days in the grave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Easter is not just another holiday, a time to celebrate spring, or to enjoy the new clothing fashions, it is a celebration of the most important event in the history of the world, Jesus’ triumph over death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, it is celebrated with such universal and exuberant joy because His victory over the grave guarantees to those that trust in Him that they will leave this world to live forever with God in total joy and happiness forever.<br />
<br />
As the Bible puts it in Colossians 1:18b, <i>“He is the beginning, the first to come back to life so that he would have first place in everything.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>In other words, Jesus’ triumphal return to life is our guarantee that we too shall live again in perfect bliss and harmony.<br />
<br />
And, according to the Bible, what do we have to do to be saved?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the jailer realized that Paul and Silas were servants of God after an angel came and released them from prison, he asked, “<i>What must I do to be saved?</i>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul and Silas responded, "<i>Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be saved</i>."<br />
<br />
The truth is that we all know that we are imperfect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are flawed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do things we regret.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We say things we should not say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, we think things that are downright evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those things we do, say and think make us sinners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
So the conundrum is, how do imperfect, sinful men and women enter into a perfect heaven?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If God just lets us into his heaven covered with sin, then heaven is no longer perfect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is full of people who are still sinners.<br />
<br />
That’s why God created a plan and then inspired men to write down this plan in His book, called the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the Book of Genesis, all the way through Revelation, the last book of the Bible, God reveals his plan of salvation. It’s right there in the Bible, almost on every page.It’s clear, it’s consistent, and it is miraculous.<br />
<br />
Our Father in heaven sent His one and only son, Jesus, to take the sins of the entire world on Him so that those who trust in Him would not have to suffer the consequences of their sin. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was the greatest act of love in history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus bore our sins so that we do not have to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>Now, when we believe, God sees our sins no more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He sees us as cleansed, washed clean by the blood of Jesus. What an irony, washed clean by blood.But, that is exactly what God did through the death and resurrection of Jesus.<br />
<br />
Those in the Old Testament who lived before Jesus came looked forward anxiously to His coming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were encouraged by the oral recitation of the promise that God gave Adam and Eve after their sin forced them to leave the Garden of Eden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, then, throughout the entire Old Testament, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets described in minute detail the suffering and death of Jesus that was to come so that those who follow Him might be saved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who lived before Jesus and trusted in the Messiah to come were saved through faith.<br />
<br />
Those who trusted in Jesus after he came are also saved by faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As it says in Ephesians 2:8-9, <i>“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”</i><br />
<br />
Eternal salvation is a free gift.You don’t contribute a thing.<br />
<br />
All God asks is that you recognize your sins and confess Jesus as your savior.<br />
<br />
That, my friends is the true and full meaning of the celebration of Easter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s the reason that Christians around the globe are so joyful and excited on Easter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s the reason that Christians sing with such joy the hymn, I know that my Redeemer Lives!<br />
<br />
Kathi and I and our entire family wish you a joyous Easter celebration. Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-71843967908838101532014-04-11T08:50:00.000-07:002014-04-11T08:50:11.371-07:00The Revolution Will Not Be Televised<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij7YacBmtJKQlH4zDqZqrLYFFvI8zogZ9bD2kJ6-7ekgG2pQ5gvm-TrU_cD42kqh4nhZZOspf_Iys2imbNeBm1c21FuEaT2ljAQEuAVbu_L3HKV0r5VvBX5T6uF6YynDJ9WoG2UQe-Dr4Z/s1600/revocoverV2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij7YacBmtJKQlH4zDqZqrLYFFvI8zogZ9bD2kJ6-7ekgG2pQ5gvm-TrU_cD42kqh4nhZZOspf_Iys2imbNeBm1c21FuEaT2ljAQEuAVbu_L3HKV0r5VvBX5T6uF6YynDJ9WoG2UQe-Dr4Z/s1600/revocoverV2.jpg" height="200" width="128" /></a>If you follow politics at all, you are aware of the fact that in 2008 and 2012 the Obama team followed a game plan that was quite different than anything that had been done before in a race for the White House. I'm not referring to the shenanigans and outright voter fraud committed by groups like ACORN. I'm referring to the sophisticated, high tech organization that was created on Obama's behalf. It was an amazing operation that identified virtually every prospective Obama voter and then turned them out on Election Day. In fact, it did much more than that. It enabled a new level of efficiency in the way voters were contacted, and it identified voters better than they had ever before been targeted. There is little doubt that this approach made the difference between victory and defeat, especially in the 2012 race. This new approach to campaigning is rightly attributed to Joe Trippi, the man who ran the first bottom up, internet campaign for president on behalf of Governor Howard Dean in 2004. The story of this groundbreaking effort is told in Trippi’s well written book, <em>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised</em>.<br />
<br />
While Barack Obama won in 2012, he was the first president in the modern era to get re-elected with fewer votes than he received the first time. In 2012, he won an electoral landslide, 332 to 206, however, Obama won just 51.1% of the popular vote. The point is that the shift of just a very few votes per state or even per precinct could have thrown the election to Romney.<br />
<br />
<em>Collision 2012</em> is the book written by <em>Washington Post</em> writer Dan Balz. The full name of the book is <em>Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America</em>. It explains why the Obama campaign was light years ahead of Romney and the Republicans in 2012.The following excerpts from this book are quite revealing...<br />
<blockquote>
<em>"As the Republican candidates were gearing up and then battling one another through the summer and fall of 2011, the Obama team was investing enormous amounts of time, money and creative energy in what resembled a high-tech political start-up whose main purpose was to put more people on the streets, armed with more information about the voters they were contacting, than any campaign had ever attempted."</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>"No campaign had ever invested so heavily in technology and analytics, and no campaign had ever had such stated ambitions."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>"The next goal was to create a program that would allow everyone — campaign staffers in Chicago, state directors and their staff in the battlegrounds, field organizers, volunteers going door to door and volunteers at home — to communicate simply and seamlessly. The Obama team wanted something that allowed the field organizers in the Des Moines or Columbus or Fairfax offices to have access to all the campaign’s information about the voters for whom they were responsible. They wanted volunteer leaders to have online access as well."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>"From modeling and testing, the campaign refined voter outreach. Virtually every e-mail it sent included a test of some sort — the subject line, the appeal, the message — designed to maximize contributions, volunteer hours and eventually turnout on Election Day. The campaign would break out 18 smaller groups from e-mail lists, create 18 versions of an e-mail, and then watch the response rate for an hour and go with the winner — or take a combination of subject line and message from different e-mails and turn them into the finished product. Big corporations had used such testing for years, but political campaigns had not."</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And, this is the most important lesson... </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>“The gap between the Obama and Romney operations crystallized in the key battleground state of Ohio in the closing weeks of the general election campaign. Members of Obama’s team had been on the ground in Ohio for years. They knew the state intimately. Obama had at least 130 offices there, plus 500 or so staging areas for volunteers. He had almost 700 staffers on the Ohio payroll alone. Thousands of volunteers contacted voters."</em></blockquote>
In stark contrast, the Romney team had only been on the ground in Ohio for a few months with a limited staff, few offices, and without access to the sophisticated technology that the Obama team was using. Romney never really had a chance. The software platform that the Obama team created was used for communications up and down the organization, for fund raising, and especially for voter targeting. Moreover, the Obama re-election effort began just a few weeks after Barack Obama was elected in 2008.<br />
<br />
That is not to say that the Obama for President campaign of 2008 was not a sophisticated campaign built on technology, volunteers and lots and lots of money. In 2008 the Obama campaign raised approximately $750 million, compared to $238 million for John McCain. This enabled the Obama campaign to outspend the McCain campaign 4 to 1 in Florida, 3 to 1 in Virginia, 2 to 1 in New Hampshire, and 3 to 1 in North Carolina. But, it wasn’t just the spending advantage that made the difference, it was how effectively the money was spent that was also crucial to Obama’s success.<br />
<br />
While the 2008 Obama campaign was the most technologically sophisticated presidential race ever conducted in American politics, it could not hold a candle to the technology that went into the 2012 race. In fact, here is how Balz describes the dawn of the 2012 presidential race...<br />
<blockquote>
<em>"From the moment Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, and every day thereafter, his team was always at work preparing for the coming campaign. Everyone said Obama’s 2008 operation had rewritten the book on organizing, and in some ways that was accurate. But 2008 was just a beginning, a small first step toward what Obama's team envisioned when they began planning the reelection campaign. In one of their first conversations about the reelection, Messina [2012 re-election campaign chairman, Jim Messina] said he told the president that the reason they could not rerun 2008 was because so much had changed in just two years. Technology had leapfrogged forward, with new devices, net platforms, and vastly more opportunities to exploit social media."</em></blockquote>
As previously noted, the bottom-up campaign strategy that the Obama team used successfully in 2008, and then again in 2012, had its genesis in 2004 with the Dean for America campaign (Vermont Governor Howard Dean's campaign for president) run by Joe Trippi. The Dean campaign that failed to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2004 was the prototype for the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2014.<br />
<br />
The Dean campaign is significant for a number of reasons. Although the internet and social media were in their infancy, Trippi has always had a strong interest in technology (he began his studies at San Jose State University in Aeronautical Engineering). This interest in technology and the internet made Trippi the right person in the right place at the right time. And, as it turns out, so was his candidate, Governor Howard Dean.<br />
<br />
The essence of this new approach to campaigning is not about the technology itself, but rather the use of technology that enabled a little known governor from Vermont to crash the national scene. Even with this technology Howard Dean would not have gained the traction he did had he not been an outlier, an anti-establishment candidate. Dean ran as an insurgent. He was able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as sign on hundreds of thousands of volunteers because he opposed the war (which most of his opposition had voted for it). His success also stemmed from the technology utilized by Joe Trippi to empower his grassroots supporters.<br />
<br />
Trippi's book is exceptionally well written, but my one criticism is that Trippi writes the book as if all history of presidential campaigning coincides with his coming of age politically in the 1960s and 70s. To hear Trippi tell it, there had never before has been such a grassroots, bottom up campaign for president and that it was only possible in 2004 thanks to the internet.<br />
<br />
That's just not true. I suspect that there have been lots of bottom up campaigns in the history of our nation. But, like Trippi, my knowledge is primarily limited to my own experience in politics. And, even before Dean and before Obama, there have been a number of political campaigns for president that originated at the grassroots and that were grassroots driven. The advent of the Internet and social media simply make it possible to do this faster and more thoroughly than ever before.<br />
<br />
The Goldwater for President campaign of 1964 and the McGovern for President campaign of 1972 were both bottom up, grassroots campaigns. Each of these campaigns has much in common with the Dean campaign of 2004 and the Obama campaign of 2008. Of course, the main difference is that Obama won, while Goldwater, McGovern and Dean lost. Nevertheless, there is much similarity between these races.<br />
<br />
In 1964 Barry Goldwater was a United States Senator, but he was clearly not a member of the Republican establishment. He was not a Republican insider any more than George McGovern was a Democratic insider, or Howard Dean was a Democratic insider. The Republican establishment hated Goldwater, much as McGovern and Dean were disliked by the Democratic establishment. Yet, all three of these men had vast followings for their principled positions on important issues.<br />
<br />
Goldwater had written a book, <em>Conscience of a Conservative</em>, that sold more than 10 million copies. It was a bold and reasoned treatise arguing for a roll back in big government, and a hard line against Communism. That book (penned by L. Brent Bozell, a brother-in-law of William F. Buckley, Jr.), and the bold conservative positions taken by this previously little know senator from the lightly populated state of Arizona ignited a revolution at the grassroots.<br />
<br />
As a personal anecdote I recall a gathering of our family at Christmas 1962. My older brothers were already out on their own and established in their careers. My oldest brother, Allen, was living in Los Angeles, and my brother Bob, and his wife, Kay, were living in Seattle. I was in my second year in college. We celebrated Christmas in Seattle, and when we arrived, each brother had a gift for the other two brothers. That gift was a Goldwater for President bumper strip. Without any coordination whatsoever, we had all become ardent Goldwater fans.<br />
<br />
Prior to the Goldwater campaign the Republican National Committee had just 25,000 big donors and the liberal eastern wing of the Republican Party ran the show. They picked the nominees for President and some of their leaders, like Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, were as liberal as the most liberal Democrat Senators. The Republican Party was in the firm grip of the moderate (read liberal) Republicans and they had no intention of letting go of it.<br />
<br />
Let go of it they did, but not without a fight. Barry Goldwater was a reluctant candidate, especially after his friend, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Marxist follower of Cuba’s Fidel Castro. But, Goldwater, and his book, symbolized growing unrest across the nation with expanding government, reduced individual freedom, and weakness in the face of Communist aggression around the globe. In the end, as my brother Bob put it, he found himself leading a conservative movement that he never fully comprehended. However, while Goldwater lost the election in dramatic fashion, conservatives were triumphant. They had taken over the Republican Party from top to bottom. It was a true political revolution that made possible the triumph of Ronald Reagan in 1980.<br />
<br />
In fact, Ronald Reagan, who prior to 1964 was known only as a Hollywood actor, played an instrumental role in the Goldwater campaign. Similar to making a video on YouTube today, Ronald Reagan gave a made for television speech that, when broadcast, went viral, to use today’s terms. It was funded entirely in California, outside of the official campaign apparatus. The speech was entitled <em>A Time for Choosing</em> and it was a classic. I had an opportunity to view it again about ten days ago, and I can report that even in black and white, this is still a powerful speech.<br />
<br />
Like a video on YouTube that goes viral, <em>A Time for Choosing</em> went viral. All across the nation activists obtained copies of the speech, and then showed it to local audiences. They also raised funds to pay for it to be broadcast over their local television station. Almost overnight, <em>A Time for Choosing</em> became the Goldwater campaign. Millions of dollars in small gifts poured in to pay for repeated airings of the Reagan movie. And indeed, without this movie, Ronald Reagan would have never been elected Governor of California, or President of the United States. It was a speech that changed the course of history.<br />
<br />
Prior to the Goldwater campaign the Republican National Committee had just 25,000 donors. By the end of the Goldwater campaign there were more than 500,000 donors to the Goldwater campaign. The funding base and the power base of the Republican Party was forever altered. But those 500,000 donors were not the extent of the grassroots effort on behalf of Goldwater. It was through bottom up grassroots campaigning that the insurgent Goldwater effort topped the Republican establishment choice for President, Nelson Rockefeller in the California primary. Tens of thousands of conservative activists walked precincts, rounding up every possible vote in that key primary. The race was initially called by Walter Cronkite on CBS for Rockefeller. But by the early morning, the tide shifted and Barry Goldwater won the California primary in a squeaker. Winning California was tantamount to winning the Republican nomination for president. And, shortly thereafter, in San Francisco, Goldwater became the Republican nominee for President.<br />
<br />
In those days before the advent of the Federal Election Commission and their myriad of election restrictions, individuals all across the nation spontaneously started Goldwater fund raising efforts and waged a campaign for Senator Goldwater with little support or interference from the national organization. Among the dozen or more such groups, I recall Gold for Goldwater, a group that raised and spent several million dollars on behalf of Goldwater.<br />
<br />
Joe Trippi hails the freedom of the Internet, and its ability to communicate up and down and side to side as revolutionary. Indeed it was. Similarly, prior to the advent of the Federal Election Commission, average citizens had the freedom to campaign for and raise funds for their favorite candidate without government regulation or interference. A lack of restrictions energized the entire political process and encouraged those at the grassroots to set up independent organizations for campaigning. The truth is that the advent of the FEC was not brought about by any true demand or need for protection of the average citizen. Rather it was created by the establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, to protect those in power. Instead of protecting citizens, it diminished the power and opportunity of the grassroots to participate in the political process.<br />
<br />
That is why the current ruling establishment would like nothing better than to regulate the Internet in the "public interest." And, of course, by public interest they are referring to the interest of the ruling class, the Republican and Democrat establishment.<br />
<br />
In 1972 Senator George McGovern took over the Democratic Party. McGovern had been a prairie radical his entire adult life. In 1948 he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. If you recall, it was at that convention that southern Democrats split off from the Democratic Party and formed the Dixiecrat Party whose nominee was Strom Thurmond. Harry Truman was eventually nominated at the 1948 convention. It was after Truman won a squeaker of an election over Thomas Dewey that the Democratic Party first proposed a version of socialized medicine. <br />
<br />
But, what is noteworthy, is that President Harry Truman was not liberal enough for George McGovern. When Truman was nominated in 1948, George McGovern left the Democratic Party and supported Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate for president. But, by 1972 the prairie radicals in the Democratic Party, led by George McGovern, had come of age. McGovern won the nomination only to lose in a landslide to Richard Nixon. However, had McGovern not won the nomination in 1972 and taken over control of the Democratic Party it would not have been possible for Barack Obama to be elected president in 2008.<br />
<br />
Prior to the nomination of George McGovern the Democratic Party was controlled by party bosses like Jim Farley, who relied on funding by the unions and from a limited number of wealthy individuals. However, after McGovern was nominated, direct mail whiz Morris Dees altered the funding base of the Democratic Party forever. Dees generated some 700,000 donors to the George McGovern campaign, thus undercutting the strength of the previous Democratic establishment. And, while McGovern was spurned by every union in America except the National Education Association, his nomination was the turning point for the radicalization of American unions. Of course, there had been union radicals before, like Harry Bridges of the Longshoreman's Union, but by and large AFL-CIO leaders like George Meany were anti-communist and pro capitalism. Today that has all changed. The Democratic Party and the Unions are in total control of Marxist radicals. None of this could have happened without the nomination of George McGovern whose campaign, like the Goldwater campaign before it, was from the grassroots up.<br />
<br />
What do Goldwater, McGovern and Dean all have in common? They are men who were disliked by the establishment, who took positions contrary to the political establishment, and whose message tapped into a large grassroots audience.<br />
<br />
None of this is to diminish the importance of what Joe Trippi accomplished in 2004 or his creativity and ingenuity in using the internet to empower the grassroots organization that was the backbone of the Howard Dean campaign. It is truly an amazing story. The Dean Campaign was a high wire effort that Trippi likens to jumping off a fifteen story building and counting on the grassroots supporters to catch you.<br />
<br />
And, Trippi correctly identifies the strength of an internet based campaign as its ability to be driven from the bottom up. He agrees that television revolutionized the campaigning process, but like all mediums before it, it pushed out information to the voters that the campaign thought the grassroots should receive. In contrast, the internet is a two way street that allows the grassroots to tell the campaign what they want, instead of the campaign telling the grassroots what they should do.<br />
<br />
And, the internet, especially social media like Facebook and Twitter, allow a campaign to gather public data on its volunteers and donors, thus enabling the campaign to reach them on issues they feel strongly about. More than that, the internet empowers individuals to take the initiative in a campaign, driving themes, and effectively running their own campaign effort on the local level. It means that campaigns must trust their volunteers and have confidence in them. The campaign must not think that they have all the good ideas. Trippi likens it to placing power in the hands of the folks at the grassroots to drive the train and take it to the right destination.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is this…the computer age, the internet age, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. have created new avenues of communication and coordination. They have empowered the grassroots activist. However, I do not believe these are tools that will work well for establishment candidates in either major political party. These tools work best for outsiders who have bucked the establishment and seek to lead a revolution. They work best for those who can energize the grassroots through issues and ideas.<br />
<br />
To effectively win on the national level today a candidate needs to be leading a charge that has a specifically defined objective that is popular at the grassroots level. It takes four things to win on the national level today…<br />
<ol>
<li>A powerful software platform that can identify and categorize prospective voters and donors</li>
<li>A strong grassroots organization built upon the software platform that is created</li>
<li>Early money that will help build the software platform, and</li>
<li>Sufficient time to raise the funds, build the software platform, and utilize the platform to organize and raise more funds</li>
</ol>
A presidential campaign that waits until a few month before the first presidential primary to raise funds, create a software platform, and then build an effective organization is destined to fail. This is not your father’s political landscape. This is a new era.<br />
<br />
Some prospective Republican candidates for 2016 have already lost the nomination and they don't know it. Other candidates or their surrogate SuperPAC have already raised early money, utilized technology, and are building a grassroots base. These are the candidates to watch. However, unless they are outside the establishment with a popular call to arms, they too will fail in their quest to win their party's nomination and after that the general election.<br />
<br />
A big donor base that can be accessed quickly in a fast moving delegate selection process is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Only those candidates who are making preparations now and who have legions of volunteers and supporters will have a chance of winning in 2016.Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-23199067152159200752014-03-28T13:36:00.000-07:002014-03-28T14:17:33.852-07:00Nothing Ever Changes<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMbQXOsmfU8okLiUtZEKC0b3iwLHzBohUqbpx7Faxnge6SRSEGyMlFAgsNe8dteJA_cS1VGIIDfE3JOZ3iWUGnV8-vGcq51XniqvZS8aNEK7nJv2vkcluFiMjsriWKBiG7Oj2nvFvO9ztx/s1600/P1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMbQXOsmfU8okLiUtZEKC0b3iwLHzBohUqbpx7Faxnge6SRSEGyMlFAgsNe8dteJA_cS1VGIIDfE3JOZ3iWUGnV8-vGcq51XniqvZS8aNEK7nJv2vkcluFiMjsriWKBiG7Oj2nvFvO9ztx/s1600/P1.jpg" /></a>Those on the left never learn anything from history. On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Adolph Hitler, Chancellor of NAZI (National Socialist Party) Germany ceding an area in Czechoslovakia they designated the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia was not<i> </i>a party to the negotiations. After betraying Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain flew back to London, and in triumph he proclaimed<i> "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."</i><br />
<br />
What Chamberlain really achieved, however, through his betrayal and appeasement, was the foundation for the worst war in the history of the world, World War II. Appeasement and excusing territorial expansion through the use of military force, always leads to war. And, if it does not lead to war, it leads to slavery.<br />
<br />
The argument made by Hitler for annexing the so-called Sudetenland was that the majority of the population was German. In similar fashion, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently argued that the majority of the population located in Crimea were Russians and therefore should be a part of Russia.<br />
<br />
Several years earlier, Putin had engineered the election of a pro-Russian Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. This was after the previous Ukrainian President, Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned. While it has not been confirmed, it appears that President Yushchenko was poisoned by the Russians. Since Putin is the former head of the KGB under the old Soviet Union, it is not inconceivable that he personally orchestrated the poisoning of Yushchenko.<br />
<br />
The election of Yanukovych led to great protests as the new, pro-Russian President, began to tie Ukraine more closely to Russia, instead of to NATO and Western Europe as the people desired. The Ukrainian people have not forgotten the intentional starvation of more than 20 million Ukrainians by Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin. Finally, Yanukovych was driven from office. When that happened, Putin realized that his grip over Ukraine was slipping away.<br />
<br />
Vladimir Putin took stock of the resolve of the West, especially the President of the United States, Barack Obama. After seeing Obama’s unwillingness to take action in Syria, his timidity in dealing with Iran, and his soft approach to North Korea, Putin acted decisively.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFCwLFJIjj1qc0dke4cArZ6LEyS2kHAXXRdatNR_05Ql9UhrvnsGhbQ6NfZ-CKApSqZwtnLrXoG52i6RRAOnio5jTWggU9wkd2G9OLOczqUUNXKHOgBjxgj7EPBEjZczRl2pwPNmpaIlIw/s1600/p2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFCwLFJIjj1qc0dke4cArZ6LEyS2kHAXXRdatNR_05Ql9UhrvnsGhbQ6NfZ-CKApSqZwtnLrXoG52i6RRAOnio5jTWggU9wkd2G9OLOczqUUNXKHOgBjxgj7EPBEjZczRl2pwPNmpaIlIw/s1600/p2.jpg" /></a></div>
Using the same pretext as Hitler used to invade Poland in 1939, Putin launched an invasion of the Crimean region of Ukraine. Facing little or no resistance, Russia annexed Crimea quickly, thus initiating the beginning the reconstitution of the old Soviet Union. Crimea provides Putin with important military ports on the Black Sea and other economic advantages.<br />
<br />
As I write this, Russian troops are massed on the border of what remains of Ukraine. It is not hard to imagine what is coming. I suspect it will play out similar to what happened in Poland just prior to World War II.<br />
<br />
On September 1, 1939, just one week after Germany signed a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, Germany attacked Poland from the West. Then on September 17, of the same year, the Soviet Union attacked Poland from the East. By October 6, Poland was defeated, and Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin had divided up Poland, with each taking roughly half.<br />
<br />
The laughable pretext for the invasion of Poland by NAZI Germany was that Poland had actually attacked Germany. When visiting Poland a couple of year ago, my wife, Kathi, and I took a guided tour of Gdansk. The tour was led by a young man who grew up in Soviet controlled Poland. His parents and his grandfather were ardent fans of Ronald Reagan, and this young man gave total credit to President Reagan and Pope John Paul for the defeat of the Soviet Union. And, even though his family had suffered much from the time Poland was captured by Hitler and Stalin, he had maintained his sense of humor. He shared this quip with us,<i> “We Poles say that it is God’s little joke that he located Poland between Germany and Russia.”</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
After Putin annexed Crimea, there was much huffing and puffing by the White House. Secretary of State, John Kerry, intoned something to the effect that this is totally inappropriate in the 21st Century. Like Obama, Kerry talks like a college professor who lives in an alternate world. They talk about what should be, not what is. For quite some time President Obama said that he refused to recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea, whatever that means.<br />
<br />
It was the Obama administration, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that announced that they had pushed the “reset button” in relations with Russia. You see, in the eyes of liberals like Obama, Clinton, and Kerry, it is the United States that has been the number one cause of problems in the world. All throughout the Cold War, liberals wrote articles and gave speeches drawing a moral equivalence between the United States and the Soviet Union. In their eyes, the United States was no less responsible for tensions between the two superpowers than was the Soviet Union. If only America would be more understanding and more conciliatory, we could solve our problems, they said.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4fGazYUNXhnf98NELmxk2VCoLrzFCNofdIzRlo9CbLi_x-8ZeMTqeAvO0JFtHH0CQsSaF0OqekmQAibHB9aJ3cBYou2QTiQSTeHB5i_GCtwBM0K8F2CD0HQXSFO_cX7W-qCdBX0ffoFYf/s1600/p3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4fGazYUNXhnf98NELmxk2VCoLrzFCNofdIzRlo9CbLi_x-8ZeMTqeAvO0JFtHH0CQsSaF0OqekmQAibHB9aJ3cBYou2QTiQSTeHB5i_GCtwBM0K8F2CD0HQXSFO_cX7W-qCdBX0ffoFYf/s1600/p3.jpg" /></a>Liberals were totally opposed to the arms buildup under President Ronald Reagan. They said that it only increased tensions with the Soviet Union. They even opposed defensive missiles on the grounds that to install such missiles was an act of aggression that would encourage a nuclear attack by the Soviets. In his second term, Ronald Reagan met with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík, Iceland to negotiate an arms treaty. Gorbachev insisted that Reagan abandon his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which the American left derisively called “Star Wars.” When Ronald Reagan refused to do so, Gorbachev refused to sign the arms reduction treaty. The news media, the Democratic Party, and leftists of all shades were outraged that Reagan would not abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and sign the treaty. They said that Reagan failed at Reykjavík, that he missed a wonderful opportunity to reduce the chance of war. They could not have been more wrong. Reagan knew that having the upper hand was the only way to bring down the Soviet Union and free the people held captive by that ruthless police state. The Soviet Union was, as Ronald Reagan said, <i>“an evil empire.” </i>It was a description that the left hated and derided.<br />
<br />
Mikhail Gorbachev later wrote that it was when Ronald Reagan refused to abandon SDI that he knew that the end of the Soviet Union was inevitable. While the American left believes in peace through weakness, the real path to peace is through strength, as Ronald Reagan understood.<br />
<br />
During his second term in office, George Bush signed an agreement with Poland agreeing to install an anti-missile defense in that nation. One headline blared, <i>“Will Bush ignite another Cold War with Russia by placing missiles in Poland?”</i><br />
<br />
But, when Barack Obama took office he scrapped that agreement and refused to install the missile defense system in Poland because Russia opposed it. It was part and parcel of his hitting the reset button with Russia. It was the beginning of his efforts to appease Russia and encourage the bear to be friendly. Today, Eastern Europe is reaping the whirlwind of Obama’s reset of relations with Russia. Obama’s goal is to reduce American power, and he has gone far in accomplishing that goal.<br />
<br />
And yet, we are still the only superpower in the world, but this Administration is embarrassed that we are. They refuse to project our power to discourage tyrants like Putin. The United States has the power to economically cripple Russia by signing an agreement to sell natural gas to Western Europe and opening up federal lands to fracking. Today, Germany, France, et. al. are held captive by the natural gas and oil they depend on from Russia. By simply eliminating this threat, we free up Western Europe to join us in financially crippling Russia.<br />
<br />
But, we should not presume that economic austerity alone will deter Russia from taking all of Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and the other nations that were enslaved by the old Soviet Union. After all, the old Soviet dictators were satisfied as long as they remained in power to have their citizens live in economic misery. Why should we think that Putin is any different? Now is the time to reinstate of our agreement with Poland to install missiles in that nation and any other nation that seeks to deter Russian aggression. In addition, we should agree to sell advanced military weaponry to Ukraine and all other friendly nations in Eastern Europe.<br />
<br />
Like everyone else in the United States I am weary of war. However, I do not believe it is necessary to go to war to deter Russian aggression. By signing mutual defense treaties, enlarging NATO, providing arms, and using every means at our disposal to economically cripple Russia, we have the opportunity to not only stop Russian aggression, but also encourage the downfall of Putin in Russia. The Russian people have no desire to fall under the grip of Putin the dictator. He is corrupt, dangerous, and evil.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3P5FPqehrB8iO_uKPg30hstOCet7_jlLySoCstA91whh5qYs_b8nGH5s3mIpTZvrUgxmFaj_tG63FDAG8VlDcpCm9oRFusp7BvPxgtCZiQMZ6uUVLgZlKuNvvm2Kokl0EC7_eeI6ceSDy/s1600/p4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3P5FPqehrB8iO_uKPg30hstOCet7_jlLySoCstA91whh5qYs_b8nGH5s3mIpTZvrUgxmFaj_tG63FDAG8VlDcpCm9oRFusp7BvPxgtCZiQMZ6uUVLgZlKuNvvm2Kokl0EC7_eeI6ceSDy/s1600/p4.jpg" /></a>In fact, it is the misunderstanding of human nature that is at the heart of all the miscalculations and misguided policies of the left. Liberals have told me that they believe they are an elite group and that they have achieved an ethical plane that is above the common man. They don’t believe that man is by nature evil as the Bible teaches. They believe that they have risen above that description and that they can lead others to a higher ethical level if only given the chance. That’s where the term progressive comes from—meaning progress to a higher ethical level. It was this false belief that led our first progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, to re-segregate the South because, in his view, African Americans had not yet reached the necessary ethical plane to work, go to school, and live alongside white Americans. And, it is this misunderstanding of human nature that results in all sorts of mischief by liberal politicians. If people would just act like they should, we could create a nearly utopian society, they say.<br />
<br />
But, alas human nature is corrupt and will always be so. It was this understanding by our Founders that led them to create checks and balances in our government, keeping any one man or group of men from having too much power. Sadly, liberals don’t live in in the real world, they live in their own mythical world. Because of this, they have led our nation into war, they have created monstrous schemes that reduce individual freedom, they have ensnared the poor in permanent poverty, and they have rejected traditional moral values. Liberals and their policies are dangerous. Nothing ever changes.Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-64296139218042055972014-02-07T08:06:00.000-08:002014-02-07T08:06:48.237-08:00Obamacare by Any Other Name…The great liberal political scheme to make more Americans dependent upon government for their well-being, the so-called Affordable Care Act, has turned out to be the disaster its original opponents said it would be. President Obama once proclaimed that he was rather fond of the nickname given to the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. But, alas, that pleasure has turned into chagrin. After the disastrous roll out of the latest liberal scheme to have the government take charge of your personal health care, the name Obamacare has disappeared from the lips of the President and all those who supported it. This, of course, includes the compliant whores of the national news media who have abandoned any sense of objectivity in favor of becoming Obama’s top cheerleaders. Obamacare is no more; long live the Affordable Care Act they proclaim. With apologies to William Shakespeare, Obamacare by any other name still smells like a pile of moose dung.<br />
<br />
George Orwell was prescient. The liberal answer to solve the problems of something that doesn’t work is to simply change the name. But, simply reverting to the official name, the Affordable Care Act, is like putting lipstick on a pig. A pig is still a pig, no matter how much lipstick it wears.<br />
<br />
The failure of Obamacare has little to do with a bad website that is neither secure, nor workable. It has nothing to do with the fact that the President lied when he said, <i>"If you like your health insurance, you can keep it, period!"</i> The problem is not that some of the so-called health navigators are former and future criminals. Neither is the problem the high cost, the low quality, or the death panels (yes, it turns out that Sarah Palin was right and the New York Times was wrong, there are death panels). Nor is the trouble with Obamacare the fact that you will not be able to keep your doctor, or that there will be a shortage of hospital beds, and medical practitioners. It's not even the fact that Obamacare and other socialist schemes are outside of the Constitutional purview of Congress, and the President. <br />
<br />
All those problems associated with Obamacare are just symptoms of the underlying cause of the failure of all socialist schemes. It is an actuarial fact that both Social Security and Medicare are financially insolvent. In fact, the official name of what we call Social Security is the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Program. In other words, it was sold to the American people as an insurance program. Now, as you may know, insurance companies are heavily regulated by the federal government. One very important requirement the feds place on insurance companies is that they maintain sufficient reserves to cover all future claims. If an insurance company does not maintain such reserves, it is not only closed down, its officers and directors end up behind bars. They go to federal prison.<br />
<br />
But, while the federal government imposes these safeguards on insurance companies, there are no similar safeguards imposed on members of Congress. To put it quite bluntly, Social Security, like all socialist fantasies, is a Ponzi scheme. Actually, that’s unfair to Ponzi and even to Bernie Madoff. Both Ponzi and Madoff were pikers compared to the politicians who created and continue to promote and maintain Social Security, Medicare, and now, Obamacare.<br />
<br />
Instead of sending the socialist bamboozlers off to prison, we continue to elect them each year. And, they pride themselves for their compassion, their caring, and for their concern for others. While some of their followers actually believe in these bad ideas, most of today's politicians are far beyond that. They know they don't work, they know these schemes are failures, but for them, the goal is not to create workable programs, but to gain power over others. It is not without justification that politics is often referred to as the second oldest profession in the world.<br />
<br />
Why is it that all socialist schemes are financially unsustainable? Why won't they ever work? Why, when you compare them with free market solutions to a myriad of problems, do government programs not only fail, but get progressively worse as the years go by? And, why, in stark contrast, do solutions to problems provided by the private sector, i.e. free market capitalism, continue to get better and better as time goes by?<br />
<br />
For example, televisions that were invented by private entrepreneurs have continued to become better and less costly as the years have gone by. Telephones and automobiles have continued to get better and better. Charles Edison, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates revolutionized the world. They did so because they were visionaries who worked hard and took risk that greatly improved the lives of American citizens. <br />
<br />
In contrast, the US Postal Service (and all bureaus, divisions and departments of government) continue to decline in efficiency and performance. And, while the cost of televisions and other technology continues to decline as quality improves, the price of mail delivery continues to rise while the reliability of delivery declines.<br />
<br />
Why is it that government services are always poor and inferior while free market capitalism always works? Whether it is medical care, retirement benefits, or mail delivery, government always comes out in a distant second place. The choice is really between freedom and government. The free, competitive marketplace demands that businesses focus on the needs and desires of consumers. Government has no such focus. The goal of those in government is to perpetuate themselves in power.<br />
<br />
Are the people in government worse and more easily corruptible than those outside of government? No, they are all mortals, cut from the same cloth. They are the same flawed individuals, but the outcome is totally different. Why?<br />
<br />
The answer is simple. It is easy to permanently corrupt the political process, but it is extremely difficult to corrupt the free market process. Think about it. When Social Security first passed, it was relatively sound financially. In fact, it remained so for a number of years. Yet, the ultimate trajectory was absolutely predictable.<br />
<br />
It turns out that the political process is relatively easy to corrupt. Politicians, no matter the party, always have one primary goal in mind—to get re-elected or to move up the political ladder to a higher political office. By the early 1900s, politicians realized that they could perpetuate themselves in power by raising taxes and then doling out goods and services to political groups who, in return, support them for re-election. Never mind the fact that there was absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to support such a process. Once they got over that hurdle, the gold rush was on! <br />
<br />
A good example of this process exists at the state level. With the advent of unionization of state government employees (another brilliant idea courtesy of California Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown), political corruption was raised to a new level. It works like this. Let’s say I work for the State of California. By law, I am required to join a union in order to hold a state government job. The union boss in charge of my union approaches state legislators and demands higher pay and platinum retirement benefits. In return, he or she agrees to donate heavily to the re-election of those legislators who support such compensation and benefits. That's corruption, pure and simple. And, it's legal.<br />
<br />
At the national level the political game works like this. The Democratic Party identifies a voting bloc that it can capture by giving them some benefit, such as Social Security, Medicare or Obamacare. Once that voting bloc becomes dependent on that benefit, the Democrats can count on getting their votes each election day. It is bribery, and the irony is that the people have been bribed with their own money!<br />
<br />
Unlike the constraints imposed on businesses in the free marketplace, there is no objective, fair mechanism to set compensation or benefits for government workers. Neither is there any incentive to make the system work better or more efficiently. And, lacking any incentive or job insecurity, the system continues to erode and decline as the years pass. <br />
<br />
It's all there, sitting right in front of us. I’ve had jobs in government (City of St. Joseph and the U.S. Army) and in the free market. The contrast is shocking. There is incredible inefficiency and disorganization in government, including the Department of Defense. In contrast, a business competing in the free market must work hard, and scramble to stay competitive. Entrepreneurship is a high wire act, focused on serving your customers better than your competition, knowing that failure to do so means closing your doors. It's a struggle that never ceases. But, liberals just don't get it.<br />
<br />
In fact, a liberal would argue that the allocation of goods and services based on success in the free market is neither fair, nor just. They tell successful businessmen and women that they are just lucky in the lottery of life. The fact that a successful person works long hours, takes great risks, and has educated himself or herself to the level needed for success is immaterial. After all, a liberal would argue, successful people were born with advantages of intellect, risk taking, capital, or drive that others do not have. In short, liberals conclude that business people achieve success strictly by luck. As President Obama said, "<i>You didn’t build that."</i><br />
<br />
I know, it's a strange, almost weird argument that is out of touch with reality, but it is the only argument liberals have. In short, liberals believe the world is unjust and imperfect. Duh! Early on I tried my best to disabuse my children of the idea that the world was just and fair. It’s not, and it never will be, and if a few control the lives of many, the more unjust and unfair it will be. <br />
<br />
The idea that the individual decisions in regard to health care, retirement, transportation, communications, and more are best decided by a few powerful politicians and bureaucrats will work better than the individual decisions of millions of Americans is pure nonsense. Socialism has a very consistent track record. Never once has it worked anywhere.<br />
<br />
Liberals seem to be mad at God (that is, if they believe in God) because He didn’t create every man and woman equal in circumstances, talents and ability. God, for whatever reasons of His own, did not create all men and women equal. I wanted to play baseball and throw an 85 mile per hour curve ball, but I was not blessed with the God given ability to develop such skills. There are no two human beings alike. We are all unique and different. We are only the same in the eyes of God who blesses us as He chooses with the talents He desires.<br />
<br />
So, that while men and women who work in freedom (the free market) are all subject to the same potential corruption and failures of those who work for government, they simply do not have as many opportunities to defraud the public as do public officials and bureaucrats. The marketplace is simply too demanding. In the free market, Social Security would have gone out of business as soon as its cash reserves were insufficient to cover future claims. Its officers and directors would have gone to jail. Yet, it continues to go forward with no financial reserves, using the funds that come in each year to cover the outflow to those long retired.<br />
<br />
Medicare is, like Social Security, financially insolvent. One wonders why, if both Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt, we would pass yet another failed socialist scheme. But, politicians are not subject to the same constraints and countervailing pressures of the free market. They don’t care about success, they just care about getting re-elected, and about gaining more power.<br />
<br />
In the marketplace, a businessman or woman has to compete to gain success. They have to be innovative, efficient and hard working in order to survive. They can't print money to cover their stupidity and mistakes. Entrepreneurs always walk along the edge of a financial cliff. No matter how successful they are, they are never far away from failure and bankruptcy. If they don't operate efficiently and offer goods and services at the right price, they go out of business. If they offer shoddy goods or services, they also go out of business. Freedom is very demanding.<br />
<br />
Freedom demands that workers work hard. It demands that business owners deliver superior products and services. It demands self-reliance and self-responsibility, by worker and employer alike. Freedom creates a permanent state of uncertainty, yet in reality, freedom is our only security. All security offered by the government is illusory. The government can only give to you what it first takes from you, with a big slice taken out for the politicians and the bureaucrats.<br />
<br />
Social Security is really no security at all. Medicare does not provide security. And, Obamacare will not provide security. None of these government schemes are sustainable. They are simply liberal fantasies designed to delude and seduce voters into supporting candidates who seek power and denigrate individual freedom.<br />
<br />
It turns out that our only real security lies with God. It's the same security the Pilgrims relied upon. It's the security that the signers of the Declaration of Independence relied upon. It's the security that the Founders relied upon.<br />
<br />
But, freedom is fragile. If you strip away freedom's foundation—faith in God—it cannot long survive. When faith dies, compassion dies, self responsibility dies, and nations become ripe for tyranny. Hope never rests with government or with men, it always depends on God. <br />
<br />
Could it be that Obamacare is the high water mark of the ill conceived ideology that has festered in America since the turn of the previous century? Like Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, historians may look back upon the Obama presidency as a similar futile episode that threatened our land. And, Lord willing, Obamacare may turn out to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and steered our nation back toward the Constitutional republic designed by our forefathers. May God continue to bless the United States of America. Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-25832190882659181182014-01-28T10:44:00.000-08:002014-01-28T10:44:22.660-08:00Why I’m Not Listening to the State of the Union MessageThe Constitution mandates that every year the President of the United States shall report to Congress the state of the union. Such reports as prescribed by the Constitution have long since disappeared. In their place we have political speeches.<br />
<br />
George Washington gave the first State of the Union message to Congress on January 8, 1790, in the provisional capitol of New York City. The topics of his address are illuminating. He dealt with the performance of the federal government as specified by the United States Constitution and the preamble to that Constitution. It was not a political speech, but rather a report to Congress as to how effective the government was in fulfilling its very limited responsibilities under the Constitution, and how successful it was in avoiding interference into the lives of the citizens of the land.<br />
<br />
Since one of the two enumerated responsibilities of the new government was to provide for the common defense, President Washington commented directly on that matter. He said, in part…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard.— To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."</i></blockquote>
<br />
In other words, his advice was an early version of Ronald Reagan's axiom, peace through strength. <br />
Washington talked in his address about trade relations with other nations, and about the importance of uniform currency, weights and measures. He also reminded the Congress that the future of the nation depended upon informed, free citizens, saying…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"And by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of Society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilence against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Edmund Burke, the great British member of parliament and philosopher, could not have said it better. Liberty is fragile and exists only when government is minimal, law stands above the rule of man, and the people understand the foundations of freedom.<br />
President Washington concluded his address with these simple, yet profound words…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The welfare of our Country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed. And I shall derive great satisfaction from a co-operation with you, in the pleasing tho arduous task of ensuring to our fellow-citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient and equal Government."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Although the Constitution directed the President of the United States to make an annual report to Congress on the state of the union, it did not say that report had to be given in person. Washington’s successor, John Adams, followed his lead and spoke to Congress in person. In his speech, he addressed national security issues and the problem of piracy that threatened American commerce. He went on to say…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Although I can not yet congratulate you on the reestablishment of peace in Europe and the restoration of security to the persons and properties of our citizens from injustice and violence at sea, we have, nevertheless, abundant cause of gratitude to the source of benevolence and influence for interior tranquillity and personal security, for propitious seasons, prosperous agriculture, productive fisheries, and general improvements, and, above all, for a rational spirit of civil and religious liberty and a calm but steady determination to support our sovereignty, as well as our moral and our religious principles, against all open and secret attacks."</i></blockquote>
<br />
President Adams provided a thorough accounting to Congress of issues specified as the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution. He ended with this admonition in regard to public debt…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Since the decay of the feudal system, by which the public defense was provided for chiefly at the expense of individuals, the system of loans has been introduced, and as no nation can raise within the year by taxes sufficient sums for its defense and military operations in time of war the sums loaned and debts contracted have necessarily become the subjects of what have been called funding systems. The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own. The national defense must be provided for as well as the support of Government; but both should be accomplished as much as possible by immediate taxes, and as little as possible by loans."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Adam's successor, Thomas Jefferson, abhorred the rule of Kings, and to him, giving a public address to Congress smacked of a monarch addressing those he ruled. Thus, he declined to speak, but sent a written report instead. This practice of sending a written report continued until it was broken by the father of the income tax, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson felt very comfortable in the role of a monarch and, in fact, ushered in the relentless growth of government above and beyond the constraints intended by the Founders as written in the Constitution. Wilson’s presidency was the beginning of the end of the rule of law in the nation, and it was the beginning of the growth of government into a powerful, all-controlling state.<br />
<br />
However, Calvin Coolidge, who became President upon the death of Wilson's successor, Warren G. Harding, reverted to the policy of Thomas Jefferson, that of sending a written report to Congress. Since that time, with the advent of radio and then television, State of the Union messages by the President have gone far afield of their Constitutional intent, and resemble instead a political speech directed not at Congress, but at the voters across the nation.<br />
<br />
It is worth recounting the state of the union message of President Coolidge, in regard to the fiscal status of the government…<br />
<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Our main problems are domestic problems. Financial stability is the first requisite of sound government. We can not escape the effect of world conditions. We can not avoid the inevitable results of the economic disorders which have reached all nations. But we shall diminish their harm to us in proportion as we continue to restore our Government finances to a secure and endurable position. This we can and must do. Upon that firm foundation rests the only hope of progress and prosperity. From that source must come relief for the people."</i></blockquote>
<br />
It was this type of common sense that enabled Coolidge to lead the nation away from a very precarious financial situation and back to the kind of broad prosperity that is unknown by a socialist system, but is the hallmark of a free market that is minimally restricted by regulations and taxes.<br />
<br />
So it is that President Barack Obama will once again give a so-called State of the Union message to Congress and to the nation. As with virtually every President before him, he will pronounce the state of the nation to be good. But, I will not be watching.<br />
<br />
Why will I not be watching? The answer is that there is hardly one word uttered from the mouth of this President that can be trusted or believed. His lies are public and as many as the stars in the sky. There are so many, it is impossible to recount them all. He and his political team almost certainly instituted the Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme for political purposes. As a result, one border agent, Brian Terry, died and hundreds of Mexicans have died. The goal was to constrict your right to keep and bear arms, but instead it exposed a corrupt president and corrupt Attorney General.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama lied about Obamacare, saying, <i>"If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period."</i> It was a lie and he knew it was a lie from the beginning. He knew it would not become law if he did not tell this lie. That's why he told this lie over and over and over again. As a result, millions of Americans have lost their medical insurance coverage, and millions more will lose it in the future. In addition, the financial burden of this socialist fantasy will further delay, perhaps permanently, a return to economic prosperity.<br />
<br />
We now know that Barack Obama lied about Benghazi. He knew from the very beginning that the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with an anti-Muslim video, yet he repeated the bald faced lie that it was for two weeks after an American Ambassador and, other brave Americans were murdered. Our president was willing to let men die in order to get re-elected.<br />
<br />
The President lied about the IRS. First, he said he knew nothing about it and promised to get to the bottom of it and correct it. Now, he has changed his story, saying that the targeting was correct and it was to protect the public. This undoubtedly was another scheme cooked up by the White House political team to help the President get re-elected.<br />
<br />
On and on and on it goes. President Obama repeatedly says one thing and then does exactly the opposite.<br />
So, that's one reason I won't be listening to the State of the Union message. The words the President utters mean absolutely nothing. It's no wonder that more than 70% of the American people don't trust the President. They shouldn't!<br />
<br />
The second reason I won't be listening is that this President is completely and totally ignorant of economics. He has no clue whatsoever of how things work or that freedom is the secret strength of America. Nor does he understand that freedom is not divisible. You can't pick and choose your freedoms. Either freedom exists in the marketplace or all freedom vanishes. Either freedom of speech exists, or all other freedoms disappear. Either freedom of religion exists, or all other freedoms are endangered.<br />
<br />
His circumvention of Congress on the day of his State of the Union message by issuing an Executive Order setting a new minimum wage for federal employees, not only exhibits his contempt for the Constitution, but also his total ignorance of economics. The so-called minimum wage law is the primary cause of limiting access to the ladder of opportunity to poor Americans. It denies opportunities, especially to the poor, to obtain their first entry level job, and without a first job, there can never been a second job, or an opportunity for advancement at your first job. It is abject economic ignorance to believe that government can set prices or wages. Only the free market can set prices and wages fairly. And, when government interferes by trying to set a minimum wage, it hurts the very people it will supposedly help. <br />
<br />
When the price of wages goes beyond the free market value of that job, the employer either has to employ automation, or terminate the service in order to survive. Government intervention into the marketplace may benefit a few at the expense of many. Often, a so-called black market appears, but in reality it is simply the free market serving suppliers and consumers at the best possible prices. It is clear that President Barack Obama is totally ignorant of how an economy functions. Government is an impediment to universal prosperity and to lifting people out of poverty. Since government is not subject to the marketplace, the impact of President Obama's Executive Order will be limited to higher taxes on Americans. But, while the passage of a new minimum wage law by Congress may be good politics for the uninformed voter, it is bad law. It will destroy jobs and opportunity.<br />
<br />
It is because of government that extensive poverty continues to exist in our land. Let us not forget that the origin of minimum wage laws is racism. They were designed by unions to deny employment opportunities to minorities, especially African Americans. If you read the Congressional Record of the debate that took place about the Davis Bacon Act (the 1931 act requiring that only union labor be used in government construction projects), you will find blatant racist comments by Democrat Congressmen from New York, as well as from other parts of the nation. It was designed expressly to deny black Americans an opportunity to participate in construction projects funded by the federal government. Up until that time, African Americans were heavily involved in the construction industry, but thanks to that law, they have never fully recovered their position there. <br />
<br />
Similar to the Davis Bacon Act, minimum wage laws were created to artificially benefit union workers. And, remember, each and every time wages are artificially inflated due to government preference in the form of a union shop, all consumers are penalized. And, foreign competition benefits, as it did in the auto industry.<br />
<br />
Up until this Administration, all Presidents did their best to unify our nation. They encouraged productivity by both employees and employers. They respected the heritage of our nation and revered the wisdom of America’s Founders. This President has made it clear that he has no use whatsoever for the wisdom and counsel of the Founders. He is a Marxist through and through. Only Marxists talk about redistribution of income and inequality of outcomes. Those who love and cherish freedom talk about the opportunity that comes from living in a nation of low taxes, few regulations, and limited government. We encourage love and understanding, not division, envy and jealousy. We form the backbone of compassionate America, the individuals who voluntarily give generously to help their fellow man, and to fund a myriad of nonprofit organizations that enrich the fabric of our nation.<br />
<br />
Conservatives don't use the agency of government to compel our fellow citizens to support charitable cause that we deem worthwhile. Rather we use persuasion and encouragement and our own dollars to intervene in the lives of others to help them overcome adversity. We don't believe that taking tax dollars at the point of a gun is compassion, no matter how worthwhile the cause. <br />
<br />
Americans believe in unity, and common respect for others, and they believe in traditional moral values as enumerated most clearly in the Ten Commandments. We trust in God's wisdom and justice, not in the vagaries of fallen man. We revere America's Founders and share their understanding that all men are imperfect. <br />
<br />
We endeavor to tell the truth at all times and to rely upon integrity and honor, rather than cunning and scheming, to accomplish our ends. And, we reject the idea that the end justifies the means.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama has little to nothing in common with the values and principles of the Founders. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of his skin. It has everything to do with the corruptness of his ideology. It is an ideology that is antithetical to American values and tradition. It threatens to undo the greatness of America and turn this nation into just another soft European tyranny, or worse.<br />
<br />
When President Barack Obama says that <i>"I can't wait for Congress to act"</i> and that he has a phone and a pen that he will use to go around Congress, he is violating the rule of law and acting like a dictator. To go around Congress is to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America. <br />
<br />
Make no mistake about it, corrupt politicians like Barack Obama will use the power of government to deny health care to those who oppose them. They will spy on them, they will restrict them, they will harass them, they will stomp on their liberties. They will sic the IRS on them, and do whatever is necessary to maintain political power. Power, it’s what all politicians lust after and once the people surrender their power to the bureaucrats and the politicians, our republic will be dead.<br />
<br />
No, I will not listen to a liar, nor will I listen to an authoritarian wannabe. Instead, I will continue to work hard to save this nation for my children and my grandchildren. I want to restore this nation to the land of the free, where every child has an opportunity to climb the ladder of success as far and as fast as they can go based on their willingness to work hard, to take risk, and as God blesses them. That is the America I grew up in, and by the grace of God, that is the nation my children and all the children of America will inherit.Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-85862989968228339542014-01-10T11:53:00.000-08:002014-01-10T11:53:04.256-08:00Baseball<br />
In about 35 days Major League pitchers and catchers report to spring training camps in Florida and Arizona. It’s a ritual that has been going on since the 1800s. The Cincinnati Red Stockings and the Chicago White Stockings held spring training camps in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1870. The Washington Capitals held a spring training camp in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1888. <br />
<br />
By 1900, virtually all teams held spring training camps in Florida and Arizona. Thus began the annual ritual not only of the teams themselves, but also of the fans getting out of the cold weather in the North to sit in the warm sunshine and watch their team prepare for the regular season that opened in early May, or in mid April, as it does today. <br />
<br />
Early on, spring training was typically tied to barnstorming tours where the major league teams played local clubs who wanted to see how they stacked up against the big boys. Barnstorming was also a way for major league baseball players to make some money. Even after World War II, the salaries of the typical major league player were very modest. <br />
<br />
In his book, White Rat, Whitey Herzog talks about getting along financially as a baseball player in the mid 1950s through the early 1960s. When Herzog was playing for the Washington Senators (1956-58) he lived in a trailer, because that was the most he could afford on his salary. <br />
<br />
When Herzog played for the Kansas City Athletics (1958-60) he lived in a home that he built. But, even then, during the off season he umpired at high school basketball games and operated a small construction company just to pay his bills.<br />
<br />
Herzog was never a great player, but he was dedicated. His lifetime batting average was .254. He hit 25 home runs and had 172 RBIs in 634 games. Of course, he went on to be one of the greatest managers in the game, being inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2010. One of Herzog’s greatest lines was, “Baseball was good to me after I quit playing it.” And, indeed while he never really made any significant money as a player, he was well compensated as a field manager. After short stints as a base coach, interim field manager, and in charge of player development of several teams, Herzog became manager of the Kansas City Royals in 1975. There he won three straight American League Western division titles. But, his greatest success was as the field manager of the St. Louis Cardinals where he was famous for “Whiteyball,” the nickname for the team he built on a foundation of base running speed. In St. Louis he won the 1982 World Series and the National League Pennant in 1985 and 1987. <br />
<br />
Until 1947, the vast majority of Major League teams held spring training in Florida for the practical reason that the farthest team west was the St. Louis Cardinals. It made no economic sense to train out west, when Florida was much closer to the fan base of the teams. But in 1947 the New York Giants and the Cleveland Indians were persuaded to train in Arizona. It is true that a number of MLB teams had trained out west prior to World War II, most notably the Chicago Cubs, who first trained in Santa Monica in 1905 and then trained on California’s Catalina Island from 1922 to 1942, and again in 1950-51. The incentive for the Cubs to train on Catalina Island was the fact that the team owner, William Wrigley Jr., the chewing gum magnet, was the owner of the Cubs and the owner of Catalina Island where he wintered. Other teams trained in California so that they could barnstorm their way back home, earning money for the players and expanding support for the team. <br />
<br />
Similar to the draw for the Cubs to Catalina Island, was the draw of Arizona to the Cleveland Indians. The Cactus League became a reality in 1947, when Horace Stoneham’s New York Giants and Bill Veeck’s Cleveland Indians took up residence in Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Veeck (Veeck as in wreck he would say) owned a ranch near Tucson. Bill Veeck went on to be the most innovative and future looking, if madcap, owner in baseball. <br />
<br />
During his time in baseball, Veeck was the owner of the Cleveland Indians, the St. Louis Browns and the Chicago White Sox. In 1947, he signed the first black baseball player in the American league, Larry Doby, and later that year signed the ageless Satchel Paige, who became, at the time of his signing, the oldest rookie in the history of baseball. <br />
<br />
In 1948, Lou Boudreau hit .355 and that propelled Cleveland to its first pennant and World Series since 1920. Not afraid to be wacky, Veeck famously buried the 1948 pennant once it became obvious that the team would not repeat in 1949. One of Veeck’s most memorable publicity stunts was the hiring of the 3 foot 7 inch Eddie Gaedel. On August 19, 1951, Veeck sent Gaedel to the plate to pinch hit. Gaedel’s uniform number was “1/8” and yes, he walked on four straight pitches and then was pulled for a pinch runner.<br />
<br />
But, back to spring training. Today, baseball spring training is bigger and better than ever before. The facilities are nicer and bigger than they have ever been. And, it’s often difficult to get tickets to spring training games because the demand continues to grow each year. Tens of thousands of fans make attending the spring training of their favorite team an annual ritual. There’s a special camaraderie among both fans and players as practices begin. <br />
<br />
And, then when the actual games begin, the stands fill up. No one wants to miss the first appearance of a heralded rookie, or see their favorite player take the field or hit one out of the park. And, at the beginning of each regular season, every fan holds out hope that “this is the year” for his or her team.<br />
<br />
Of course, there are lots of great sports played in the United States. There are the timed rectangular sports of football, soccer, basketball, rugby, hockey, etc. where you score points by making it to the other end of the rectangle and dropping your ball, puck, or whatever in a hoop, a net, or score simply by bringing it across the goal line. These sports can be lots of fun and bring lots of excitement. <br />
<br />
But, as for me, give me that special green diamond that is unlike any other sport in the world. It has a special magnetism, a special draw that is different than any other sport. And, I must not be alone in this feeling since the number of people who annually watch baseball at all levels far outnumbers any other sport. For instance, the annual attendance of several triple A baseball teams is much higher than the annual attendance of the highest attended National Football League team. I know, a NFL team only plays 16 games per year, just one tenth of those played by the fellows on the diamond. Nevertheless. Baseball has a certain long term drawing power that no other sport can match.<br />
<br />
While the NFL has seen a decline in television viewership and attendance over the last few years, attendance at MLB games has continued to grow. And, the fascination of Americans with baseball isn’t just as a spectator sport. Millions of Americans—young, middle aged and even older—play baseball each year. And, across the globe, in places as far away as Russia and Italy, baseball continues to grow in popularity. Of course, in Latin America and in the far East, baseball is huge.<br />
<br />
And, this doesn’t even touch on the fact that more money is spent on salaries of US baseball players than on players for any other professional sport. Nor does it cover the fact that revenues to professional baseball far outstrip any other professional sport in the USA. And, let’s not forget that the most money ever paid for a professional sports franchise is $2 billion, the amount paid to purchase the Los Angeles Dodgers.<br />
But, baseball is not about money, it’s about the love of the game. It’s about hitting an 85 mile per hour curve ball. It’s about the most difficult play in sports, turning a double play. It’s about miracle catches, and late inning walk off home runs. It’s about seeing a young pitcher throw a perfect game. It’s about seeing your son or daughter play the game and come to love it as you do.<br />
<br />
Baseball is truly as American as apple pie.<br />
<br />
Yes, professional baseball had its problems with drug use. But, I believe that is gone for good. Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and others dishonored the game by using performance enhancing drugs, but last year baseball writers uttered their verdict. They bypassed both Clemens and McGwire for entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame. They sent a stern message to all professional baseball players, if you want your shot at getting into the Hall of Fame you can’t use performance enhancing drugs to get there. <br />
<br />
This year the Hall inducted some all-time great players, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas. These are great choices and great players who understand what baseball is all about. It’s about loving and respecting the game of baseball. <br />
<br />
So, as for me, I’m packing my bags and heading south, looking forward to seeing the St. Louis Cardinals in spring training in Jupiter, Florida. I’m going to enjoy the warm sunshine, and the gentle breezes, but most of all, I’m going to relish the crack of the bat, the pop of the glove, and the amazing athletic skills of the players on the field. And, while I’m at it, I’m going to root, root, root for the Cardinals. There’s just nothing like a baseball game. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-34927407697158723242013-12-23T12:53:00.000-08:002013-12-23T12:53:05.122-08:00Joy to the World! The Lord has Come!<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
Christmas is
that wonderful time of the year when we pause from all our hectic activities to
celebrate the birth of Jesus, God’s Son. What was God’s purpose in sending
Jesus to this earth? It was to rescue
us. Why do we need rescuing? What do we need to be rescued from?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
Well, God has
created heaven, a perfect place, with no squabbling, no anger, no pain, no
disagreements, no relationship problems, no money worries, or any other
problems. It is a place of peace and happiness. Sounds great, right? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
But, there’s a
problem. I hate to tell you, but you’re not perfect. Neither am I, or any other
man or woman that has ever lived. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? We all fail,
do bad things, think bad thoughts, and just plain sin. God is blunt about it. He
says, “<i>Because all people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's
glory.”</i> (Romans 3:23) And, “<i>Certainly, there is no one so righteous on
earth that he always does what is good and never sins</i>.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
We are all in the same boat when it comes to righteousness before God. We
stink.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
The question is
how do we imperfect human beings get to spend our next life in a perfect place?
If we place imperfect people in a perfect heaven, it’s no longer perfect.
That’s where Jesus comes in. Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem in very
humble circumstances, and for 33 years he lived the perfect life that you and I
cannot live. Finally, he took all our shortcomings, and failures—our sins—on
himself as he went to the cross and died for us. But, he wasn’t finished. He
rose victorious from the grave to send you and me a strong, clear message that
death is not the end, it really is the beginning our life in heaven with Jesus.
All he asks of us is to believe in Jesus as our savior and to acknowledge our
failures, shortcomings, sins, and thus our need of a savior. In Ephesians 2:8
& 9 he says this very clearly… <i>“For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by
works, so that no one can boast.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
And, did you
know that the birth and life of Jesus was precisely forecast hundreds of years
before it happened? The Book of Isaiah
was written between 701 and 681 years before the birth of Jesus. This is what
Isaiah wrote in Chapter 7, verse 14…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i>“So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin
will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel
[God is with us].”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
There are many
miracles recorded in the Bible, but of all of them, Jesus’ virgin birth and his
resurrection from the dead are the two greatest and two most important. Upon
these two miracles hang all our hopes of passing through the portal of death to
our next life in heaven. That is why
Christmas is celebrated and why it is so important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
This is how God
describes the time leading up to the birth of Jesus in the Book of Luke…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b><i>The Angel Gabriel Comes to Mary<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<i>“<sup>26</sup>Six months after
Elizabeth [the mother of John the Baptist] had become pregnant, God sent the
angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a city in Galilee. <sup>27</sup>The angel went to a
virgin promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The virgin’s
name was Mary.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<i><sup>28 </sup>When the angel
entered her home, he greeted her and said, “You are favored by the Lord! The
Lord is with you.” <sup>29</sup>She was startled by what the angel said and
tried to figure out what this greeting meant. <sup>30</sup>The angel told her,
“Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor with God. <sup>31</sup>You will
become pregnant, give birth to a son, and name him Jesus. <sup>32</sup>He will
be a great man and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will
give him the throne of his ancestor David. <sup>33</sup>Your son will be king
of Jacob’s people forever, and his kingdom will never end.” <sup>34</sup>Mary
asked the angel, “How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse.” <sup>35</sup>The
angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child developing inside you
will be called the Son of God. <sup>36</sup>“Elizabeth, your relative, is six
months pregnant with a son in her old age. People said she couldn’t have a
child. <sup>37</sup>But nothing is impossible for God.” <sup>38</sup>Mary
answered, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you’ve said happen to me.”
Then the angel left her.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Mary Praises God<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<i><sup>46</sup>Mary said, “My soul
praises the Lord’s greatness! <sup>47</sup>My spirit finds its joy in God, my
Savior, <sup>48</sup>because he has looked favorably on me, his humble servant.
“From now on, all people will call me blessed <sup>49</sup>because the Almighty
has done great things to me. His name is holy. <sup>50</sup>For those who fear
him, his mercy lasts throughout every generation. <sup>51</sup>“He displayed
his mighty power. He scattered those who think too highly of themselves. <sup>52</sup>He
pulled strong rulers from their thrones. He honored humble people. <sup>53</sup>He
fed hungry people with good food. He sent rich people away with nothing. <sup>54</sup>“He
remembered to help his servant Israel forever. <sup>55</sup>This is the promise
he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and his descendants.” <sup>56</sup>Mary
stayed with Elizabeth about three months and then went back home.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Jesus Is Born<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<i>1At that time the Emperor Augustus
ordered a census of the Roman Empire. <sup>2</sup>This was the first census
taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. <sup>3</sup>All the people went to
register in the cities where their ancestors had lived. <sup>4</sup>So Joseph
went from Nazareth, a city in Galilee, to a Judean city called Bethlehem.
Joseph, a descendant of King David, went to Bethlehem because David had been
born there. <sup>5</sup>Joseph went there to register with Mary. She had been
promised to him in marriage and was pregnant. <sup>6</sup>While they were in
Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her child. <sup>7</sup>She gave birth
to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a
manger because there wasn’t any room for them in the inn.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Angels Announce the Birth of Jesus<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<i><sup>8</sup>Shepherds were in the
fields near Bethlehem. They were taking turns watching their flock during the
night. <sup>9</sup>An angel from the Lord suddenly appeared to them. The glory
of the Lord filled the area with light, and they were terrified. <sup>10</sup>The
angel said to them, “Don’t be afraid! I have good news for you, a message that
will fill everyone with joy. <sup>11</sup>Today your Savior, Christ the Lord,
was born in David’s city. <sup>12</sup>This is how you will recognize him: You
will find an infant wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” <sup>13</sup>Suddenly,
a large army of angels appeared with the angel. They were praising God by
saying, <sup>14</sup>“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to
those who have his good will!” <sup>15</sup>The angels left them and went back
to heaven. The shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see
what the Lord has told us about.” <sup>16</sup>They went quickly and found Mary
and Joseph with the baby, who was lying in a manger. <sup>17</sup>When they saw
the child, they repeated what they had been told about him. <sup>18</sup>Everyone
who heard the shepherds’ story was amazed. <sup>19</sup>Mary treasured all
these things in her heart and always thought about them. <sup>20</sup>As the
shepherds returned to their flock, they glorified and praised God for
everything they had seen and heard. Everything happened the way the angel had
told them.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
This news of
the birth of Jesus is the best news I will ever hear and it is the best news
that you will ever hear. Have a
wonderful, joyous Christmas celebration!<o:p></o:p></div>
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-44225841335347376142013-12-16T09:09:00.000-08:002013-12-16T09:09:14.877-08:00One Word Made Nelson Mandela Great<br />
<p>I have truly enjoyed reading all the stories about the life of Nelson Mandela since his death just a few days ago. There have been fanciful ones by people who did not know him, interesting stories by people who did know him, and several very insightful stories by folks who studied him. I confess that my knowledge of Nelson Mandela was limited prior to his death. I knew that he had communist leanings for many years. I knew that he suffered greatly in prison for 27 years, and, I knew that he became President of South Africa just a few years after his release from prison. </p> <p>Mandela was born into the Thembu royal family. After attending Fort Hare University and the University of Witwatersrand where he studied law, he became involved in anti-colonial politics. He joined the African National Congress, a decidedly Marxist, Communist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the white South African government. Initially he was committed to non-violent protest, but after more than a decade of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a government controlled by the black majority, he gave up and formed the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) that was affiliated with the South African Communist Party (funded in part by the Soviet Union). The MK advocated violence and it led a sabotage campaign against apartheid. However, in no instance of sabotage did anyone die. In 1962 Mandela was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the state, and sentenced to life imprisonment.</p> <p>Commentators have noted that Mandela was offered release 27 times if he would agree to forego violent acts. However, undoubtedly that was just a part of the conditions for his release from prison. In all likelihood, the other terms included nonparticipation in any activities, nonviolent or violent, seeking to end apartheid in South Africa. That was an unacceptable term to Nelson Mandela and one for which he was unwilling to compromise. </p> <p>The Soviet communists saw in Mandela and the ANC an opportunity to establish a foothold in Africa. That was the only reason that they supported his efforts. While Mandela was a socialist, however, and perhaps even a Marxist, he did not care about advancing Soviet communism, he only cared about freeing his people from apartheid. He supported the communists only to the extent that they benefitted his cause.</p> <p>For 27 long years Nelson Mandela was a prisoner. But, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela didn’t fade away. He became a symbol of white oppression and white racism. Mandela did, however, have lots of time to contemplate. Raised as a Christian, Mandela concluded that there was a conflict between his faith and his violent past. He realized that he could not be both a Christian and a communist or a Marxist.</p> <p>While Mandela was still in prison, pressure continued to mount, both inside and outside of South Africa, for an end to apartheid. One of those working to end apartheid was President Ronald Reagan. As this excerpt from an article by Arnold Steinberg (used with his permission) points out, Reagan sought not to overthrow the government of South Africa, but to bring an end to apartheid. </p> <blockquote> <p><em>"In fact, the [Reagan] policy was strategic and allowed for Reagan’s philosophy…of seeking change within authoritarian regimes as opposed to isolating totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union, which required full confrontation. And, at that time during the Cold War, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress was a Marxist, if not pro-Communist, organization, so prudence was required.</em></p> <p><em>In 1986, Chet [Chester Crocker] recommended to Secretary of State George Shultz the appointment of Ed Perkins to be U.S. Ambassador to South Africa.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>This was significant because not only was Edward Perkins a career foreign service officer serving as U.S. Ambassador to Liberia, he was an African American. For President Ronald Reagan to send a black man as the US Ambassador was a crystal clear message to then President of South Africa, P.W. Botha, that the United States did not condone or approve of apartheid.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“In his book, Ed [Perkins] says, quite simply, that neither George Shultz nor Ronald Reagan have been given credit for their determination to change apartheid in South Africa. Shultz told Ed, ‘No one has the right to ask you or any other black person to go down there.’ Some thought the Afrikaners might try to assassinate a black ambassador. And ‘black leaders’ here, he was told, would attack Ed as a sell-out to a “racist” president…</em></p> <p><em>…when it came to Reagan himself, Ed and the President had immediate rapport. Ed recollects how informed Reagan was on Africa and also Reagan’s moral clarity. …[Reagan] told Ed that he was personally appointing him U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and, almost unheard of, giving him authorization to make American policy from the embassy. Ed recalls that in subsequent meetings during his ambassadorship, Reagan was …thoroughly analytical and well engaged — hardly the detached caricature drawn by liberals.</em></p> <p><em>[The] South African press predictably blasted the appointment. …But Ed became, in his words, ‘a change agent’ from the moment he set foot in South Africa… …in the first official private meeting with South Africa’s President P.W. Botha, [Botha] directly insulted him and indirectly insulted President Reagan. </em></p> <p><em>…But the bottom line is that President Reagan’s personal envoy made policy from the moment he refused to accept segregated housing for the black State Department employees. And, he reached out to all groups, from rigid Afrikaners to black Marxist revolutionaries, while making clear the U.S. position was against apartheid and against violent change and for a market economy. </em></p> <p><em>…By selecting a black American to be ambassador, President Reagan sent a message. And by sending Ed Perkins, Reagan showed that his selection was not some politically correct symbol of diversity but the real deal. In South Africa, [Perkins] celebrated the U.S. Constitution and its genius of a democratic republic of limited, balanced powers.</em></p> <p><em>At times, Ed even gave Embassy or consular sanctuary to political dissidents… When challenged by the South African government, Ed Perkins declared that the dissidents were on sovereign territory. And when Botha (who, ironically, would later become part of Nelson Mandela’s government) …repeatedly became belligerent, Ed Perkins replied with his ace-in-the-hole line — that he was acting on behalf of the President of the United States — Ronald Reagan.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>President Ronald Reagan was walking a fine line in South Africa. By instituting the Reagan Doctrine, he sought to bring down the dictatorship of the Soviet Union. The ties of the African National Congress to the Soviets only made that fine line even smaller. Other Presidents, like Jimmy Carter, in their haste to achieve human rights actually empowered harsh dictatorships that still plague us today, such as Iran. Without Carter’s bumbling, we would not have the danger of a nuclear war that is posed by the current Islamic fascist regime of the Ayatollah in Iran. It is not a stretch to say that without the quiet, but firm intervention of Ronald Reagan in South Africa at a critical time, that South Africa could have made the peaceful transition to a majority rule nation that exists today.</p> <p>But, let’s get back to the story of Nelson Mandela and the one powerful word that made him a great leader. When Mandela eventually was released from prison in 1990, President F.W. de Klerk was serving as Prime Minister. It was a time of great civil unrest. Demands for an end to apartheid had reached a boiling point.</p> <p>After so many years in prison, Nelson Mandela had a right to be an angry man, a man filled with bitterness and bent on revenge. But, he wasn’t. His commitment to his Christian faith overrode his potential rage against his mistreatment and abuse in prison. Instead of anger, Mandela did the unthinkable thing.</p> <p>The then President of South Africa was F.W. de Klerk. While de Klerk was no saint, he was not the racist firebrand of his predecessor, P.F. Botha. Nelson Mandela had not given up the fight for justice and freedom, he had just rejected hatred, anger and violence as a means to that end. But, much more than that, his faith compelled him to do was Jesus did, forgive his enemies. He obviously knew these passages well…</p><blockquote> <p>Then Jesus said, </p> <p><em>“Father, forgive them. They don't know what they're doing."</em>—Luke 23:34</p> <p><em>“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked him, "Lord, how often do I have to forgive a believer who wrongs me? Seven times?" Jesus answered him, "I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy times seven.”—</em>Matthew 18:21-22</p></blockquote> <p>The ability of Nelson Mandela, a man who had served 27 years in prison, to forgive his enemies was what made him a truly great man and a great leader. His ability to forgive was a powerful force for good. With genuine, heart-felt forgiveness he united his nation, a seemingly impossible task. By being able to purge the anger from his heart, he was able to reach out to both blacks and whites with a message of reconciliation.</p> <p>Amazingly, just four years after release from his long imprisonment, Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa. The times were still dangerous with a possible civil war rumbling just below the surface. While Mandela was willing to forgive, many black South Africans did not want to forgive, they wanted revenge. But, Mandela knew that vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to man. As it says in Romans 12:19</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Don't take revenge, dear friends. Instead, let God's anger take care of it. After all, Scripture says, "I alone have the right to take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Once again, it was the wisdom of God that led to the wise and prudent decisions made by Nelson Mandela. It would have been oh so easy to give in to the demands of black South Africans to seek revenge against white South Africans. It would have been easy to take revenge on those white South Africans that insulted him and belittled him, but Nelson Mandela did not give in to his lower desires. Of course, it would have been so easy to do so and the result would have looked something like today’s Zimbabwe, a totalitarian dictatorship where everyone suffers, black and white.</p> <p>The movie <em>Invictus</em> by Clint Eastwood, starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, which by most accounts is an accurate rendition of what really happened, provides insight into the wisdom of Nelson Mandela. Here is an excerpt from a synopsis of the movie as told by Wikipedia…</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“…[President] Mandela is particularly concerned about racial divisions between black and white South Africans, which could lead to violence. </em></p> <p><em>While attending a game between the Springboks, the country's rugby union team, and England, Mandela recognizes that the blacks in the stadium are cheering for England, as the mostly-white Springboks represent prejudice and apartheid in their minds; he remarks that he did the same while imprisoned on Robben Island. Knowing that South Africa is set to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup in one year's time, Mandela persuades a meeting of the newly black-dominated South African Sports Committee to support the Springboks. He then meets with the captain of the Springboks rugby team, François Pienaar (Matt Damon), and implies that a Springboks victory in the World Cup will unite and inspire the nation. Mandela also shares with François a British poem, "Invictus", that had inspired him during his time in prison.</em></p> <p><em>Many South Africans, both black and white, doubt that rugby will unite a nation torn apart by nearly 50 years of racial tensions, as for many blacks, especially the radicals, the Springboks symbolize white supremacy. Both Mandela and Pienaar, however, stand firmly behind their theory that the game can successfully unite the South African country.</em></p> <p><em>Things begin to change as the players interact with the fans and begin a friendship with them. During the opening games, support for the Springboks begins to grow among the black population. By the second game, the whole country comes together to support the Springboks and Mandela's efforts. </em></p> <p><em>Before the game, the Springbok team visits Robben Island, where Mandela spent the first 18 of his 27 years in jail. François mentions his amazement that Mandela ‘could spend thirty years in a tiny cell, and come out ready to forgive the people who put [him] there.’</em></p> <p><em>Supported by a large home crowd of both races, Pienaar motivates his team. The Springboks win the match on an added time long drop-kick from fly-half Joel Stransky, with a score of 15–12. Mandela and Pienaar meet on the field together to celebrate the improbable and unexpected victory.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In many ways, Nelson Mandela reminds me of another great Christian leader, Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn never became the President of Russia after the peaceful defeat of the Soviet Union, but like Mandela, Solzhenitsyn was a man of great leadership based on the strength of his ability to forgive. Because of their ability to forgive, both Mandela and Solzhenitsyn were able to heal. Those who bear grudges, who seek retribution and revenge, may gain power, but they will never be great. In fact, theirs will be a leadership that destroys, divides, and encourages envy, hatred, jealously, and even violence. It will be a legacy of failure and shortsightedness.</p> <p>Let us celebrate the greatness of Nelson Mandela and his willingness to forgive. He would, of course, point to the one who makes it possible for us to forgive, Jesus, the Savior of the world. Nelson Mandela, RIP.</p>Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-23492019324415440912013-11-26T14:30:00.000-08:002013-11-26T14:30:11.567-08:00Thanksgiving 2013<br />
The Thanksgiving celebration we celebrate this week is a remembrance of the Thanksgiving celebrated by the Pilgrims in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Pilgrims had fled to America for religious freedom. The celebration they held was for the express purpose of thanking God for preserving them through a harsh winter and blessing them with abundant crops. These Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth on the Mayflower on December 21, 1620. Here is the story of what happened according to the actual writings of the Pilgrims as narrated by Barbara Curtis, a <a href="http://www.crosswalk.com/">www.crosswalk.com</a> contributing editor.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“In the early 1600s, the Wampanoag (Wam-pa-NO-ag) Indians covered the coast of what we now call New England. They raised crops, living close to the ocean in summer for seafood, moving inland in winter to set up hunting camps. Their encounters with Europeans over the years were mostly friendly.</i><br />
<i>One exception: In 1614 Captain Thomas Hunt captured several Wampanoag, along with a Patuxet named Squanto, to be sold into slavery in Spain. A Spanish monk purchased Squanto's freedom, taught him English, and introduced him to Jesus Christ. In 1619, Squanto returned to his native land, only to find his tribe wiped out by an epidemic. Thereafter he made his home with the Wampanoag.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Meanwhile, in 1608, a British group called the Separatists fled to Leyden, Holland. There they found religious freedom, but also poverty, grueling work hours and a secular culture that threatened to undo the values they had carefully instilled into their children. In 1620, they sold everything and indentured themselves for seven years to finance their journey to America.</i><br />
<br />
<i>On the Mayflower, the Separatists were joined by those seeking the new land for other reasons; these they called the Strangers. The two groups, 102 altogether, were called the Pilgrims.”</i><br />
<i>Their journey lasted nine weeks. In one of those "accidents" which change the course of history, the ship lost its course and landed far north of its destination at what we now call Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Once outside the territory covered by the King's Charter, the Pilgrims became responsible for their own government, and so they wrote a set of laws called The Mayflower Compact. </i><br />
<br />
<i>On December 21, 1620, they began their new life at the place they named Plymouth.</i><br />
<i>It was a devastating winter -- whipped with wind and sleet and snow. Half the Pilgrims died. Still the Separatists clung to their faith; not one chose to return to England with the Mayflower that spring.</i><br />
<i>But spring brought unexpected relief with the help of a noble and generous Christian brother -- Squanto. He taught them how to grow corn, use fertilizer, stalk deer and catch fish. William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, wrote of Squanto that he was "a special instrument sent of God for good beyond their expectations."</i><br />
<br />
<i>And so their first harvest was good. Governor Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to God and the Pilgrims invited their Indian friends. Chief Massasoit and 90 members of his tribe came, along with Squanto, bearing venison and wild turkeys for all to share. Together in harmony, the Pilgrims and the Indians feasted, played games, ran races and showed their prowess with bow and arrow and musket.</i></blockquote>
<br />
This is the true story of the origin of today’s American Thanksgiving holiday. It is a unique holiday. It’s not celebrated in Europe, and its origins are thoroughly American and Christian. At this first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims gave thanks to God for their deliverance from the terrible winter weather, for the blessing of Squanto’s friendship, and for their abundant harvest. <br />
This Thanksgiving celebration created a tradition of Americans thanking God for their many blessings, even in time of war, time of devastation, and time of plenty. Here is George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation…<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" </i><br />
<br />
<i>Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. </i><br />
<br />
<i>And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. </i></blockquote>
<br />
Although President Thomas Jefferson declined to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation, the tradition of a Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation continued throughout the years. On October 3, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issued this Thanksgiving Day proclamation…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.”</i></blockquote>
Even in the midst of a great civil war that was tearing the nation apart, Abraham Lincoln found, as the Pilgrims found, time to thank God for their many blessings. It was this perspective of America’s great leaders over the years that helped to keep Americans focused on the one to whom all thanks belong, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Thanksgiving Day Proclamations during the Great Depression, and during World War II. In each case he gave thanks to God. This is what he said on November 30, 1933 during some of the deepest days of the Great Depression…<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do set aside and appoint Thursday, the thirtieth day of November 1933, to be a Day of Thanksgiving for all our people.</i><br />
<i>May we on that day in our churches and in our homes give humble thanks for the blessings bestowed upon us during the year past by Almighty God. </i><br />
<br />
<i>May we recall the courage of those who settled a wilderness, the vision of those who founded the Nation, the steadfastness of those who in every succeeding generation have fought to keep pure the ideal of equality of opportunity and hold clear the goal of mutual help in time of prosperity as in time of adversity. </i><br />
<br />
<i>May we be grateful for the passing of dark days; for the new spirit of dependence one on another; for the closer unity of all parts of our wide land; for the greater friendship between employers and those who toil; for a clearer knowledge by all nations that we seek no conquests and ask only honorable engagements by all people to respect the lands and rights of their neighbors; for the brighter day to which we can win through by seeking the help of God in a more unselfish striving for the bettering of mankind.” </i></blockquote>
<br />
On October 27, 1961 President John F. Kennedy said, in part in his Thanksgiving Proclamation... <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord.” (Psalm 92:1a)</i><br />
<br />
<i>“More than three centuries ago, the Pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly and reverently set aside a special day upon which to <b>give thanks to God</b> for their <b>preservation</b> and for the good harvest from the virgin soil upon which they had labored. Grave and unknown dangers remained. Yet by their <b>faith</b> and by their toil they had survived the rigors of the harsh New England winter. Hence they paused in their labors to <b>give thanks</b> for the <b>blessings</b> that had been bestowed upon them by <b>Divine Providence.</b></i><br />
<br />
<i>This year, as the harvest draws near its close and the year approaches its end, awesome perils again remain to be faced. Yet we have, as in the past, ample reason to <b>be thankful</b> for the abundance of our <b>blessings</b>. We are <b>grateful</b> for the <b>blessings</b> of <b>faith</b> and health and strength and for the imperishable<b> spiritual gifts</b> of love and hope. We <b>give thanks</b>, too, for our freedom as a nation; for the strength of our arms and the <b>faith</b> of our friends; for the beliefs and confidence we share; for our determination to stand firmly for what we believe to be right and to resist mightily what we believe to be base; and for the heritage of liberty bequeathed by our ancestors which we are privileged to preserve for our children and our children’s children.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I urge all citizens to make this Thanksgiving not merely a holiday from their labors, but rather a day of contemplation. I ask the head of each family to recount to his children the story of the first New England thanksgiving, thus to impress upon future generations the heritage of this nation born in toil, in danger, in purpose, and in the conviction that right and justice and freedom can through man’s efforts persevere and come to fruition with the <b>blessing of God</b>.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Let us observe this day with <b>reverence</b> and with <b>prayer</b> that will rekindle in us the will and show us the way not only to preserve our <b>blessings</b>, but also to extend them to the four corners of the earth. Let us by our example, as well as by our material aid, assist all peoples of all nations who are striving to achieve a better life in freedom.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
Continuing the long tradition of Presidential Proclamations, President Barack Obama will again this year issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, giving thanks to God for our many blessings. And, no matter our circumstances we can all enthusiastically thank God for his preservation of our free land, the abundance of our crops, and the many other blessings, both material and spiritual which we enjoy.<br />
<br />
My wife, Kathi, and I and our children and grandchildren will join in that tradition again this year, giving thanks to the God of the Bible for his many blessings. We wish you and yours a wonderful, warm Thanksgiving celebration.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-77794090905090287392013-11-19T13:23:00.001-08:002013-11-19T13:48:58.824-08:00Virginia Elects "Huey Long"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_oxNCq__Cr9pSN1f4XmZViEpC_H3XxVVKVV7Q4C3BT91JcySY9k5PA8OfgttTeRRdgxL7F0AgIhqAtt4g51iWPFV-e1ZVQFELFfrcyUdDisnTIF_XUr84Ysv_CuFAhYhy6Bl4b9-Tjr67/s1600/11-19pic5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="121" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_oxNCq__Cr9pSN1f4XmZViEpC_H3XxVVKVV7Q4C3BT91JcySY9k5PA8OfgttTeRRdgxL7F0AgIhqAtt4g51iWPFV-e1ZVQFELFfrcyUdDisnTIF_XUr84Ysv_CuFAhYhy6Bl4b9-Tjr67/s200/11-19pic5.JPG" width="200" /></a></div>
The Virginia off, off year election was a thud. The left can’t crow because their guy barely squeaked through after reputedly spending more than $30 million to buy a four year stay in the Governor’s mansion, and the right can’t crow because their guy lost. The only winners were the folks selling advertising and they won big. The bad news is that Virginia just elected a modern day Huey Long, the long departed colorful, yet infamous governor of the great state of Louisiana. If you are not familiar with the antics of Huey and his brother Earl, I recommend you read a little bit about him. Like Terry McAuliffe, the Governor elect of Virginia, Huey Long was a shameless self-promoter. The Long and McAuliffe view of government is as a source of power and personal enrichment.<br />
<br />
I had the opportunity in late 1970 to give a speech on the campus of Louisiana State University (LSU). I was living at the time in Port Arthur, Texas, so it wasn’t a long drive to Baton Rouge, where LSU is located. I was driving there after work on a Friday, so I stopped for dinner along the way. For some reason I had an opportunity to glance through some post cards and was intrigued by the fact that while Governor Ronald Reagan had to move out of the California Governor’s mansion because it had become a dangerous fire trap, the State of Louisiana had had three Governor’s mansions since the 1930s. I thought it ironic that wealthy and prosperous California had not replaced its old Governor’s mansion that was built in 1877, yet Louisiana had three different Governor’s mansions in a period of less than 50 years. It sounded like there must be a story behind these three executive residences in Louisiana, and there was.<br />
<br />
Huey Long had accumulated nearly absolute power as the Governor of Louisiana. He hired and fired at will and he continued to run the state even after he was elected to the United States Senate. Huey successfully maneuvered his puppet, Oscar K. Allen, into the Governor’s chair. There is a well-known apocryphal story that Allen was such a willing stooge of Long that one day a leaf floated through an open window and he picked it up and signed it.<br />
<br />
Huey Long was just one of many in a long line of corrupt Louisiana politicians. It was not too many years ago that Louisiana Governor, Edwin Edwards, proclaimed <i>“Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez!”</i> (Let the Good Times Roll!). This has potential as the theme of the new McAuliffe administration.<br />
<br />
In addition to being self-serving, Long and McAuliffe have many other traits in common. Long was not above using State of Louisiana funds to politically benefit himself. One of his favorite tricks was to pave a highway half way to another town and then tell the citizens that he wanted to pave it the entire way, but he was blocked by the state legislature.<br />
<br />
Like Long, McAuliffe has used tax dollars to benefit himself and his cronies. It was McAuliffe who came up with the scheme of selling a night in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House during the Clinton Administration to raise funds for the re-election campaign. Selling passports also became a specialty of McAuliffe, who is still under investigation for other shenanigans. Huey would have applauded.<br />
<br />
And, like Huey Long, McAuliffe is a man of the left. During my trip to Baton Rouge many years ago, I had the opportunity to meet and talk with the grandmother of a friend who lived there. Up in her eighties, she was a delightful person. She told me lots of personal stories about Huey Long and about the grand celebration that was Huey’s funeral. It was quite an affair. The silver-tongued racist, Gerald L. K. Smith gave the funeral oration. Smith was a leader of Long’s Share Our Wealth redistribution program that sought to tax and spend more to benefit the poor. Of course, Huey and his cronies would not suffer financially either. It was estimated that more than 100,000 people attended Huey’s funeral. The elderly lady I meet in Baton Rouge said that she was there as a little girl, selling flowers. She attested to the fact that it was more like a holiday celebration, than a funeral service.<br />
<br />
Huey was gunned down in the State Capitol Building. To this day they are not sure who it was that shot him. A physician, Dr. Carl Weiss, certainly tried to kill Huey that day, but when he pulled out his gun, Huey’s body guards unleashed a fusillade of bullets that ricocheted off the marble walls inside of the Capitol building. It may well have been these bullets that actually killed then Senator Huey Long.<br />
<br />
Long was a demagogue among demagogues and, his funeral service reflected it. He was buried right on the Capitol grounds, in front of the new state Capitol building. Fittingly, carved on the side of the monument are images of rogues such as Earl Browder, an official of the Communist Party USA.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh54rPorh0Bh_8mXmbBubMvGucIQi9x8WMBy2d-Fh5r22j38UsWqTpFStXvdEfU_y2ZyCQZNN-uQyrEw6Gx9BVEMFAfJGU6qgBHKGguVbLumlp1NHoGSf3Y2IqzMevX1RKctvLtS-NAdlFY/s1600/11-19pic3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh54rPorh0Bh_8mXmbBubMvGucIQi9x8WMBy2d-Fh5r22j38UsWqTpFStXvdEfU_y2ZyCQZNN-uQyrEw6Gx9BVEMFAfJGU6qgBHKGguVbLumlp1NHoGSf3Y2IqzMevX1RKctvLtS-NAdlFY/s200/11-19pic3.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Now about those three Governor’s mansions. The first one was built in 1887 and was used until 1929. Huey planned on becoming President of the United States (no doubt McAuliffe has the same ambition). Huey had his eyes set on running against fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. When the legislature would not appropriate funds to build a new Governor’s mansion, Huey simply had it demolished. The legislature then had no other choice but to build a new one and Huey designed it to look just like the White House. He did it he said to get the feel of what it was going to be like living in the White House. Please look at the picture at right and decide for yourself if Huey was successful in his attempt to build a model of the White House.<br />
<br />
And, for the record, this Governor’s mansion was abandoned in 1963 for yet another Governor’s mansion built (with taxpayer funds, of course) by then governor by Jimmie Davis, former country and western singer and the first Governor since Huey Long without any ties to the Long family.<br />
<br />
So, let’s get back to the 21st Century Huey Long, i.e. Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe is best known as Bill Clinton’s bag man. Like Long, with McAuliffe, politics and money always come first. In fact, in his book, <i>What a Party!</i> he recounts a startling story. It seems that McAuliffe is taking his wife and new baby home from the hospital, but he makes a stop along the way. This is what he says in his book…<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> “Dorothy [Terry’s wife] was starting to well up in the backseat. She was having trouble understanding how I could be taking my wife and newborn baby to a fund-raiser on our way home from the hospital. We got to the dinner and by then Dorothy was in tears, and I left her with Justin [Terry’s aide] and went inside. Little Peter was sleeping peacefully and Dorothy just sat there and poor Justin didn't say a word. He was mortified. I was inside maybe fifteen minutes, said a few nice things about Marty [President of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters who were hosting a Sons of Italy dinner], and hurried back out to the car. I felt bad for Dorothy, but it was a million bucks for the Democratic Party and by the time we got home and the kids had their new little brother in their arms, Dorothy was all smiles and we were one big happy family again. Nobody ever said life with me was easy.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
That may have been unbelievable, but the story he tells about when his wife was in labor with another child is no better…<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“We got there a little after noon and spent the whole afternoon in her room. I was trying hard not to appear restless, but I am not one to sit still for long and soon I was going stir-crazy, which drove Dorothy nuts. 'Isn't there something you need to do?' she finally said. I told her The Washington Post was having a party that evening for Lloyd Grove, who wrote the 'Reliable Source' column. 'Go!' she said. 'You're like a caged animal here. I'll call you if I need you.' I went flying out the door and drove to the party. I kept calling Dorothy to make sure she was fine. I made the rounds at the party and ran into Marjorie Williams, who was writing a story on me for Vanity Fair Magazine. She was shocked to see me at the party. 'Isn't Dorothy having a baby today?' she asked. 'That's right,' I said, 'but she threw me out of the room.' Marjorie just couldn't understand how I left Dorothy alone. I almost told her about the night I was born and how my mother wanted my father to stay at home to watch Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, but decided against it. I went back to the hospital after the Washington Post party and at 3:33 A.M. little Sarah Swann McAuliffe was born.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
What a creep! Virginia didn’t just elect a Huey Long as its next Governor, we elected a creepy Huey Long. And, let’s not forget that both Long and McAuliffe are from the party that brags about their compassion and caring.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVydYlCZbHz3qQeoCYFsQSkj1Si0xGhiBlkYZ8ufKpvV0Ik1RqKEfJHa6yI56XoQ-VqDzD2cdn8iAIZdlLQzsC6NeBq6xBBONfy8mKURQnhYp9lzvCMvbDqOq0wEikmIIX6NiNtHCbTzsT/s1600/11-19pic4.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVydYlCZbHz3qQeoCYFsQSkj1Si0xGhiBlkYZ8ufKpvV0Ik1RqKEfJHa6yI56XoQ-VqDzD2cdn8iAIZdlLQzsC6NeBq6xBBONfy8mKURQnhYp9lzvCMvbDqOq0wEikmIIX6NiNtHCbTzsT/s200/11-19pic4.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_2020614908"></span><span id="goog_2020614909"></span>So, what can we expect of Governor Terry McAuliffe (shown at right in an Edwin Edwards moment)? Fortunately, the people re-elected a strong majority of Republicans to the Virginia House of Delegates, and they may yet retain control of the State Senate. If the Republicans remain strong, they should be able to limit the damage of the McAuliffe administration. But, there will be damage. There will be new rules and regulations, there will be new taxes, and there will a loss of jobs. Thomas Jefferson, the second Governor of Virginia said, <i>“The government you elect is government you deserve.”</i><br />
<br />
Indeed. Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez! <br />
<br />
<br />Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-34476191685903308342013-11-14T11:32:00.003-08:002013-11-14T12:43:41.301-08:00Redskins or Red Clouds?It often puts a smile on my face when I hear the next liberal cause célèbre. All liberal causes or crises have a pattern. They are generally created for a specific purpose, most often political or ideological. They are commonly of minor importance, and they often obfuscate a much more important issue. The latest hand wringing over the name of the National Football League franchise in Washington, DC, certainly fits the pattern.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMF6dZ7wp4vhNf-ktqXScMtLCGa4mffr6avT9aq3lhwf7GiuqP8vUHN5XYHjewFNZpSCqJ3MBpGwjeCpIOEz_LWOUEwQaMjXd5c1F-WyyDn-O9Z3nkbepPlRa7hriqR2ShJoXgYfzpnV1U/s1600/Redskins+logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMF6dZ7wp4vhNf-ktqXScMtLCGa4mffr6avT9aq3lhwf7GiuqP8vUHN5XYHjewFNZpSCqJ3MBpGwjeCpIOEz_LWOUEwQaMjXd5c1F-WyyDn-O9Z3nkbepPlRa7hriqR2ShJoXgYfzpnV1U/s200/Redskins+logo.png" width="200" /></a></div>
Is the term Redskins a racial slur? Yes, I think it is reasonable to conclude that its usage in the 19th century was primarily as a derogatory slur of Indians (I’m not going to use the term Native Americans because it is inaccurate and confusing). Is the term Redskins a slur today? The answer to that question becomes a bit more difficult. I remember being in Flagstaff, Arizona, and seeing an Indian (Hopi, I believe) who was wearing a Washington Redskins sweatshirt. I asked him if he was a Redskins fan and he enthusiastically replied <i>“Yes!”</i> along with something like <i>“Go Redskins!”</i> Clearly this fellow was not bothered by the term Redskins.<br />
<br />
Of course, that is a sample of one that happened at least ten years ago, so I’m not asserting that his view is the commonly held view of American Indians. It is interesting to note, however, that a 2002 poll of American Indians conducted on behalf of <i>Sports Illustrated</i> found that 75% of those surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.<br />
<br />
The story of how the Washington Redskins came to get their name is told this way by Wikipedia…<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when the team left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, and whose mother was allegedly Sioux. In 1937 the team moved… [to] Washington, D.C., [and] became the Washington Redskins.”</i></blockquote>
So here we are today, arguing about the name of a professional football team. I think it is fair to say that the fans who love the Washington Redskins mean absolutely no animosity against Indians. For them, the name embodies success, courage, endurance, perseverance and a great NFL football franchise. An attack on the name of their team is interpreted by many of them to be an indirect attack on them.<br />
<br />
And, so we have a lot of ink and paper and palavering being spent on the rightness or wrongness of an NFL team being named the Washington Redskins. As for me, I don’t want to call anyone by a name that offends them. That is wrong.<br />
<br />
But, what a diversion of effort from dealing with real issues that Indians all across the nation have. Those who live on reservations live in almost universal misery. If you want to see the welfare state in action, visit an Indian reservation.<br />
<br />
I have been on a number of Indian reservations, the largest of which is the Navajo reservation in Arizona that covers 27,000 square miles and encompasses parts of three states as the map shows. The reservation has 3,000 more square miles than the entire state of West Virginia! That makes the reservation larger than the states of Maryland and Massachusetts combined. And, although it encompasses a very large geographical area, more than 77% of all the roads are unpaved, there are few telephones, and thus most of those living on the reservation live in isolation from each other and from the world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggEs3hukssiJxUtQf_A4WM5BhfMBuEFAHNKGY7IYI4kETZx2gRGSCWTRJctoHS2Bb_Q-glTybsc2NR7YPWbVX48PcHahjVE_VmQu-Mak2PnudjhoGSku9MDuF4NuVkFNfKV71aIXWeekt7/s1600/navajo+map.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggEs3hukssiJxUtQf_A4WM5BhfMBuEFAHNKGY7IYI4kETZx2gRGSCWTRJctoHS2Bb_Q-glTybsc2NR7YPWbVX48PcHahjVE_VmQu-Mak2PnudjhoGSku9MDuF4NuVkFNfKV71aIXWeekt7/s200/navajo+map.png" width="200" /></a></div>
The scenery on this reservation is spectacular and I have never seen more beautiful sunsets. Unfortunately, however, most of these acres are desert, surrounded by more desert. While it has been a number of years since I was on the Indian reservation that encompasses Page, Arizona, I seriously doubt that the situation has changed much. I learned from asking questions of those who live on the reservation that the Tribal Council owns everything. They own the land that includes a mountain of coal. They own the electric train that brings the coal to the power plant that they also own. They also control all revenues generated by the coal mine and the power plant. But, much more than that they own all the sheep, the cows, and any other livestock on the land. If a tribe member seeks to move to another part of the reservation they cannot take any livestock with them. In this way, the Tribal Council rules supreme.<br />
<br />
For instance, an Indian family may live on an assigned piece of land, but they do not own it. Neither do they own the cow that they milk, nor the sheep that they shear, or any other livestock. Most likely they live in a shanty like home with a satellite antenna on the roof. On the vast Navajo reservation in Northeast Arizona, many, if not most do not have access to electricity (even though the Tribal Council sells off the electricity they generate!).<br />
<br />
Worst of all, virtually no Indian living on the land has running water or access to a sewer system. In addition, 60% of the Navajos have no telephone. Almost every home has a pickup truck sitting outside of it with a big water tank on it. They haul water for drinking and bathing, even though they are located not far from Lake Powell, the second largest man-made lake in the country. Glen Canyon Dam that backs up Lake Powell was constructed entirely on the Navajo reservation. It could not be built without agreement from the Tribal Council. Instead of negotiating for acre feet of water that could be used for irrigation, the Council agreed to take more arid desert as compensation. What a deal! With millions of acre foot of water, the Council could have transformed the desert into high production farmland, just as the nation of Israel has done in the Middle East. But, that opportunity is long past.<br />
<br />
When I was last on this particular reservation there were signs posted that read, <i>“Keep to the Old Ways!”</i> and <i>“Stay on the Reservation!”</i> Young Indians are discouraged from leaving the reservation, even though they are free to do so and many do leave. The involuntary servitude that is inherent in a welfare state is not a pleasant place to live. In many ways, living on an Indian reservation is similar to living in a socialist state. And, all the personal problems that exist in a socialist nation exist on the reservation.<br />
<br />
To live on a reservation is to live without hope. Even though Indians do not pay any Federal income tax, there is no visible industry, unless you consider casinos or roadside curio stands an industry. The mostly government run schools are poor and the opportunities are virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
The number of people living on the Navajo reservation in Arizona is 180,000 and the unemployment rate is 42%. More than 43% of those on the reservation live below the poverty rate. While approximately 31% of all Americans have a bachelor’s degree, just 7% of those on the Navajo reservation have a college degree. <br />
Another serious problem among the Navajo is alcoholism, as it is among all Indians on reservations. In fact, alcoholism related deaths among American Indians is nearly 12%. This is 5.6 times higher than among the U.S. population.<br />
<br />
So, as you can see, American Indians, or Native Americans, if you prefer, have very real and serious problems. These problems far outweigh the importance of the name of the NFL football franchise located in Washington, DC, i.e. the Washington Redskins. To spend so much time and effort on something so relatively meaningless is simply a diversion. Do what you want with the name. If you wish, encourage Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, to change the name to the Washington Red Clouds (as has been proposed). Red Cloud was a very famous, daring and cunning Indian chief.<br />
<br />
But, have a little decency, show a little compassion for the real problems that have been created on the Indian reservations. Just as alcoholism was an enduring problem behind the Iron Curtain, and in all socialist states because the people lacked hope, it will continue to be a problem as long as the Indians are segregated from the rest of society. The Indians were forced onto reservations, but it doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.<br />
<br />
Why don’t we abrogate the treaties that created the Indian reservations and turn all the property over to the Indians that live there, not just to the Tribal Council? Let them be stockholders in any existing profitable enterprises such as hospitals, coal reserves, and power plants. Let them be free to sell, trade and buy the shares of others. Let them own their land and the livestock on that land, free to sell, trade, or buy more livestock. Give them full rights as citizens, the opportunity to not only succeed and thrive economically, but also to pay taxes. Their current situation is untenable and a disgrace. Let’s worry about and solve real problems and then we can deal with the sidebar issues that the liberals love to distract us with.Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-75104903651306192702013-11-11T12:17:00.002-08:002013-11-11T12:17:18.497-08:00Guest Blog: Should Chris Christie be the Republican nominee in 2016?By William Shaker, President, RepublicanPac.com<br />
<br />
Governor Chris Christie’s recent landslide victory has immediately created a buzz. I don’t think it will last for two reasons: 1) He would not survive the Republican primary process and 2) If nominated, he could not win.<br />
<br />
1) He would not receive the nomination: To win by a 20 percentage point margin in a hugely Democratic state, he moved so far to the left that he morphed into a Democrat—an Obama clone. He alienated much of the GOP primary voter base when he essentially endorsed Obama at the precise time when Romney was picking up momentum—thus squashing any chance that Romney had for victory. At least I believe this is the feeling of primary voters in the Midwest and the South. The NRA is still a powerful force and Christie insulted NRA supporters when he attacked NRA effort to place guards in schools. Christie attacked an NRA ad that pointed out the school attended by the President’s children employs more than a dozen armed guards. In calling this NRA ad irresponsible, Christie upset Second Amendment supporters. The NRA is so influential with independent voters that even Democrats are reluctant to criticize it. Christie continued to insult Tea Party sympathizers (who make up about one-third of the Republican primary base) by slamming conservative Republicans such Sen. Rand Paul. His appointment to fill the recent NJ Senate vacancy paved the way for victory of a Democrat in the special NJ Senatorial election. He appointed a Democrat as NJ Attorney General, who supports liberal democrat programs, including ObamaCare. And his stance on social issues has alienated self-identified Christian conservatives, another large block of Republican primary voters. Those Republicans who nominated candidates deemed electable—Romney, McCain, Dole—learned their lesson. These folks would vomit on this argument in 2016. A President who would simply do a little less in forwarding the agenda of the liberal left would not be acceptable—would not be able to pull American out of the abyss.<br />
<br />
2) If he did receive the Republican nomination he would not win the general election. Many conservative and tea party leaning Republicans would simply stay home. Those pundits who think Democrat leaning voters would vote for Christie instead of a Democrat, such as Hillary Clinton, are not thinking clearly. Why vote for a Democrat light, when they could vote for the real thing.<br />
<br />
I believe that Republican primary voters will nominate a candidate who indeed can win—and it will not be a candidate such as George W. Bush who said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market system.” I believe it will be a candidate such as Dr. Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon. He is a conservative Black patriot who shares the philosophy of Ronald Reagan. He says he is not interested in running for office—he is not a politician, says he is not politically correct. But he does care deeply about our country, and I believe that he could be persuade to run for the nomination. Dr. Carson is speaking widely around the country in support of needed healthcare reform and in opposition to ObamaCare—and the fundamental principles of liberty. Analysis shows that if a Black nominee were to receive 17% of the Black vote, he would win (Herman Cain was polling at more than 30% of the Black vote before he dropped out of the race for personal reasons).<br />
<br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-61872087694912517562013-10-30T09:07:00.000-07:002013-10-30T09:07:21.391-07:00Deists or Christians?<p>The story goes something like this. The Founders of our nation were not Christians, they were Deists. Let’s forget for a moment that nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had formal training in a Christian seminary. Let’s also forget about the fact that the colonization of America in the 1600’s included men like John Winthrop and William Bradford who came to America for the specific purpose of religious freedom, specifically to worship the God of the Bible. Let’s also ignore the preamble to the Treaty of Paris that concluded the Revolutionary War that begins with the words, <em>“In the name of the most holy and triune God.”</em> We can also ignore George Washington’s active participation in the Anglican Church where he served as a vestryman. And, let’s ignore the words of Patrick Henry’s Last Will and Testament which reads…</p><p><em>“This is all the Inheritance I can give to my dear family, The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”</em></p><p>And, finally, let’s forget about these words by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founders…</p><p><em>“My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!”</em></p><p>No, instead, let’s just look at the Declaration of Independence itself. After all, the Declaration is the founding document of our Republic. The Constitution we now live under came years after the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration itself. </p><p>Moreover, while the US Constitution serves as the law of the land, the Declaration of Independence is a manifesto. It expresses the thoughts and ideas of the Founders as no other document does. It tells us more about the thinking of the Founders than any other document of that time. Created by a committee, Thomas Jefferson is given primary responsibility for its creation.</p><p>But, before we dive into the Declaration of Independence, let’s try to gain a better understanding of what it means to be a Deist. After all, that’s what it is claimed that the Founders were. My <em>American Heritage College Dictionary</em> defines Deism thusly…</p><p><em>“The belief, based on reason, in a God who created the universe and has since assumed no control over life, exerted no influence on nature, and given no supernatural revelation.”</em></p><p>The <em>Bing Dictionary</em> on my computer provides a similar description…</p><p><em>“Rational belief in God: a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs.”</em></p><p>And, just so we have three points of reference, the definition of Deism at <em>Dictionary.com</em> is a…</p><p><em>1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.</em></p><p>I checked several other sources and they all say essentially the same thing. Some use the example of a watchmaker who winds up a watch and then forgets about it. The idea being that God created the world, and then walked away and forgot about it. He doesn’t intervene in it, he certainly didn’t send his Son to save it, and he doesn’t have any sort of personal relationship with people in the world. He is a sort of absent God.</p><p>Now, let’s get back to the Declaration of Independence. There are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The question is, are these references consistent with a Deist God, an absent, uncaring, unconnected God, or are they consistent with any other sort of God, even a particular God such as the Christian God?</p><p>The first reference to God in the Declaration is in the preamble to the document and it reads…</p><p><em>“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of <strong>nature's God</strong> entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”</em></p><p>In this instance, God is defined as the God of nature. This could reasonably be interpreted as the watchmaker God in that God created nature. But, there is a serious problem with that reasoning, because it goes on to say that God entitles them to dissolve their bonds with England. A Deist would not believe that God was involved whatsoever. He created the world and walked away. He would not, in the Deist view, entitle the signers to anything because he would not care about what the signers or any other human believed. He would be an absent, uncaring God. So, the argument that the signers, i.e. the Founders, were Deists falls short right in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.</p><p>The next reference to God in the Declaration is in the very next sentence that reads…</p><p><em>“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their <strong>Creator</strong> with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”</em></p><p>This is more bad news for those who assert that the Founders were Deists. If God is an absent God, a watchmaker God, what does he care about rights? How can a Deist God endow mankind with rights? And, what would he care about creating humans as equal in his sight or under the law? There is nothing in the first two references in the Declaration of Independence that is consistent with a Deist God, but both of these two references are consistent with a Christian God or a Jewish God.</p><p>The third reference to God is found after a recitation of all the grievances that the colonists expressed in regard to the King of England. This is, in fact, the actual declaration of independence from the Crown, the line in the document that put their lives at risk. It was an incredibly brave and daring statement that is virtually impossible to appreciate. The Founders, men of consequence, of learning, and wealth, were putting their lives on the line so that they, their families, their fellow Americans from all walks of life, and you and I could live in freedom. </p><p>This third reference to God reads…</p><p><em>“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the <strong>Supreme Judge of the world</strong> for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;”</em></p><p>There is nothing in this statement, declaring their freedom and independence, consistent with a Deist God, nothing at all. Why would the signers appeal to an absent, uncaring, watchmaker God? That would have been silly, and these were not silly men. Why would they have called God the “Judge of the world” if they believed that he was totally uninvolved with them and their lives? However, if you were Christian or Jewish, and read the New Testament and/or the Old Testament, you would have understood that God is indeed the “Judge of the world.” You would have believed that God was totally righteous, without fault. And, if you were a Christian, you would have believed that this God sent his one and only son, Jesus, as prophesied in the Old Testament and written about in the New Testament, to rescue us from God’s judgment. Once, again, this reference in the Declaration of Independence to God is totally inconsistent with a Deist God, but totally consistent with a Judeo-Christian God.</p><p>The fourth reference to God in the Declaration of Independence follows almost immediately on the heels of the third reference. It reads…</p><p><em>“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of <strong>Divine Providence</strong>, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” </em></p><p>Those who assert that the Founders were Deists like to point out that almost all of the Founders used the term “Divine Providence” when referring to God, a term that is out of fashion today. In fact, the idea of God as the “Divine Providence” comes from a number of Bible verses in the Old Testament such as Psalm 47:8 (God’s Word version)…</p><p><em>“God rules the nations. He sits upon his holy throne.”</em></p><p>It is the concept that while we have free will as Christians, God still mysteriously governs the course of nations and of men. Or, as George Washington put it…</p><p><em>“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”</em></p><p>But, the point is, if you are a Deist who believes God is absent and uninvolved, you can’t rely on “the protection of Divine Providence” since you don’t believe that God is involved in the world. And, while this idea of an involved God is inconsistent with the definition of Deism, it is totally consistent with the Old and New Testaments. It is totally consistent with the Christian and Jewish faiths.</p><p>In summary, the idea of the Founders being Deists is simply made up out of whole cloth. It doesn’t stand up to even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence. If you still believe that the Founders were Deists, you must first reject the Declaration as a statement of the Founders. Second, you can cling to the belief that some of the Founders were Deists, and that may be true. But, for all of the signers of the Declaration to agree with the wording of the Declaration, it has to mean that they were, by a vast majority, men who believed in a God who was personally involved in their lives. And, if you dig deeper into the books they read, the churches they founded, the churches they attended, their writings, and their speeches it is difficult to rationally conclude that they were not Christians. This is not to say that each and every Founder was a Christian, nor is it to say that anyone can say with absolute certainty what they believed in their heart. That’s up to God. What we can reliably conclude is that their faith was so important to them that they included references to a specific, involved God four times in the most important document they signed in their lives.</p><p>Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge a speech that my wife and I were recently privileged to hear that was given by Kirby Wilbur, the Director of the National Journalism Center (<a href="http://www.yaf.org/NationalJournalismCenter.aspx">www.yaf.org/NationalJournalismCenter.aspx</a>) a group operated by Young America’s Foundation (<a href="http://www.yaf.org">www.yaf.org</a>), a client of Eberle Associates (<a href="http://www.eberleassociates.com">www.eberleassociates.com</a>). It was from Kirby that I received the concept and inspiration for this blog. I hope that you have found it to be enlightening.</p><p>You and I must not let the wishful and misguided thinking of those that reject our Judeo-Christian heritage alter history. Volumes have been written by serious scholars on our American History. These scholars do not skip over or minimize the powerful impact of Christianity upon our history. To eliminate the influence of Christianity upon the Founders and upon their understanding of human nature is to totally and dangerously distort history.</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-59976487087760447582013-10-17T13:42:00.003-07:002013-10-17T13:42:26.097-07:00Servants or Masters?The concept of elected officials being public servants seems to be lost on the current incumbent of the White House. That is unfortunate, because when elected officials begin thinking of themselves as the masters, and the voters who elected them as their servants, democracy has been turned on its head. <br />
<p>The first Americans traced their freedom to the issuing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Powerful feudal lords forced English King John to sign the Magna Carta. This founding document established the rule of law as being above and over the rule of any man. It established Englishmen as free men with defined liberties and it established that the rule of the King could not be arbitrary, that is, above the law. Americans from the 1600s until the time of the American Revolution stood proud as British citizens whose individual freedom was protected by the Magna Carta.</p><p>In reality, although King John signed the Magna Carta, he and his successors did not adhere to it closely. Nevertheless, this document established the concept of the rule of law, not the rule of man. And, although Parliament had been established long before 1776, its power was limited and the power of the King of England was nearly unlimited. Like Kings before him, King George ignored the Magna Carta whenever he found it desirable. </p><p>At this time King George was a true Monarch. He was the master, and the English people were his subjects. As the American Declaration of Independence clearly documents, King George violated the letter and the spirit of the Magna Carta. His intent and his actions were intended to bring the Americans to heel. They were to do what he told them to do and they were to knuckle under as his servants. Yes, the Parliament rubber stamped his actions, but make no mistake, they were the actions of a tyrant.</p><p>The Americans rebelled. And, when they declared their separation from England, they set forth to create a new form of government. It wasn’t just to be an Athenian democracy or a Roman republic, neither of which was very free or very republican or democratic in nature. What the American Founders sought was to create a true republic that put almost all power into the hands of the people and that limited the power of those in public office.</p><p>President Obama has complained in a radio interview…</p><p><em>“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…”</em></p><p>President Obama is right. It’s not the state that needs protection from the people; it is the people who need protection from the government. That was the clear understanding of the Founders. They sought to create a new form a government where the people were all powerful, and the government was limited to specific, enumerated powers.</p><p>They knew from personal experience of the danger of an all-powerful monarch who could on a whim strip them of their freedom as British citizens. They also knew from reading Montesquieu that the power of government must be limited and divided in order for freedom to survive. Wikipedia says this about Montesquieu…</p><p><em>“Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America, cited more by the American founders than any source except for the Bible. Following the American revolution, Montesquieu's work remained a powerful influence on many of the American founders, most notably James Madison of Virginia, the ‘Father of the Constitution.’ Montesquieu's philosophy that ‘government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another’ reminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national government required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers.”</em></p><p>And, by relying on the understanding of the Bible as to the imperfect nature of man, the Founders set about creating a government framework wherein no one man or group of men could gain power over American citizens as monarchs had for ages past. This message of the fallen state of man is repeated clearly throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. In Ecclesiastes 7:20 it is written, <em>“Certainly, there is no one so righteous on earth that he always does what is good and never sins.” </em>In Romans 3:23 it says,<em> “Because all people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory.” </em>Indeed, this truth of the imperfection of man is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible, because the Bible is a rescue tale. It is the story of God sending his only son, Jesus, to rescue fallen men and women from total separation from God. If any man could obtain his own perfection, he would not be in need of God. But, because all have sinned, the only path to heaven is through trust in Jesus. </p><p>The Bible was, as Wikipedia notes, the most read book of the Founders. There was no way to escape the message of man’s fallen state if someone reads it in even a cursory fashion. It was this knowledge of the imperfection of man that drove the founders to limit the power of any man or group of men in government. </p><p>As George Washington clearly put it…<strong> <em>“</em></strong><em>Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like a fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” </em>Washington and the other Founders clearly understood the reality of human nature. They understood the danger of giving man through government too much power. They understood, from their reading of history, that it is government and only government that enslaves men, and turns them into pawns of the state.</p><p>That’s why the United States Constitution is written giving the government negative rights, as Barack Obama put it. It is those negative rights that protect you and I from tyranny.</p><p>The Founders were well aware of the concept of public service, the idea of someone elected to office being the servant of the people, not vice versa. It was a concept strongly held by the Founders. </p><p>But, the actions of the Obama Administration during the current government shut down belie their lordly attitude toward American citizens. In fact, they are spiteful toward Americans. There have been eleven shutdowns of the federal government since 1980. Not one of these shutdowns has ever before included…</p><ul> <li>Blocking access to the Lincoln Memorial or any other memorial</li>
<li>Canceling all White House tours</li>
<li>Shutting down private businesses in or near federal parks</li>
<li>Threats to stop mailing out Social Security checks</li>
<li>Blocking access to the permanent residences of in holders inside of national parks.</li>
<li>Chaining off access to the World War II Memorial</li>
<li>Shutting down Ford’s Theater in Washington, DC</li>
<li>Closing down the Grand Canyon even though the state of Arizona agreed to pay all necessary costs to keep it open</li>
</ul><p>These and many more outrageous and arrogant steps taken by the Obama Administration have been taken with one sole purpose, to cause pain to the American people. Their goal is to frustrate and aggravate Americans by these closures, and blame it all on the Republicans. These are the steps that a master takes to punish his servants. This is the prevailing attitude of the Obama White House. We are the servants, and he is the master.</p><p>Our President does not hesitate to fly off to Florida to play golf with Tiger Woods and spend $148,000 per hour riding in Air Force One, but he can’t seem to find the pittance needed to keep the White House tours open.</p><p>These aren’t acts caused by a shortage of funds caused by the Republicans. It is the spiteful act of a President who refuses to negotiate with the Republicans over the Continuing Resolution for funding the government. These are arrogant and petty attempts by the Administration to punish and hurt the people it purportedly serves. </p><p>Does the President care about you and me? Does he care about the law of the land? Does he care about the huge debt he has run up? Does he understand that he is the servant and we are the masters? No, he apparently does not.</p><p>The President absolutely refuses to negotiate, even though on 27 previous occasions riders have been attached to a Continuing Resolution for funding. And, in each of those occasions, the then President worked with Congress to resolve their differences. But, the principle of non-negotiation set forth by President Obama is understandable. After all, he taught Saul Alinsky’s <em>Rules for Radicals</em> and one of Alinsky’s rules is never negotiate with your enemy. And, President Obama has made it clear on more than one occasion that you are I are his enemies. In the 2008 election he identified Republicans as his <em>“enemies.”</em></p><p><em>Rules for Radicals</em> also explains his unnecessary punishment of American citizens during the government shutdown. <em>Rule 12 says, “Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)” </em>This disciple of Saul Alinsky is our President of the United States.</p><p>President Obama is playing every card in Saul Alinsky’s <em>Rules for Radicals</em>, but it is not working. He is blaming the Republicans for the hardships he has intentionally imposed on American citizens, but they are not taking the bait. The Republicans’ own internal polling shows them winning the debate as long as they frame it accurately, i.e., the President refuses to negotiate, and the Republicans are willing to negotiate. Even a dunderhead can understand that the President is an unfair bully and the Republicans are playing fair and above board.</p><p>But, of course, the President denies it all. Barack Obama recently told CNBC host John Harwood…</p><p><em>“I think it’s fair to say that during the course of my Presidency I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party, and have purposely kept my rhetoric down. I think I’m pretty well known for being a calm guy. Sometimes people think I’m too calm.”</em></p><p>You have got to give it to him, the guy can tell a whopper with a straight face.</p><p>He must have forgotten his comments a few days earlier in Maryland where he said…</p><p><em>“The Speaker of the House, John Boehner…”</em> is acting as he is only because… <em>“…he doesn’t want to anger the extremists in his party. That’s all. That’s what this whole thing is about.”</em> The President also talked about<em>… “…the Republican obsession with denying affordable health insurance to millions of American. That’s all this has become about. That seems to be the only thing that unites the Republican Party these days.” </em></p><p>And, of course his surrogates in Congress and members of the White House staff have talked about the Republicans being<em> “terrorists” </em>who are<em> “holding us hostage” </em>with <em>“bombs strapped to their chest.” </em></p><p>And then, when Mr. Harwood mentioned that Wall Street, i.e. the stock market, was taking the government shutdown calmly, the President actually complained about it. He seeks problems in the stock market so he can blame it on the Republicans. The President responded to Mr. Harwood, <em>“No, I think this time is different, they should be concerned.” </em>In other words, it’s just fine and dandy with Mr. Obama if the stock market is in an upheaval and millions of Americans lose money because of it. No problem, as long as it advances his political agenda. With Barack Obama everything is politics. Nothing is about the good of the country.</p><p>But, make no mistake about it, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama would not be making such outrageous statements, and issuing such personal attacks if they did not think they are losing this debate. The Republicans are willing to negotiate. The President is not willing to negotiate. They lose that argument every time. Americans expect fairness, and when one party won’t negotiate, they see that as unfair.</p><p>My best guess is that since the entire apparatus of the new Obamacare online system has broken down the President will use it as an excuse to postpone enrollment for six months or a year. He never will, of course, admit that the GOP won, but it will be their victory. It will be yours and mine too.</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-76160948459074235772013-10-11T13:03:00.004-07:002013-10-11T13:03:32.569-07:00Retribution or Reconciliation?<p>Earlier this year, on February 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard an argument by a lawyer representing Shelby County, Alabama, in regard to the applicability and current accuracy of the premise upon which the 1965 Voting Rights Act was based. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress over opposition from Democrats (primarily in the South) yet signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was a landmark decision in the vein of the Reconstruction laws that applied to the Southern states following the Civil War. Prior to that, it was generally understood that all federal laws had to apply equally to all citizens and to all states. Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states…</p><p><em>"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."</em></p><p>The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution specifically protect the rights of African Americans and serve as the bedrock of protections of all citizens against discrimination, especially the right to vote. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically states</p><p><em>"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article."</em></p><p>While the intent and the letter of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments is abundantly clear, they alone did not solve the problem of discrimination in the South. As noted in a previous blog, the election of our first Progressive (i.e. liberal) President, Woodrow Wilson, dramatically reversed the progress in race relations and economic advancement in the South. Wilson, an outspoken racist who grew up in the deep South (born in Virginia, but raised in Georgia), helped to engineer the re-segregation of the South. Wilson, a student and disciple of Richard T. Ely [an influential founder of the Progressive movement], first re-segregated the Federal Government, reversing the policies of Republican Presidents before him. Ely and others, who believed that African Americans had not sufficiently progressed ethically, then went about encouraging and achieving the re-segregation of the South.</p><p>The re-segregation of the South led to the infamous Jim Crow era that lasted from the time of Ely until the 1960s. Through the use of poll taxes, threats, and physical harassment, African Americans were denied the right to vote. It was a sad era in American history. Repeatedly, Republicans in Congress tried to pass civil rights legislation, but it was continually voted down or watered down by the Democrat majorities in Congress up until 1964.</p><p>Finally, in 1964, a strong Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress over the objections of Southern Democrats and Democrats from as far North as Montana. Similarly, in 1965, the historic Voting Rights Act was passed.</p><p>The argument made by Shelby County, Alabama, was that today, 48 years after the Voting Rights bill was passed, race relations, economic opportunities, and voting access to all citizens in that county are dramatically different than they were in 1965. In other words, they argued before the Court that the premise upon which the Voting Rights Act was based, that Alabama and other Southern states actively discriminate against African Americans, is no longer true today. </p><p>The Supreme Court ruled in June 2013, that it is unjustified to assume that no racial progress has been made in the states to which the 1965 Voting Rights legislation applies. However, the Court did not state that no restrictions could apply, but simply that the Congress should evaluate the current status of these states and form a new basis for applying the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the Court did not view the requirement for government issued photo identification as discriminatory.</p><p>This ruling set off a firestorm of outrage on the left by many who had been active in the civil rights movement back in the 1960s, and those of other motivations. But, before I get into that outrage, let me provide you with a quote from <em>USA Today</em> on the ruling…</p><p><em>"Declaring that 'our country has changed in the past 50 years,' Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four other conservatives said the 1965 law cannot be enforced unless Congress updates it to account for a half-century of civil rights advances."</em></p><p>Apparently, Americans from all walks of life, all political parties, political philosophies, all ages, and both men and women agree with Chief Justice Robert's appraisal that racial progress has been made over the past 50 years. A survey taken by Elon University in North Carolina of North Carolina residents (I picked this one because it is in the South) showed these amazing results…</p><p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSptZ29C50nwoVGxLH9alf4J25YIMyUYPp4NsEWEY6u2873gmmwdmR7yIal8yQDVkjgoO7VOfRtsF_Csdxr_KBZ6ncAxFT1Hrqut6rTP_oz8vVeEifOExlmhW1eGXz5LeYbKlRff_-l6cq/s1600/BlogGraph.png" width="500" height="235" border="0" /><br />
<br />
</p><p>Now, remember this is a poll of North Carolina citizens only. In each and every category, no matter how you slice it, every group favors the use of government issued photo identification cards as a requirement to vote.</p><p>Similar national polls show support for government issued photo identifications voter cards to be above 70%. This includes all categories shown above, plus folks who identify themselves as liberals! In all cases and in all groups the support is above 50%.</p><p>So the question crosses my mind, if African Americans living in the South support government issued ID voter cards, is there any doubt that <em>"our country has changed in the last 50 years?</em> Is there really any likelihood that photo identification cards will negatively impact minority voting? If all minority groups support government issued voter identification cards, they must not feel that the requirement that a voter show a government issued photo identification card will dissuade them from voting.</p><p>So, then, what is the objection to using ID cards to provide integrity in the voting system? Why the opposition to securing the validity of the voting franchise? Why the outrage at the Supreme Court ruling?</p><p>The Alabama law and most other voter security laws (they exist in 34 states), allow everyone one to vote, even those without a government issued photo ID, on a provisional basis. In other words, even if you do not have an ID card, you can cast your ballot provisionally until it has been verified that you are who you claim to be.</p><p>And, frankly, virtually everyone has a government issued photo ID card today. Such cards are required to receive food stamps, drive a car, purchase liquor or cigarettes, etc. Moreover, in those states that require a photo ID to vote, you can get one for free from a local state office. How much easier can we make it to vote?</p><p>But now, let's talk about the outrage. </p><p>I have worked with a lawyer in New York City. Although we have never met, I have talked with him on several occasions on the telephone in regard to a legal matter in which both he and I were interested. I believe he is a very sincere man with strong principles. I do not agree with him politically, but I believe he is honest, competent, and desires justice.</p><p>When the US Supreme Court first heard the Shelby County, Alabama, case my acquaintance in New York City was outraged. He sent out a news release on the comments made by the Judges during oral arguments and he was livid. This is, in part, what his news release said…</p><p><em>"In August 1968, three years after the Voting Rights Act was passed, Henrietta Wright began her testimony on August 10th in the first voting rights damage suit in a Federal United States District Court in a Mississippi courtroom. She was suing Sheriff John Wages, the Sheriff who brutally beat her, hospitalized her and jailed her because she tried to register to vote on August 25, 1965 -- 20 days after the historic act was passed.</em></p><p><em>When the first voting rights suit was filed by the Department of Justice, Winona County, Mississippi, had 7,639 white persons and 7,250 Negroes of voting age. At least 5,343 white persons were registered to vote. </em></p><p><em>I was Mrs. Wright's lawyer."</em></p><p>My friend goes on to explain how Henrietta Wright was beaten up and mistreated by the police in Winona County, Mississippi, just because she tried to register to vote. It is a very emotional and, I am sure, absolutely true story. It describes a shocking case of voting rights abuse. For this lawyer, it was just yesterday that this trial took place. He story is vivid and his passion for justice shows through as he tells the story…</p><p><em>"Henrietta Wright's handcuffs were removed. She spent that night in jail, with no offer of dinner. The next morning Wages, Miller, Morgan, and Cross[the Sheriff and his deputies] entered her cell, dragged her off the cot, and slammed her head and back against the concrete floor. They kneed her in the stomach, thighs, and mouth, knocking out two front teeth, her mouth filling with blood. She resisted as best she could. They tried to handcuff her to keep her from fighting back, but they were not able to get more than one lock snapped on.</em></p><p><em>Her damage trial lasted a week. A constant angry white crowd congregated each day, all day, outside the courthouse. Mrs. Wright and I were surrounded, cornered, bumped and threatened as we came and went to the courthouse. I got phone calls at my hotel threatening, 'Slick, you won't leave town alive'.</em></p><p><em>The all-white jury deliberated for two hours. We lost the case, but we won. Mrs. Wright won first by trying to vote, then by merely bringing the suit and making the Sheriff face her lawyer and her cross examination, and by the fact that an all-white jury needed two hours to deliberate and did not return an immediate verdict against Mrs. Wright.</em></p><p><em>Mrs. Wright was cheered as she left the courthouse by some of her neighbors who, after hearing of the verdict, came to support and protect her after she left the courthouse.</em></p><p><em>It is now 45 years after Mrs. Wright's trial. On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court heard Alabama's attack that the voting Rights Act could no longer stop states from discriminating against black voters. The lawyers for Shelby County, Alabama, argued that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was no longer necessary in 2006 for times had changed."</em></p><p>You can see from reading his news release that he is still infuriated by what happened to Mrs. Wright, and he honestly believes that nothing has changed in the South. This is what he said about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Shelby County, Alabama, case…</p><p><em>"Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in support of Alabama's position, rhetorically asked whether 'the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North.' Justice Roberts tried to show it was unfair to single out the South for racial discrimination and that the law was now being unequally applied; and that this unequal application may be more troublesome than the racial discrimination itself. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote was known to be critical, then rhetorically asked the government lawyer whether Alabama today is an 'independent sovereign' or whether it must live 'under the trusteeship of the United States government.'</em></p><p><em>But it was Justice Antonin Scalia who had the temerity to say that the Voting Rights Act, a great civil rights landmark, now amounted to a 'perpetuation of racial entitlement.'"</em></p><p>In my friend's eyes, nothing has changed in nearly 50 years. The South is today, in his mind, just as racist and bigoted as it was 45 years ago. I can almost understand his ire, but his position is clearly one based on his personal experience, and not on facts.</p><p>I think we can trust African Americans living in North Carolina when it comes to whether or not the requirement for government issued photo ID cards to secure the integrity of the ballot box will keep them from voting. And, as far as nothing has changed is concerned, African Americans are returning to the South from the North, for jobs and for retirement.</p><p>In an article for the <em>Pittsburg Post-Gazette</em>, Daniel DiSalvo, an assistant professor of political science at the City College of New York, wrote of the remigration of blacks from the North to the South. Other major publications have also taken note of this phenomenon. This is some of what Professor DiSalvo reported…</p><p><em>"A century ago, nine of 10 African-Americans lived in the South, primarily in formerly Confederate states where segregation reigned. Then, in the 1920s, blacks began heading north, both to escape the racism of Jim Crow and to seek work as southern agriculture grew increasingly mechanized. 'From World War I to the 1970s, some 6 million black Americans fled the American South for an uncertain existence in the urban North and West,' wrote author Isabel Wilkerson in [her book] 'The Warmth of Other Suns.'</em></p><p><em>Principal destinations in the Great Migration, as the exodus came to be called, included Chicago, Detroit and New York City, and carried tremendous political implications, both good and bad. It helped spur the civil rights movement, but it also trapped many blacks in urban ghettos. More recently, the Great Migration has reversed itself, with blacks returning to the South."</em></p><p>He goes on…</p><p><em>"The New York Times noticed in the early 1970s that, for the first time, more blacks were moving from the North to the South than vice versa. Last year, the Times described the South's share of black population growth as 'about half the country's total in the 1970s, two-thirds in the 1990s and three-quarters in the decade that just ended.'</em></p><p><em>Many of the migrants are "buppies" -- young, college-educated, upwardly mobile black professionals -- and older retirees. Over the last two decades, according to the Census, the states with the biggest gains in black population have been Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Florida. New York, Illinois and Michigan have seen the greatest losses. Today, 57 percent of American blacks live in the South -- the highest percentage in a half-century."</em></p><p>Professor DiSalvo sums the remigration of blacks from the North to the South this way…</p><p><em>"The first is the push and pull of job markets. States in the Northeast and on the West Coast, where liberalism has been strongest, tend to have powerful public-sector unions, high taxes and heavy regulations, which translate into fewer private-sector jobs. In southern locales, where taxes are lower and regulations lighter, employment has grown faster; the fastest-growing cities for job creation between 2000 and 2010 were Austin, Raleigh, San Antonio, Houston, Charlotte and Oklahoma City. For upwardly mobile blacks, the job-creating South represents a new land of opportunity.</em></p><p><em>The second reason for blacks' southward migration is the North's higher housing prices and property tax rates. The 2010 median single-family home price in northeastern metro areas was $243,900, compared with $153,700 in southern metro areas, according to the National Association of Realtors. Overall cost of living is an issue, too: Groceries, utility bills, housing and health care cost less south of the Mason-Dixon Line. High costs in the North make life difficult for the middle class regardless of color, but they pose a particular challenge to black families. From 2005 to 2009, according to a Pew survey, inflation-adjusted wealth fell by 16 percent among white households but by 53 percent among black ones.</em></p><p><em>Third, high taxes in northern cities don't always translate into effective public services. Public schools are a prime example: Though class sizes have shrunk and average per-pupil spending has increased markedly over the last three decades, schools with large black populations continue to perform poorly. In search of a solution, blacks have become far more amenable than other groups to experiments with vouchers and charter schools.</em></p><p><em>Finally, many blacks moving to the South are retirees who, like other older Americans, are seeking better weather. Over the past decade, Florida has attracted more black migrants than any other state. Sociologists Calvin Beale and Glenn Fuguitt have found that black retirees are moving not only to classic retirement destinations in the South but also to 'a cross-section of southern counties from which thousands of blacks migrated during the exodus from farming in the 20 years or so after World War II.' Many may be responding to what anthropologist Carol Stack describes as a 'call to home.'"</em></p><p>From this data it is impossible for anyone to conclude that nothing has changed in the South over the past 50 years. Can anyone seriously argue that tens of thousands of African Americans would willingly move from the North to the South for jobs and for retirement if they thought they would be discriminated against, especially in the voting process? </p><p>I am confident that my lawyer friend is sincere in his beliefs. He is just wrong. There is no logic, and there are no facts to support his argument. But, I understand how and why he clings to these false ideas.</p><p>Sadly, my friend is not alone in his false conclusions. No less than the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is throwing about wild accusations that the required use of government issued photo ID cards is designed to suppress the black vote and that those behind this movement are racists. In the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> editorial of October 8, 2013, the editors say in regard to his lawsuit against North Carolina's photo ID law… </p><p><em>"According to Holder, this [the law requiring a government issued ID as a requirement for voting] amounts to a shocking return to the Jim Crow era. He describes these modest measures to secure the integrity of the ballot as 'aggressive steps to curtail the voting rights of African Americans.' And he is suing the state to bring it back under the federal supervision of the Voting Rights Act for all of its future voting-law changes."</em></p><p>What a disaster this would be. According to J. Christians Adams, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, attorneys in that division not only refused to enforce the law, but stood by as politicians to their liking corrupted the voting process. Attorney General Holder is defying the ruling of the Supreme Court with his lawsuit, which is sure to be the first of many if he is successful. To again quote the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> editorial…</p><p><em>"Under Section 3 of the Act [1965 Voting Rights Act], states can be required to get federal preclearance if a court finds that the state has intentionally discriminated against minorities in its voting laws. That's a high legal bar that the Justice Department will find hard to prove, especially since many of the states' [North Carolina and Texas] voter ID provisions are widespread in other states."</em></p><p>Beyond the unsubstantiated charges that the requirement of photo IDs will result in minority voter suppression, the argument is made that there is no need for ballot security because instances of voter fraud are rare and insignificant. As WSJ contributing editor John Fund has documented in his book, <em>Stealing Elections</em>, voter fraud is a real and significant danger across our nation. Voter fraud is widespread and has undoubtedly changed the outcome of many close elections.</p><p>In fact, former and very liberal US Supreme Associate Justice John Paul Stevens supported the constitutionality of a strict Indiana voter ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a <strong>unanimous opinion</strong> that…</p><p><em>"…confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised."</em></p><p>To sum it up, there are five reasons used to oppose enhancing the integrity of the voting process via government issued photo identification cards…</p><ol> <li><strong>Nothing Has Changed.</strong> Nothing has changed in the South in regard to discrimination of African Americans. It is just as bad today as it was in 1965. <strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>ID Cards Will Suppress Black Voting.</strong> The very existence of requiring photo identification in order to vote will unfairly discourage black and other minority voting.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>No Danger of Voter Fraud. </strong>There is no credible evidence or danger of widespread voter fraud.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Political Advantage. </strong>There is a political advantage in accusing the Republicans of wanting to suppress black and other minority voting by requiring voter ID cards. It enables Democrats to scare black voters into believing that Republicans are racists.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Impediment to Vote Theft. </strong>The dishonest and crooked see voter ID cards as an impediment to vote theft.<strong></strong></li>
</ol><p>If you believe nothing has changed, you are certainly entitled to your view, even though it runs totally counter to objective data. Yes, racism exists and it will always exist. It is a matter of the heart, not a matter of the law.</p><p>If you believe that voter ID cards will suppress black voting, there is just no evidence to support that belief. Those affected directly do not fear voter ID requirements. If you want to promote this idea, you need supporting evidence.</p><p>If you oppose voter ID cards for political advantage, shame on you. You are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. You seek to divide Americans for political gain, not unite them for the common good. You are driven by anger and seek revenge, not reconciliation. You seek power over honesty and integrity in government. </p><p>And, if you oppose voter ID cards because you want to encourage vote theft, you belong behind bars. You are a crook.</p><p>Of all the bad policies promoted by our President and his Administration, I despise his conscious efforts to divide Americans the most. Leaders do not divide, they unite, they encourage harmony.</p><p>The message of Christianity is reconciliation. Through Jesus' death on the cross, man is reconciled to God. Jesus died for our sins on the cross, so that we can live with him in perfect harmony forever in heaven. As a Christian, I am to forgo retribution and instead forgive. I am to forgive not only my friends, but also my enemies. America is known as a nation that forgives, thanks to our Christian heritage. When someone in public office admits their guilt, we are quick to forgive.</p><p>If we only had a leader in the White House whose goal was to reconcile black and white Americans, much progress could be made toward unity and harmony in our land. Everyone would benefit. Instead, we have a President and an Attorney General who either believe that nothing has changed and/or they encourage division for political gain. Shame on them!</p><p>A few years ago, the late Chuck Colson wrote about a predominately white Baptist Church in the deep South. I think it was in Montgomery, Alabama, but it really makes no difference. The story he related took place in the late 1980s or early 1990s. </p><p>Members of the church slowly, but firmly, came to the realization of their sin in resenting their black brothers and sisters, and of not working with them and for them in spreading the Gospel of Jesus. One Sunday morning, the entire church went to a nearby predominately black Baptist church and expressed their repentance for their sinful attitude and actions. On that Sunday morning true reconciliation occurred. And, from that point forward, the two churches have worked together, socialized together, and prayed together.</p><p>This is just one anecdote, but there are many more of a changed and repentant South. As a Christian, I know that in God's eyes to hate someone is to make me guilty of murder (1 John 3:15). Racism is just another name for hatred. Being a racist and being a Christian are incompatible.</p><p>Retribution may feel good at the instant of impact, but it damages the soul. Reconciliation breeds love and understanding and friendship. Yes, we have made great progress in race relations over the past 50 years and it should be celebrated. And, no, we should not overlook or condone racism of any kind. </p><p>And, we should insist that any office holder or political appointee eschew any policy or statement that divides Americans, instead of uniting them. This should be a minimum expectation of any office holder, Republican or Democrat. It's written on our coins and on the Great Seal of the United States—E Pluribus Unum. It means out of many, one. Diversity is nice, but unity is critical.</p>Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-21543163368822629142013-10-07T13:06:00.001-07:002013-10-07T13:06:35.079-07:00Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!Ever since I became politically aware I have been puzzled by the antics of those of the left. They take great pride in their intellectual achievements and their “modern” approach to life. However, every time there seems to be a real scientific advance that benefits society as a whole, they act like Luddites. Their reasoning is shallow and superficial, they are easily scared, and they rely primarily on emotion, not reason. Apparently the future scares them.</p><p>Let me give you just a few examples. As early as 1952, the Boeing aircraft company quietly began work on a so-called SST—Supersonic Transport—to carry passengers at supersonic speeds, i.e. faster than the speed of sound (Mach 1; 768 miles per hour). Just five years earlier, in 1947, Chuck Yeager had broken the sound barrier for the first time in history, flying the experimental Bell X-1 rocket propelled aircraft. By 1958, Boeing had set up an entire team to develop the SST and by 1960 Boeing was spending more than $1 million annually, about $7.8 million in 2013 dollars.</p><p>Not far behind Boeing, but taking a government funding approach, Britain set up their Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee in 1956. In 1962, Britain joined with the French to develop their own SST, later to be called the Concorde. Not to be left in the dust, the Soviet Union began working on an SST, the Tu-144. </p><p>On 5th June, 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced that the US would pursue construction of an SST. Like the British, Kennedy decided to take a government funded program. It was not necessarily the correct approach. Why should those who would not be flying aboard the SST subsidize those who would be passengers on it? From the beginning, Boeing believed it was a market place product and that is why they had spent their own money to develop it. At the helm of Boeing at that time was Bill Boeing, Jr., who was convinced that the SST could be built without a federal subsidy and be sold to airlines at a profit. It was perhaps when government intervened that the project went off the rails.</p><p>But, let me continue with the story. The Boeing plane, unlike the Concorde, was to be a large plane that was to carry 277 passengers (later reduced to 230) and had many features that later became common fixtures in modern aircraft such as retractable TV screens. </p><p>Flight time for the SST from New York City to Los Angeles at Mach 2 (2,000 mph) would be cut to about 2 1/2 hours and a flight from Washington, DC to London would take approximately 3 ½ hours. While the British and French proceeded with their Concorde project, the Boeing plane was never built.</p><p>Why? Because those on the left who oddly call themselves “Progressives” were scared of the SST. They were sure the sky would fall if the SST was flown over land. Like the opponents of railroads of a hundred years earlier, who were sure the hens would stop laying if trains passed their barns, liberals were sure the SST would be catastrophic for society. As it is with almost all liberal arguments, the case against the SST was based primarily on emotion, and little concern was given to the facts of the matter.</p><p>While the SST may never have been a marketplace product, it is hard to know that for certain. While the Concorde seated just 128 passengers, and thus the price of a ticket was very high, that was not true of the Boeing SST. Boeing had two designs, the aforementioned plane that would hold 230, and designs for a plane that would hold many more passengers. But alas, it was not to be built. </p><p>The Concorde ceased commercial operation in 2003. If the government had not intervened, and had the left not stirred up so much emotional opposition, it’s possible, just possible that you and I could be flying from Washington, DC to London in half the time it takes today.</p><p>And, while the left does not embrace advances in transportation, they do have a love affair with the past. They love to build public subway systems similar to those built at the turn of the 20th century, around 1905. They also like so-called high-speed rail service. Of course, none of these forms of transportation can sustain themselves on their own. They are outdated and not a market product. If they were, they would be built with private funds, make a profit, and not be a continuing burden to taxpayers, most of whom never ride such systems. The capital cost that is born by the taxpayer for the construction of these boondoggle projects is very costly, running into the billions of dollars, but that is the least of the burden. Worse yet is the annual subsidy for a typical line which costs millions of dollars. Embracing government built and run public transit is just another example of the left embracing the past and the approach of socialist Europe.</p><p>I could call liberals modern day Luddites, but how can a Luddite be modern? The Luddite movement existed from 1811 to 1817. Luddites attacked factories and tried to smash machines. In Luddite fashion, President Obama verbally attacked ATM machines because he said they destroyed jobs. What he does not apparently understand is that automation increases efficiency and builds wealth. </p><p>When goods and services are produced more efficiently, the more goods and services everyone in society enjoys. Economic progress depends on a man or woman being able to produce more than they can consume. Of course, in order to participate in this automation produced prosperity, you need to have a good education, not necessarily a college education. When you are well educated you can obtain a job where you can operate a manpower saving machine to produce goods and services far faster and more efficiently than you could do without that machine. When automation stagnates and efficiency declines, prosperity declines. It is because of mass production, automation, innovation, and scientific advances that increase efficiency in the marketplace that Americans have become so prosperous. And, of course, this happens only in a free market.</p><p>But, it’s not just ATM machines and SST planes that scare the timid left. It’s always something. Do you remember the Alar scare? Alar, or B 995, is a plant growth regulator that apple growers used to keep apples from falling off their trees before they were ripe. In effect, Alar made the apple growers more efficient and delivered a better, more fresh and tasty apply to the consumer. However, liberals have a scientifically unfounded fear of chemicals because very few liberals have degrees in science or engineering. They simply do not understand how or why things work.</p><p>Without doing in-depth research, the far left Natural Resources Defense Council charged that Alar caused cancer. After a willing and gullible <em>CBS 60 Minutes</em> highlighted this emotional charge, apple growers suffered immense losses, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and apple consumers were unable to purchase apples at a reasonable price. Much damage was caused by these wild charges which were later proven to be completely unfounded. Eventually, the American Council on Science and Health (<a href="http://acsh.org/">http://acsh.org/</a>), exposed the Alar scare as a total fraud. Today, the Alar story is a reminder of the damage that can be done when the mainstream news media cooperates in creating an irrational, emotional public scare based on propaganda rather than facts. They call themselves Progressives, but they have a knee-jerk reaction against advances in science when any ally on the left promotes a fraud like the Alar scare.</p><p>You can almost hear the left mumbling. If only we could ride a horse drawn wagon. If we could only ban automobiles. If we could only force people out of the suburbs and into anthill living in big cities. If only we could eat apples from a tree planted by Johnny Appleseed. If only we could eliminate preservatives from our food? If only we could ban this and ban that? The future scares the left. It reminds me of one of my wife’s favorite movies, <em>You’ve Got Mail</em>, starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. There is a character in the movie, Frank Navasky, who is accurately portrayed as someone from the far left. Frank (played by Greg Kinnear) writes for the Village Voice or some other rag to the left of the Voice. Frank hates computers and progress. He loves typewriters and everything in the past. The future and scientific advances scare Frank, just like they seem to scare today’s liberals.</p><p>The latest thing that scares the left is what is commonly called Fracking. <em>Investopedia</em> (<a href="http://www.investopedia.com">www.investopedia.com</a>) defines Fracking as </p><p><em>“A slang term for hydraulic fracturing. Fracking refers to the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted.”</em></p><p>Actually, according to <em>Wikipedia</em>, the history of Fracking goes all the way back to the 1800s...</p><p><em>“Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil producers in Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia by using liquid and later also solidified nitroglycerin. Later, the same method was applied to water and natural gas wells. The idea to use acid as a non-explosive fluid for well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, fractures would not close completely and therefore productivity was enhanced. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.”</em></p><p>I first became aware of the vast amounts of oil and gas reserves trapped in shale in 1966 when I was a young engineer working for Gulf Oil in Port Arthur, Texas. I remember reading the <em>Oil and Gas Journal</em> (<a href="http://www.ogj.com">www.ogj.com</a>) in the library of the Gulf refinery. There were a number of articles in the <em>Journal</em> about the large reserves of oil and gas found in shale formations across the nation. At that time all the oil and gas industry could do was to bemoan the fact that there was no way to extract those reserves. Fortunately, that is no longer true.</p><p>But, while oil and gas fracking has been with us a long time. The late George P. Mitchell is considered the father of modern day fracking. Mr. Mitchell died at the age of 94 in July of this year. His is a great American success story, and it deserves to be told. And, he deserves our gratitude. By all accounts, Mr. Mitchell had a penchant for hard work and perseverance. The son of a Greek immigrant that tended sheep in Greece before immigrating to the United States, Mr. Mitchell worked his way through Texas A&M University, graduating first in his class in petroleum engineering. The Dallas Morning News, said this of Mitchell in his obituary…</p><p><em>The work of this legendary oilman, who died last week at age 94 in Galveston, is the reason the United States is in the midst of an energy renaissance. In the past decade, natural gas drilling has created thousands of jobs, been a godsend to American manufacturing, revived U.S. oil and gas production, expanded natural gas exports and reduced CO{-2} emissions as utilities turn away from coal and toward natural gas to fire up their generating plants. Some now predict North America could be energy independent by the end of this decade.</em></p><p><em>Until Mitchell’s breakthrough in the 1990s, gas couldn’t be collected cheaply enough from the depths of impermeable shale to warrant exploration companies to even try. But after two decades of trial and error, he discovered that sand, water and chemicals blasted into rock formations at high pressure could free gas trapped in the shale for capture and storage. As a result, unprecedented drilling frenzies are underway in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the Barnett Shale in North Texas, the Eagle Ford in South Texas, the Permian Basin in West Texas and the Bakken in North Dakota.</em></p><p>Mr. Mitchell is just another in a long line of American entrepreneurs like Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Henry Firestone, Bill Boeing, Sr., Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and thousands more who have made our lives better and America stronger. Through their hard work and innovation they have not only created millions of jobs, but increased efficiency so that the standard of living in the United States is higher than any other place in the world. They could not have started so low on the economic ladder if government had continually gotten in their way. No, Mr. President, these men did not achieve success because of government, they achieved success because of their hard work, their perseverance, and the blessing of God.</p><p>But, liberals do not acknowledge the greatness of America’s entrepreneurs. They live in a world of make believe. They really believe that green energy is the wave of the future. They cling to the past. We had windmills in the 1800s and once again today we are told by the left to use windmills and other renewal energy sources, even though they cannot exist without government subsidies. In other words, because subsidies always help a few and damage many, we must lower our standard of living in order to please the left. Liberals really fear freedom. It’s unkempt and messy. They envy the success of entrepreneurs, they are jealous of their honestly earned wealth. They can’t understand why a businessman without much education who has built a company through hard work, long hours, and at great risk should be more wealthy than they are. After all, they have a PhD and many successful businessmen don’t even have any college education.</p><p>Yet, the left touts themselves as compassionate, yet they don’t seem to care that high energy prices hurt the poor the most. I realize that I have said this many times before, but this is a very real economic issue for people who are barely making it. A huge proportion of their income is devoted to energy use, whereas a middle class couple with a family spends proportionately much less. And, what is the argument for eschewing low cost oil and gas in favor of windmills? Well, there really isn’t a rational one. It is, as with nearly all arguments on the left, based on emotion, not reason.</p><p>Today, the left likes to make fantasy documentaries like <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> and <em>Gasland</em> to promote their far left agenda. I say fantasy because there is virtually no fact or truth in any of these movies. They are based almost solely on emotion. Yet, these slick movies seduce the low information voter who knows practically nothing about anything, thus making them an ideal Democrat. </p><p>One of the most intelligent articles on Fracking was written by Englishman Matt Ridley, whose books have sold more than a million copies and have been translated into 30 languages. Mr. Ridley graduated with BA and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Oxford University. He worked for the <em>Economist </em>for nine years as science editor. Ridley’s paper is entitled “<em>The Five Myths of Fracking.”</em> You can find it and other excellent Ridley blogs online at <a href="http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog">www.rationaloptimist.com/blog</a>. He identifies five things that are repeatedly said about fracking, but are simply untrue:</p><ol> <li>Shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United States.</li>
<li>Fracking releases more methane than other forms of gas production.</li>
<li>Fracking uses a worryingly large amount of water.</li>
<li>Fracking uses hundreds of toxic chemicals.</li>
<li>Fracking causes damaging earthquakes.</li>
</ol><p>Here are a few excerpts from his blog on Fracking…</p><p><em>“The total number of aquifers that have been found to be polluted by either fracking fluid or methane gas as a result of fracking in the United States is zero. Case after case has been alleged and found to be untrue. The Environmental Protection Agency closed its investigation at Dimock, in Pennsylvania, concluding there was no evidence of contamination; abandoned its claim that drilling in Parker County, Texas, had caused methane gas to come out of people’s taps; and withdrew its allegations of water contamination at Pavilion in Wyoming for lack of evidence. Two recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that groundwater contamination from fracking is ‘ not physically plausible.’”</em></p><p>Regarding…</p><p><em>“…the claim that shale gas production results in more methane release to the atmosphere and hence could be as bad for climate change as coal. Study after study has refuted it. As a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology put it: ‘It is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall [greenhouse gas] intensity of natural gas production.’”</em></p><p>As far as the claim that Fracking uses too much water, Ridley points out that Fracking uses .3% of all the water used in the United States, less than is used by golf courses. Even in Texas, a big Fracking state, only 1% of all the water used is for Fracking, according to Ridley.</p><p>As for chemicals injected into the wells (that now has to be reported by law), Ridley says this…</p><p><em>“Fracking fluid is 99.51% water and sand. In the remaining 0.49% there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), petroleum distillate (cosmetics).”</em></p><p>And, finally, in regard to earthquakes caused by Fracking, Ridley writes…</p><p><em>“As for earthquakes, Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that ‘almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it’ and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors.”</em></p><p>In the Wall Street Journal of October 3, 2013, it was reported that the United States is now the number one energy producer in the world, flying past Saudi Arabia and Russia. That is good news. We are energy independent, no thanks to President Obama and his allies in Congress. Why are we energy independent? We are energy independent because of Fracking, pure and simple. Fracking means jobs, it means low cost energy, and thus it means a helping hand to the poor to help them get out of poverty. It means a higher standard of living for all Americans.</p><p>Even the emotion driven politicians in New York and in California are giving a second look at Fracking. Fracking is here to stay, but it is only the latest scientific advance to be hated and despised by the wagon wheel left. The Luddites will always be with us because there will always be timid, easily scared folks who have a hard time accepting the future. </p><p>But, while the left is clinging to the past, I say…On to the future!</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-85721747210963439942013-09-27T13:14:00.000-07:002013-09-27T14:50:05.062-07:00Helping a Few, Hurting ManyThere is a beautiful, new metro rail line being constructed that will run within a couple blocks of my office. I love the architecture of big construction projects like this one. I also greatly appreciate the engineering that goes into construction of a major project like this one. It is truly amazing.</p><p>Sadly, however, while this mass transit project is beautiful to behold, it is a nightmare to the taxpayer and to all residents who will be taxed to support it. The projected annual operating shortfall is $170 million per year for the Silver line. Of course, the actual shortfall will probably be in the neighborhood of $200 million, if the taxpayers are lucky. The operating shortfall for the entire system (without the Silver line) is more than $535 million. In other words, with the Silver line in service, the <em>annual</em> revenue shortfall (covered by a taxpayer subsidy) will be in excess of $700 million dollars. This does not include substantial annual federal subsidies for capital improvements.</p><p>It is true that a few taxpayers will come out on the positive side. Those who benefit are limited to the less than 10% of daily commuters who actually ride Metro rail. The other 90% who drive automobiles subsidize those who ride Metro rail so that the fares charged by Metro are low enough to attract riders. But, the cost is not limited to drivers of automobiles. In fact, everyone in the Commonwealth of Virginia who pays taxes into the general treasury pays for the few who actually ride Metro.</p><p>But, in fairness, DC Metro rail is not an anomaly. Economists often note that anytime any government entity gets involved in the marketplace it causes dislocations. What does that mean? </p><p>A simple way to explain it is this. Whenever government (at any level) provides subsides, tax breaks, tariffs, privileges, or any other benefit or punishment to any individual or enterprise, a few benefit and many are burdened. Even simpler, any government interference in the free market, no matter how well intentioned, helps a very few, and hurts many. Sometimes, that interference doesn’t help anyone, but hurts everyone.</p><p>Every regulation drives up costs, every single regulation. I am not suggesting that we should do away with all regulations, but I do believe that we should regulate with our eyes wide open. We need regulations to protect the public from genuine public health issues. But, even in this area, regulations are often created not to protect the public, but to protect businesses from competition. For example, regulating taxi service is proclaimed to be in the public interest, but in reality, it limits entry into the marketplace by entrepreneurs who can provide that service better and cheaper as has been repeatedly shown. The result is that a few benefit, and many suffer.</p><p>Some states regulate barber shops and beauty parlors in the supposed interest of the public. In reality, the source of these regulations originates from those already in the marketplace who fear that more competition will reduce their charges. Again, a few benefit, many suffer.</p><p>US Sugar producers (like many other industries) receive millions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government to protect them from “unfair” competition. Without such subsidies, cheaper sources of sugar from overseas would drive down sugar prices. A few, the sugar producers benefit, while everyone who uses sugar, suffer.</p><p>Subsidies never benefit the public, they always benefit a few at the expense of the public. But, government interference in the marketplace doesn’t just help big businesses at the expense of the public. Instead of letting the free market function to the benefit of many, government intervenes into affecting wages and benefits with the goal of establishing a “level playing field.” It sets rules telling businesses that they can’t fire workers if they strike, they must hold organizing elections for unions if petitioned, they cannot hire nonunion workers if their state allows a closed union shop. And so, by such intervention, what happens? Because wages are artificially raised, the prices of goods and services produced are higher. The union workers in those specific industries benefit, everyone who buys those goods and services pays more. Again, a few benefit, many suffer.</p><p>Recently, the State of California raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Sounds great, doesn’t it. Finally, the advocates say, people will be paid a fair wage for their work. But, does it really work that way? Let’s see McDonald’s workers will get $10 per hour, but with that added cost, two things will happen. First, the price of hamburgers and fries will go up. There is no other way to stay in business. So, a few workers will benefit, and many will suffer. So what, you say, isn’t it better that you and I pay a few cents more for our next Quarter Pounder™ so that those workers will benefit? That is certainly the way it looks on the surface of the matter, but it’s not reality. The second thing that will happen is that McDonalds and other businesses that need minimum wage workers will simply shut down some stores, and they won’t build others. The fact of the matter is that the free market always sets the minimum wage based on the free give and take of the worker, the consumer and the provider. Politicians can convince themselves that they are bighearted by raising the minimum wage, but such artificial wage increases simply curtail business expansion and, therefore, job creation. </p><p>Worse yet, by setting a minimum wage, government interferes in the marketplace, discouraging and preventing budding entrepreneurs with creative new ideas from starting up businesses. In addition, it kills “first time jobs” for young people, especially the poor. </p><p>Recently, the District of Columbia City Council passed a bill to raise the minimum wage (they called it the “living wage”) to $17 an hour. They did this to keep Wal-Mart from building some seven stores in poor communities in DC. Why did they try to kill off much needed jobs for poor people? They did so because these city council members depend on union money and support for re-election. Wal-Mart said they would have to stop construction on the stores and not enter into the District of Columbia if they have to pay a minimum wage of $17. It almost makes one laugh. If $10 or $17 is a good minimum wage, why not raise it to $25 or $50 an hour? When the DC City Council tried to set a minimum wage of $17, it was punishing many to benefit a few. By driving out Wal-Mart they would not only kill off much-needed jobs for their constituents, but also force them to pay more for the goods and services that they would otherwise purchase at Wal-Mart. It is just another case of government benefitting a few to the detriment of many. Fortunately, the Mayor of Washington, DC vetoed the kill Wal-Mart bill, but the City Council is threatening to override the Mayor. </p><p>The other day the United States Postal Service (USPS) announced the intent to raise the price of a first class stamp by 3 cents. The USPS already loses billions of dollars each year and it will always lose money as long as there is no competition and it is run by government. The problem is that there is no fair mechanism to set wages and benefits for unionized postal workers. Because government is doing what a private firm should be doing and has granted itself a monopoly, many suffer, a few benefit. </p><p>The solution is to get government out of the marketplace. It has no means whatsoever of setting fair wages, benefits, or prices for goods and services. In every single instance, it makes matters worse for many, while benefitting a privileged few.</p><p>Today, we are strangling our economy through government interference into the marketplace. The result is that each and every American pays above market prices for nearly every good and service we purchase. Through government interference in the free market, we entrap the poor in poverty and remove opportunities to escape their dire situation. Through government interference, every sector of our society suffers to benefit the ruling class. </p><p>And, things are not going to get better. This is not just an accident, it is by design. Those in the ruling class realize that the more people they make dependent on their handouts, the easier it is to manipulate them. That’s why you see government pushing food stamps on nearly 50% of Americans. They even changed the name of the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but manure by any other name still smells as bad.</p><p>President Obama is not worried about the number of people out of work, he wants more people to be out of work. It is to his political benefit and his continuing goal of reducing America to the same state as European nations. He has to be careful how he does this, but it is politically beneficial to him to destroy the American dream, and replace it with the soft tyranny of a Socialist state. The goal is to increase the power and reach of the bureaucracy at the expense of those who fund it. </p><p>Obamacare is not about medical care, it’s about political control. Socialized medicine is always the crown jewel of socialists because they know that once they control your health care, there is no escape. At that point, every single American becomes dependent upon the government. And, if they are willing to corrupt the Internal Revenue Service for political gain, what makes you think they will not corrupt Obamacare for political gain? Besides which, the ultimate goal is not Obamacare. The ultimate goal is the failure of Obamacare and replacing it with total socialized medicine that gives the politicians and bureaucrats life and death power over your life.</p><p>There is nothing unique or new about the left’s goal for America. It is to abandon the dream of a free society as created by our Founders and replace it with a top down, autocratic society that benefits the few in power at the expense of many. The left’s goal is as old as the first sin in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve weren’t satisfied with living in God’s perfect world, they wanted to be like God. And, that is exactly what liberals want to do today, to play God and rule over everyone who they think is inferior to them.</p><p>The solution to our problems is not economic or political, it is theological. Until and unless we witness spiritual renewal in our land, we will continue to slide toward a cold, brutal, totalitarian state. As Americans, we inherited the greatest nation in the history of the world. It was the most free, the most generous nation ever created. </p><p>Can it be rescued? Or, are we willing to let it slide into just another top-down, autocratic state such as the ones our Forefathers fled? How much do we really care about the future of our children and grandchildren? If we are dedicated, if we are willing to get down on our knees and plead for mercy, perhaps, just perhaps, we can rescue this once great nation. </p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-47389527969030307512013-09-18T13:25:00.000-07:002013-09-18T13:56:12.201-07:00The Sordid History of the American Progressive Movement<p>What a great irony. Those who originally identified themselves as Progressives and later called themselves Liberals like to think of themselves as having higher ethical standards than everyone else in society. In fact, that’s exactly why they selected the term Progressive to describe their ideology. Just prior to the turn of the 20th century, men like Richard T. Ely and his student and future President, Woodrow Wilson, decided that certain individuals and certain elements of society had progressed to a higher ethical plane. These men (and women) were enlightened. They had taken a step never before taken in the history of the world, becoming men and women with higher ethical standards. The founders of the Progressive movement (today called the Liberal movement) concluded that they had, in the long march of mankind, finally shaken off the curse of the fallen state of man and were no longer subject to corruption of human nature as understood by the Founders.</p><p>It wasn’t that the Progressives thought the Founders were bad people. In fact, for their time, they conceded that the Founders were quite an amazing group of men. They might even say that they too had taken a great leap in ethics to form the first successful republic in the history of the world. But, given the general state of the world in the 1700s, the Founders simply had not yet reached the level of ethics that had been achieved by themselves (Progressives) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. </p><p>Professor Tiffany Jones Miller (from whom I have borrowed liberally) has written in <em>National Review</em>…</p><p><em>“The vital core of the turn-of-the 20th century Progressive Movement was a group of social scientists, many of whom had studied in German universities in the post-Civil War era. Among their most energetic reformers were a group of economists who had studied with members of the German Historical School of Economics, a school whose approach was, as historian Daniel M. Fox observes, ‘deeply influenced by Hegelian concepts of the historical process.’ Richard T. Ely was arguably the most influential member of this group. Ely played a leading role in the founding of the reform-minded American Economic Association…” </em></p><p>In fact, Ely is still honored today by the American Economic Association. Each year an economist is selected to be a Richard T. Ely Lecturer. The Encyclopedia of World Biography writes, <em>“Richard Ely (1854-1943) is considered the dean of American economics…” </em>As you will see, this is a rather surprising designation for someone who was such a blatant racist as was Ely.</p><p>Ely frankly explained his view that he and others had attained a higher ethical perspective and standard that had others in the past. He wrote the…</p><p><em>“…ethical ideal which animates the new political economy is the most perfect development of all human faculties in each individual, which can be attained…”</em></p><p>He further explained that this includes…</p><p><em>“…all the higher faculties—faculties of love, of knowledge, of aesthetic perception, and the like…”</em></p><p>And, keep in mind who this quote from Ely sounds like…</p><p><em>“When we speak of freedom as something to be highly prized, we do not mean merely freedom from restraint or compulsion.” </em></p><p><em>“True liberty”</em> according to Ely does not consist in <em>“negative”</em> freedom as the Founders’ envisioned, but it is <em>“positive”</em> in nature and <em>“…means the expression of positive powers of the individual [to] make the most and best of [himself]…”</em></p><p>As Professor Jones Miller writes…</p><p><em>“The Progressives believed in ‘progress,’ in short, because they believed that history, as a process of moral growth, has an upward trajectory.”</em></p><p>Professor Jones Miller has correctly identified the point of divergence between progressives (liberals) and the Founders. It is the progressive/liberal belief that man can progress morally and ethically; indeed that some men and women have in fact progressed to a higher moral and ethical level. Such a view is a radical departure from the understanding of the Founders and from traditionally held views of the nature of man.</p><p>Recently, liberal icons like Hillary Clinton have gone back to referring to themselves as Progressives, but Hillary might want to re-consider the wisdom of such a move in light of the frankly sordid history of the early Progressives. There is a very good reason that the name Progressive was abandoned in favor of the word Liberal.</p><p>The Progressive movement didn’t just deal exclusively with politics. It insinuated itself into every aspect of society—education (John Dewey), religion (Harry Emerson Fosdick), economics (Richard T. Ely), social policy (Margaret Sanger), arts and entertainment. And, one of the things that took place was the evaluation by these elitists of every segment of society, not as individuals, but as groups.</p><p>The overriding goal of the Progressive movement was power. They wanted power in every area, in education, in religion, in economics, in social policy, in politics, and in arts and entertainment. With this focus, they were able to change positions almost instantly, if it advanced their overall goal of achieving power. And, this is something they have done repeatedly. Because most liberals of today reject traditional moral values, it is not difficult to follow a practice of the ends justify the means.</p><p>In the Progressives’ view, the purpose of gaining power over the lives of other citizens was entirely benign. After all, because they had achieved a higher ethical plane, they knew, better than the citizens themselves, what was good for them. They could easily rationalize that what they had on their agenda was best for everyone.</p><p>But, accomplishing the Progressives’ goal wasn’t necessarily an easy task. They wanted to seek unprecedented power in a free society. They had to deal with the cumbersome democratic process in order to gain power and then curtail the democratic process. But, they felt that they were up to the task. And, they were.</p><p>After all, they were Progressives and that meant that anyone who did not agree with them was a regressive. And, in their view, what those who opposed them had in mind was simply not good for a modern society. They were, after all, inventing something new in the history of the world.</p><p>The Progressives’ plan, through the agency of government, was to provide security for every American. They would provide true justice, they would usher in an era of permanent world peace, and they would cure economic inequities, while still providing a good living for all. Under the control of the Progressives the arts would flourish, education would expand, society would improve, and the very nature of man would evolve to a higher state. Such was the vision of the founders of the American Progressive movement.</p><p>But, of course, it didn’t work like that. Human nature had not changed at all. And, that became abundantly clear with the advent of the worst wars, highest crime rates, worst education, and worst depression in the history of the United States. Each and every one of these were aided and abetted by the American Progressive movement. And, the problems created by the American Progressive/Liberal movement continue even today. There is no learning curve for the misguided leaders of the movement because they still today do not recognize or acknowledge the fact that they have not progressed ethically beyond any other segment of society. They, too, are subject to the fallen state of man. God is not dead, his precepts and standards still hold true. Yet, those in the Progressive/Liberal movement still cling to the idea that they are somehow better people than the other members of the human race. And, as long as they have power and cling to this falsehood, they will continue to wreak havoc on our society.</p><p>If the foundational premise of your movement is wrong, no policy or program you advocate can possibly work. And, before the current liberals come to the conclusion that the name liberal is so sullied as to be unusable (they do believe this), I suggest to them that they consider the sordid history of the Progressives of an earlier era. </p><p>Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856. As a young boy living in Atlanta, Georgia, he ardently cheered for the victory of the South. This is not, of course, unexpected in a young man whose family roots were in the deep South. But, Wilson never outgrew the racism of his childhood. Throughout his entire life, he considered African Americans to be inferior to white Americans. It was not uncommon for Wilson to use harsh racist terms as President of the United States, even in public. It was reported that Wilson’s favorite movie was D.W. Griffith’s “<em>Birth of a Nation.</em>” This racist movie depicted the KKK as the noble defenders of noble white Americans, and it is said that Wilson used it to justify his reinstitution of racial segregation as official US domestic policy.</p><p>Clearly, Wilson was no friend of Frederick Douglass, the former slave and leader of the abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War. And, although they were not contemporaries, their lives did overlap, with Douglass dying in 1895 and Wilson in 1924. Douglass was prescient in his fear of what would happen if men like Wilson gained power. He feared that blacks would lose the rights they gained under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that were passed by Republicans. He wrote about the importance of the black man having the right to own property and compete with the white man in the marketplace, and he also wrote that if the black man lost the right to vote he would once again become…</p><p><em>“…the slave of society… holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right.”</em></p><p>Beginning in 1890, a wave of disenfranchisement of black voters swept through the South, with the encouragement of men like Richard Ely and Woodrow Wilson. Historian C. Vann Woodward documented that while there were 130,334 blacks registered to vote in Louisiana in 1896, this number had declined dramatically to only 1,342 by 1904. The same pattern happened throughout the Old South. Woodward states…</p><p><em>“In the South, the typical progressive reformer rode to power…on a disenfranchising or white-supremacy movement.”</em></p><p>The racism of the Progressives was not confined to the South. In 1931, the Democrats pushed through the Davis-Bacon Act. Here is the story of the Davis-Bacon Act as described by David Bernstein, in his paper, <em>The Davis-Bacon Act: Let's Bring Jim Crow to an End</em>…</p><p><em>“The story of Davis-Bacon begins, one might say, in 1927 when a contractor from Alabama won a bid to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in Long Island, New York. He brought a crew of black construction workers from Alabama to work on the project. Appalled that blacks from the South were working on a federal project in his district, Representative Robert Bacon of Long Island submitted H.R. 17069, "A Bill to Require Contractors and Subcontractors Engaged on Public Works of the United States to Comply with State Laws Relating to Hours of Labor and Wages of Employees on State Public Works," the antecedent of the Davis- Bacon Act.”</em></p><p><em>“Over the next four years Bacon introduced thirteen more bills to establish regulation of labor on federal public works projects.[10] Finally, a bill submitted by Bacon and Senator James J. Davis, with the support of the American Federation of Labor, passed in 1931. The law provided that all federal construction contractors with contracts in excess of $5,000 or more must pay their workers the "prevailing wage," which in practice meant the wages of unionized labor.”</em></p><p><em>“The measure passed because Congressmen saw the bill as protection for local, unionized white workers' salaries in the fierce labor market of the Depression. In particular, white union workers were angry that black workers who were barred from unions were migrating to the North in search of jobs in the building trades and undercutting "white" wages.”</em></p><p><em>“The comments of various congressmen reveal the racial animus that motivated the sponsors and supporters of the bill. In 1930, Representative John J. Cochran of Missouri stated that he had ‘received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.’”</em></p><p>The Davis-Bacon Act is clearly a racist law designed to discriminate against African Americans in the marketplace. Moreover, the Davis-Bacon Act is still supported by liberal Democrats, North and South. Jim Crow lives on in the marketplace because today’s Democratic Party is more loyal to their Union allies than they are to the principles of equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why, because the Progressive/Liberal movement is first and foremost driven by the acquisition of power, not the interests of the citizens of our Republic.</p><p>The disdain for minorities by Progressives was not limited to African Americans. They held a similar disdain for all minorities, as proven by the policies of the great liberal hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt. During World War II, Roosevelt was extremely xenophobic. While the number of German Americans far outnumbered the number of Japanese Americans, it was those of Japanese descent who became a target of President Roosevelt and fellow Progressive Republican Governor Earl Warren of California. </p><p>Together, Roosevelt and Warren devised and executed a plan that resulted in the internment of Japanese Americans. There was no greater reason to distrust the loyalty of Japanese American any more than German Americans, but Roosevelt did so only because they were Asians. Today’s Liberal authors of school text books spend a great deal of time talking about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II to show how bad America is. However, they do not properly credit this injustice to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Worse yet, they do not credit United States Senator Robert Taft (known as Mr. Conservative) as the most outspoken and prominent opponent of this misguided policy. Of course, to do so would be inconsistent with their message that all Conservatives are racists, and all Liberals are broad minded, compassionate individuals.</p><p>And, speaking of compassion, a study by Professor Arthur C. Brooks showed a distinct lack of compassion by Liberals when it comes to donating their time and money to charitable causes. They love to be identified as a “bleeding heart liberal,” but the facts show something entirely different. Liberals claim to be compassionate because they advocate spending someone else’s money to help others, but taking money forcibly from someone in the form of taxes is hardly compassion. Compassion can only be measured by the unforced, un-coerced generosity of an individual. And, on that score, liberals come up wanting. Today, 65% of all charitable gifts in the United States come from Christian conservatives. Donors to all major charities are dominated by conservatives. Moreover, the giving that comes from the liberals is mostly for nonprofit liberal Foundations that qualify as charities, but deal primarily in promoting liberal causes; so much for the idea of a “bleeding heart Liberal.”</p><p>The Progressive Movement has had a dalliance with utopian concepts like egalitarianism, and with those who promote them. When the Russian Revolution of 1917, led by Vladimir Lenin, toppled the corrupt régime of the Tsar, it received high praise from American Liberals (by that time they had abandoned the name Progressive due to its association with racism, Jim Crow, and eugenics). </p><p>Indeed, Walter Duranty, who served as Moscow correspondent for the <em>New York Times</em> during Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror, intentionally sent home glowing, but false, reports on Stalin. Duranty knew of the bloodthirsty activities of Stalin, but chose to avoid reporting them because he was enamored of the new Soviet State. Duranty actually received a Pulitzer Prize (yet unreturned by the <em>Times</em>) for his reporting. But, in fairness to Duranty, he was not alone in his glowing reports on the new Soviet Society. In fact, many liberals in the media (not all) continued to write positively of the Soviet Union up until the day it was brought down by Ronald Reagan. And, virtually all liberals decided early on that there was a moral equivalence between the United States of America and the Soviet Union! There was no fear among liberals of the Soviet Union. In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt once bragged that…</p><p><em>“Some of my best friends are Communists.”</em></p><p>It was this naiveté that allowed the Soviet conspiracy to deeply and dangerously penetrate the Roosevelt Administration. Several high ranking members of Roosevelt’s administration had pro-Soviet views, including his Vice President, Henry Wallace. Others, like Harry Dexter White (first chairman of the International Monetary Fund) and Alger Hiss, (Assistant Secretary of State and the first Secretary General of the United Nations), were active Soviet spies as verified by the Verona Papers (released after the fall of the Soviet Union).</p><p>The late Walter Lippmann, who is perhaps the most highly praised journalist by liberals, also had an infatuation with the policies of Adolph Hitler when he first came on the world stage. On at least one occasion he wrote glowingly of the new society that was being created by Hitler. Later, to Lippmann’s credit, he became an active and vocal critic of Hitler and later of Stalin. But, the point remains that when you believe that man can evolve his nature positively, you are an easy dupe of those who promise a new utopian order.</p><p>And, while Progressives (Liberals) were gaining political power, they were also gaining power over America’s educational establishment, from the elementary school to the graduate school. The result is that they have demolished the greatest educational system in the world. They have re-written history to be a distortion of reality that fits their distorted world view. Today, thanks to the screwy ideas of men like John Dewey, American education ranks at one of the lowest levels among industrialized nations in the entire world. Thanks to cockamamie ideas like social promotion, a relaxation of discipline, and the degradation of writing, reading, and arithmetic, our children are going uneducated and are unable to compete. </p><p>The social engineering of the liberal movement has decimated the black community. While early Progressives like Wilson held black Americans in low regard and promoted policies to separate them from the rest of society, liberals later decided that they could no longer maintain that position and gain power, so they reversed themselves after the Republicans had done the heavy lifting. Well into the 1960’s, however, it was Democrats, South and North, who repeatedly blocked the passage of Civil Rights legislation. </p><p>Professing concern and compassion, Liberals passed seemingly benevolent laws that resulted in a permanent black underclass in society. But, this worked to their political gain as they have been able to control their votes by promising more handouts. It is a sad situation, and both Republican and Democrat Progressives/Liberals are responsible for this patronizing approach. It allows them to think better of themselves, but it belies their real view of African Americans as inferior to themselves. </p><p>At its core, the current welfare state is a racist policy. It is not a hand up, it is a hand out designed to deny to African Americans an opportunity to participate in the American dream. Blacks in poor areas are forced to attend some of the worst public schools in our nation, even though laws could be passed to allow them to attend high quality schools funded by tax vouchers. Through licensing, certification, and minimum wage laws, poor people are denied their opportunity to achieve economic independence. And, by removing God from our schools, morality has declined and violence and abuse has increased. This is another gift from American Liberals.</p><p>One of the organizations most admired by today’s liberals like Hillary Clinton is Planned Parenthood, founded by the rancid racist, Margaret Sanger. I do not use the term rancid racist lightly. She wrote <em>“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”</em> She referred to poor people and immigrants as <em>“human weeds”</em> and <em>“…human beings who never should have been born." </em>She wanted to eliminate what she called the<em> “feeble minded [mentally ill].”</em></p><p>Sanger wrote in the Birth Control Review, November 1921, that her goal in promoting birth control was <em>"…to create a race of thoroughbreds…"</em> She believed that for the purpose of <em>“racial purification”</em> the United States should pay blacks and other minorities to be sterilized. If these policies aren’t rancid racism, I don’t know what is. But, when you believe that you have progressed to a higher plane than others in society, you can justify almost any policy. And, Sanger was a hero in the Progressive movement of her time. So, Mrs. Clinton, you might want to reconsider identifying yourself as a Progressive. There is a sordid history to contend with.</p><p>Henry Emerson Fosdick led the charge of liberalism in the American Christian community. With the aid of John D. Rockefeller, he founded the interdenominational Riverside Church in New York City. According to Fosdick, the Bible was less than reliable and authentic, but with Rockefeller’s millions, his influence on Christianity in America was immense. He challenged the authority of Scripture, and he focused on a social gospel of helping the underclass, while ignoring the traditional Gospel of repentance at the foot of the cross. Although Detrick Bonhoeffer accepted a funded scholarship position at the Union Theological Seminary, a group closely affiliated with Fosdick, he said of the institution, <em>“The Gospel is not preached there.” </em>The followers of Fosdick promoted modernism that included relative morality. Their impact on Christianity in the United States was substantial and damaging. Today, the mainstream Christian churches, with very limited exceptions, no longer preach the law and the Gospel as taught by Jesus. Many doubt and even deny the divinity of Christ, and promote a works righteousness theology as opposed to a salvation by grace alone theology of the traditional Christian church. They also substitute their own moral code for that of the Bible. As a result, the Christian church as a whole is weakened as a standard of morality and virtue that is crucial to fostering a free society.</p><p>The American Progressive/iberal movement has been a scourge on the United States. It has promoted misguided racist policies. It has dismissed very real threats to our nation with words like <em>“witch hunt”</em> and “<em>red scare.”</em> It has denied opportunities to the poor, and sought to manipulate them for political gain. It has corrupted our morals, and bankrupted our nation. It is indeed a sordid history that keeps getting worse, not better. What I have written in this blog is not the entire, sad story of the American Progressive/Liberal movement, it is just a brief overview. I hope that someday, a true historian will write the ignoble tale of this movement that has worked successfully to destroy the American dream and to eradicate the values and principles of the American founding.</p><p>It is a story that needs to be told and understood if we are to reverse course and save our nation.</p>Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-47480651243946704842013-09-13T08:52:00.000-07:002013-09-13T13:57:19.810-07:00Political Correctness vs. Free SpeechThe first amendment to the United States Constitution, the first article of the Bill of Rights, says…</p><p><em>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”</em></p><p>The left has a problem understanding the meaning of this first article of the Bill of Rights. Just as it has a problem understanding the meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution, the one that says <em>“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”</em></p><p>Actually, I doubt that they really have any problem understanding the clear meaning of these words, they just don’t like them. And, it is, in their opinion, simply too difficult to change these protections through the prescribed amendment process. So, they just pretend that these words mean something other than what they clearly mean.</p><p>They have re-defined the intended meaning of Article 1 to be a restraint on religion and the free expression thereof. They prattle on endlessly about “separation of church and state,” yet those words appear nowhere in the United States Constitution. They have made up a new meaning for what they refer to as the “establishment clause,” i.e. <em>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” </em>and argue that this means that there must be a total separation of church and state. </p><p>In fact, it was Christian leaders who advocated the strongest for the so-called “establishment clause” because they did not want government to interfere with or control religion as it did in Europe. That was their frame of reference. The Pilgrims fled to America, as did many others, so that they could worship freely without interference by the government. They did not want the government to tell them what church they needed to belong to. Nor did they want to be forced to support, through taxes, a state church whose doctrine and practices they did not agree with. They sought a government that did not make any law that interfered with their open and free practice of religion as they chose to do so. </p><p>The flimsy basis of the idea that the Constitution called for a wall to be built between church and state is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. They had expressed to him a concern that by including a protection of freedom of religion into the Constitution it was making religion a privilege granted by the state, not an inalienable freedom granted by God. Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the intent of the first amendment was to protect their right to practice their faith without any interference from government. In his letter of January 1, 1802, he wrote…</p><p><em>“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”</em></p><p>Clearly, the <em>“wall”</em> that Jefferson is here referring to is the wall that keeps government from interfering with religion, not religion from influencing government, or prohibiting citizens from expressing their views in the public square. Neither were Americans to be discouraged from using their faith in God and their belief in the Bible as a basis for their political and philosophical views. Discussion of religious views in public was to be free and open as were all other forms of speech, not to be proscribed by government or in any way regulated or abridged.</p><p>But, even more than this, Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights, nor did he participate in writing the United States Constitution. In fact, he wrote (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 10)…</p><p><em>“I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned and never saw it till after it was established.”</em></p><p>Moreover, when he received a copy of the Constitution, while he was residing in France, he wrote back to James Madison (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 10)…</p><p><em>“On receiving [the Constitution], I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for freedom of religion…”</em></p><p>To have advocated a limitation on the exercise of religion in the public square would have been totally inconsistent with the previous writings and exertions of Thomas Jefferson. He had championed the ending of discrimination against the Baptists and other dissenters in Virginia by the colonial government. He opposed any state religion in Virginia.</p><p>The fact is, the entire idea of the so-called “establishment clause” prohibiting the exercise of religion in the public square is made up out of whole cloth. It means exactly what it says, that citizens shall have the right to free exercise of their religion without any interference from government, nothing more and nothing less.</p><p>In fact, the idea of government secularists restricting religion in any way in the public square is simply censorship. It’s book burning by any other name. What we have today is a state sanctioned religion. That religion is human secularism. It is just as much a state religion today as was the Anglican Church in the colony of Virginia prior to the American Revolution.</p><p>It wants to control what is in school textbooks, excluding the role of religion in our society and any aspect of faith or God in our society. It wants a total monopoly on learning and on speech in the public square. That’s not freedom of religion, it is government sanctioned license.</p><p>The entire idea of politically correct speech is based solely on shutting up anyone who does not agree with you. Using the pretext of banning speech that hurts someone’s feelings or that is offensive to them is a clear <em>“abridgement”</em> of the freedom of speech as described clearly in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights. I am not in favor of hurting anyone’s feelings. I believe I should be sensitive to the concerns of my fellow citizens, but this is driven by my understanding that all men are equal in God’s sight and that they should be in mine also.</p><p>Nevertheless, when government starts deciding what can be said and what cannot be said it is the beginning of government censorship. It will grow and expand as government always grows and expands at the expense of the individual rights of its citizens.</p><p>Freedom is always messy. In a free society, every individual is free to think, to act, and to advocate whatever they believe, providing what they do does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom of speech or other freedom. </p><p>Freedom is messy in the public square, it is messy in the marketplace, it is simply a messy way of living. It is imperfect, and I’m sure that’s why the Founders repeatedly talked about the importance of having a virtuous society. They knew that freedom really would not work unless each citizen restrained his worst instincts. And, they knew that would only happen if a consensus of citizens feared and loved God and seek to please him.</p><p>Today, the exercise of religion in the public square is under attack on all fronts. The goal of the secularists is to silence all religion in the public square and replace it with an anti-God, humanistic approach.</p><p>Some of the examples of the suppression of the freedom of religion include suspending a young girl from a public elementary school because she silently bowed her head and prayed over her lunch. She did not speak one word out loud, but was condemned for her actions because the “political correctness” policy of the School District proclaimed that for her to do so might offend another student.</p><p>How silly and how clearly unconstitutional. </p><p>As Dr. Benjamin Carson said at the National Prayer Breakfast, <em>“Political Correctness is dangerous.”</em></p><p>Today, we are not supposed to say Merry Christmas to anyone because they might be offended. Merry Christmas, like Happy Easter, or Happy Hanukkah, is simply a blessing. It is wishing a blessing upon the person. </p><p>We need to be slow to take offense. As it says in James 1:19…</p><p><em>“Remember this, my dear brothers and sisters: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and should not get angry easily.”</em></p><p>We need to get past political correctness. It is simply censorship of free speech and it has no place in America. It is dangerous, as Dr. Carson said, because it suppresses open and free discussion that can lead to the honest evaluation and analysis of real societal problems. Political correctness does not draw us together as a nation, it divides us and encourages us to take offense at the most minor of comments.</p><p>Article 52 of the Soviet Constitution reads…</p><p><em>“Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda.”</em></p><p>Yet, freedom of religion was totally and absolutely suppressed in the Soviet Union. Those who tried to express their faith in God openly were sent to the Gulag. How could this happen? The wording of Article 52 seems to be clear and precise. It even references religious worship.</p><p>The answer is simple. Lenin and Stalin, and all the dictators that followed them, ignored the Constitution of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not a government of laws, it was a government of men. If something in the law did not suit them, they ignored it or they violated it. It happens in all top down, centralized governments. As Lord Acton said..</p><p><em>“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”</em></p><p>Yet today, Obama talks about having to bypass Congress and do what needs to be done. He ignores the United States Constitution and so do at least four members of the United States Supreme Court, as well as our chief law enforcer, Attorney General Eric Holder. Associate Justice Ginsburg has even used laws in other nations to base her decisions upon. These four Court members, and the President of the United States, as well as the Attorney General, and most leaders in his party, simply have no respect for the Founders or for the intent of the United States Constitution.</p><p>Although the President, the Attorney General, and the members of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, they daily ignore that oath. In doing so, it says much about their character and about the danger they pose to our nation.</p><p>When we start suppressing freedom of speech because we are offended, we are headed down the road to serfdom. When there is no longer true freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom in the marketplace, there is no freedom of any kind.</p><p>But, the flame of freedom is not dead in America. It burns in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans who cherish our Constitution, and respect the wisdom of our Founders. There is a movement afoot in America to return this nation to the faith and freedom of the Founders, and thereby, to greatness. The outcome will be close. It is not guaranteed, and, in fact, the odds are against the preservation of freedom. In the course of history, periods of freedom are rare, they are the exception, not the rule. Individual freedom only exists when government is small and restrained, and when citizens exercise self-restraint, as well as compassion for their fellow human beings.</p><p>You and I are blessed to live in this wonderful, free society. But, if we are to preserve it for our children and grandchildren, we will need to have the courage and the determination of the Founders, as well as their faith. Let us resolve to give our all to this goal.</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-29111261597007004282013-08-28T08:12:00.001-07:002013-08-28T08:20:20.327-07:00Ben Carson for President<p>I know it is a long time until 2016, but Hillary Clinton is already out raising millions for her candidacy. And, rumor has it that Establishment Republicans like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, who feel that they are entitled to be the next Republican nominee, are already planning their campaigns. So, it’s not too early to talk about who our nominee will be in 2016.</p><p>I’m a conservative and I am a Christian. Like the Founders, I believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, traditional moral values, and a strong, free America. There’s no doubt about it, there are many fine conservative candidates thinking about running for President of the United States. Ted Cruz is only 42 and he just got elected to the US Senate in 2010, but he is a great, courageous conservative. Rand Paul understands the values of the free market system, and treasures freedom. Like Cruz, Paul was recently elected to the US Senate. There are many, many more fine men and women who would make a fine President, but can they be elected? Can they heal our racial divide? Do they have the maturity and the wisdom to lead our nation out of the precarious mess we are in?</p><p>I am not unbiased. The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee (<a href="http://www.runbenrun.net">www.runbenrun.org</a>) is a client of Campaign Funding Direct, a company I founded. The President of that company is Tammy Cali, a respected conservative and a very talented leader. </p><p>But, I’m not for Ben Carson due to my connection with Campaign Funding Direct. I’m excited about a Ben Carson candidacy because he is a wise, dedicated Tea Party conservative and I believe he is a sure winner! Please let me explain. In the last presidential election cycle, Campaign Funding Direct raised funds for Herman Cain. It was very exciting and quite successful. The campaign raised (via multiple fund raising channels) some $14 million in the first 40 days and was on track to top $30 million in the next thirty days when the campaign imploded. Had it not crashed, the Cain campaign was on track to win the Iowa caucuses and to match the Romney campaign dollar-for-dollar from that point forward. It is likely that Herman Cain, not Mitt Romney would have been the GOP nominee for President.</p><p>Why is the history of the Herman Cain campaign so important? Well, what most folks don’t know is that the internal polling of the Cain campaign showed him winning 40% of the African-American vote. That’s right 40%! I was incredulous when I heard that Cain was doing that well among the black community, even up against Barack Obama. But then I thought about it.</p><p>While African Americans voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers (about 95% voted for him), he initially had a very hard time persuading them to support him. The problem was his privileged background as well as the fact that he is not a descendent of slaves. In reality, Barack Obama has very little in common with traditional black Americans. He grew up in Hawaii, where he attended exclusive private schools, and then went to college at an elite Ivy League school. He was never involved with the civil rights movement because he was too young. It was for these reasons that Obama had a difficult time connecting with the average black American.</p><p>Herman Cain, on the other hand, made his way up out of poverty. His father and his mother worked multiple jobs to support their family and to escape poverty and thereby passed along to their son, Herman, a strong work ethic. Cain became a very successful businessman.</p><p>Herman Cain’s story is appealing, but the story of Dr. Benjamin Carson is truly amazing. To understand it, you should read his latest book, <em>America the Beautiful</em>, that you can purchase at <a href="http://www.runbenrun.net">www.runbenrun.org</a>. Ben Carson was born into desperate poverty. His mother got married at 13, could not read or write, but even after she found out that her husband was a bigamist and kicked him out, she refused to go on welfare. She wisely observed that anyone who went on welfare never escaped it. Even though she and her two sons lived in one of the worst areas of Detroit, she wanted something better for her children. It is an inspiring story worth reading.</p><p>One son, Curtis, became an aerospace engineer and her other son, Ben, became a medical doctor. In fact, Dr. Benjamin Carson became a world-renowned neurosurgeon, the first man ever to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head. No one else had ever developed a way to separate such twins without one of the two dying, but Dr. Carson did it. A book and movie about this miracle was written and produced called <em>“Gifted Hands.”</em> You can purchase the movie at <a href="http://www.runbenrun.net">www.runbenrun.org</a>. And, in 2008, President Bush awarded Dr. Carson the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, for his medical achievements and for his humanitarian service.</p><p>While you and I may only recently be aware of the many accomplishments and accolades of Dr. Ben Carson, he has been a hero in the black community for many years. He is revered and respected as a great man by African Americans all across America. And, in fact, he is a great, albeit humble, man. That being true, I have to ask myself, if Herman Cain could poll 40% of the black vote, running against a black candidate, just imagine what percent of the black vote Dr. Ben Carson would receive? And, Dr. Carson would not be running against Barack Obama, a black man, but instead he would be running against Hillary Clinton or some other white liberal Democrat.</p><p>I personally believe Ben Carson would win more than 50% of the African American vote. But, suppose Ben Carson would receive just 20% of the black vote? If he runs and receives just 20% of the black vote, did you know that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat, to win? If any Republican candidate for President wins as little as 20% of the black vote the Democratic ship runs aground, never to sail again. That’s why the Democrats are so insistent on stirring up racial hatred. They know that their dominance of the politics in America hangs by a slender thread. Snip that thread and their political dominance disappears. That’s why they are so shrill in denouncing all Republicans and all conservatives as racists. They know it is a lie, but a lie they must perpetuate if they are to remain in power.</p><p>You may be surprised to know that it was not that long ago that Republicans won much more than 20% of the black vote. As recently as 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower received 39% of the black vote. That’s why the candidacy of Dr. Ben Carson terrifies the radicals who control the Democratic Party. They know they cannot win if Ben Carson is the Republican nominee.</p><p>Ironically, Dwight Eisenhower was the last non-politician Republican to win the White House. And, like Ike, Ben Carson is a national hero. Of course, Dr. Carson became a hero for something entirely different than winning a world war, but the intelligence, daring, and leadership it took to be the first man to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head is an incredible feat. It took a medical team of 70 men and women, working on a split second schedule for 22 hours to accomplish this miracle.</p><p>But, the Republican establishment is uncomfortable with Dr. Carson because he is a conservative, Tea Party Republican. And, as the establishment GOP likes to say, he’s not the next one in line. Senator Bob Dole was the next one in line and he lost. John McCain was the next one in line and he lost. Mitt Romney was the next one in line and he lost. Will the Republican establishment never learn? </p><p>They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, the way the Republican Party chooses its nominees for President seems to fit that definition. The truth is that we need a different kind of a candidate in 2016 if we are to get a different result. We can’t win if we keep sending the same type of candidate up to bat. We will keep on striking out. We are headed in the wrong direction. John McCain lost and then we nominate Mitt Romney and he received even fewer votes than Senator McCain. They are both fine people, they just don’t have what it takes to win the White House.</p><p>Sadly, even a strong conservative candidate for President, who is just another white guy, will almost certainly lose. This time we need a winner and that winner is, in my opinion, Ben Carson. But, that means millions of Americans will have to rise up and work for his victory.</p><p>I’m not saying that winning is everything, but I am saying that we don’t have to compromise our conservative principles to win if we select Ben Carson as our nominee. Ben Carson is 100% committed to the United States Constitution, and to the principles of freedom set forth by the Founders. Ben Carson will insist on a balanced budget, without raising taxes.</p><p>Dr. Carson is not some Johnny-come-lately. He supported the Tea Party movement from the very beginning. And, he is a man of incredible courage as his speech at the national prayer breakfast showed. <a href="www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQvLn-4DaNQ">You can see that speech here.</a> With the President and Vice President Biden just a few feet away, Ben Carson said that Obamacare was a disaster, and then offered a free market alternative. He also suggested that the IRS be replaced. This is what he said about our tax system…</p><p><em>“When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the Universe, God, and he’s given us a system. It’s called tithe. Now we don’t necessarily have to [make] it 10% but it’s [the] principle. He didn’t say, if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes. He didn’t say, if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion dollars you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in $1 …but now some people say, that’s not fair because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion dollars as much as the guy who made $10. Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He’s just put in a billion in the pot. We don’t need to hurt him.”</em></p><p>Dr. Carson also talked about political correctness at the National Prayer Breakfast. This is what he said…</p><p><em>“…one last thing about political correctness, which I think is a horrible thing, by the way. I’m very, very compassionate, and I’m not ever out to offend anyone. But, pc is dangerous. Because, you see, in this country one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression. [Political correctness}…muffles people. It puts a muzzle on them. And at the same time, keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed. …we cannot fall for that trick. And what we need to do is start talking about things, talking about things that are important.”</em></p><p>Dr. Carson, an outspoken Christian, not only verbally supports the right-to-life movement, he has been an active part of it, counseling women to choose life, rather than abortion, and speaking at fund raising dinners for crisis pregnancy centers across the nation. He recounts his discussion with the head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in this excerpt from his book…</p><p><em>“A few years ago, I was consulted by a woman who was thirty-three weeks pregnant with a baby who had been diagnosed by ultrasound to have hydrocephalus or water on the brain. [Later] I was discussing this case with the head of the ACLU, who had made a statement that the purpose of their organization was to speak for and defend those who could not speak for and defend themselves. I asked whether or not this thirty-three week-old fetus qualified as a human being incapable of speaking for or defending itself. He artfully dodged answering the question, so I decided to make it easier for him. I told him that there were many premature infants in our neonatal intensive care unit who were several weeks younger than the baby in question. These babies were on life support, but in most cases we had every expectation that they would survive. I asked him if he would speak for and defend the rights of a twenty-eight week old baby who was in an incubator and on life support. He replied that that was a no-brainer; of course the ACLU would defend such an individual. …I then asked why it was difficult to defend a baby that was five weeks further along in development and was in the most protected environment possible, but easy to defend a less viable individual who was outside the womb.” </em></p><p>As this exchange shows, Ben Carson is a man of incredible courage and intelligence, and he understands our Constitution and the principles upon which the Founders created this great nation. As President, he would expect the government to be responsive to the wishes of its citizens, by repealing Obamacare, and making sure our borders are secure.</p><p>While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe in the Marxist concept of redistribution, Ben Carson does not. This quote is taken from his book, <em>America the Beautiful</em>…</p><p><em>“…in 1795 the Supreme Court of the United States declared, “…The legislature…has no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold [property], and vesting it in another…It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude…it is contrary to the principles of…every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”</em></p><p>Only Ben Carson will end the mess that is the welfare state. He will replace it with a path to self-reliance and success for those entrapped in this horrific nightmare. He has written…</p><p><em>“A truly moral nation enacts policies that encourage personal responsibility and discourage self-destructive behavior by not subsidizing people who live irresponsibly and make poor choices.”</em></p><p>Dr. Carson proposes “<em>phasing out government assistance”</em> and replacing it with assistance from compassionate citizens who work through nonprofit organizations and churches to not only provide support, but also help to change lives. He bluntly says of the current system created by the left to keep the poor in an underclass status, it…</p><p><em>“…may seem a bit harsh to many bleeding heart do-gooders, but I submit that what is harsh is continuing to encourage irresponsible behavior and generating a permanent underclass.”</em></p><p>Of the growing national debt, he writes…</p><p><em>“To saddle the next generation with unimaginable debt is not only callous, it is morally reprehensible. How can we even live with ourselves knowing that we are eroding the standard of living of the next generations with each dollar that we add to the national debt?”</em></p><p>And, as a Tea Party conservative, he doesn’t just blame the Democrats for America’s fiscal mess. Listen to this excerpt from <em>America the Beautiful</em>…</p><p><em>“Both Democrats and Republicans have strayed so far from the path of responsible financial policy that the concept of balancing the budget is foreign to them.”</em></p><p>To keep the United States from going bankrupt, he advises…</p><p><em>“…have each governmental agency and department trim its budget by 10%—with no exceptions. In each subsequent year, another 10% decrease would be required and would continue as long as necessary to bring the budget back into balance.”</em></p><p>There is one more important reason you and I need to encourage Ben Carson to run for President, and it may be the most important reason to support him. I believe that the worst and most destructive aspect of the Obama Presidency has been his efforts to divide Americans…to set one group of people against another—black vs. white, young vs. old, women vs. men, blue collar workers vs. white collar workers, businessmen<strong> </strong>vs. workers. Dr. Carson believes that encouraging class warfare and creating envy is immoral, and destructive to America. </p><p>The Democrats, and their allies in the news media, are particularly adept at smearing decent people by recklessly leveling unfounded charges of racism against them for political gain. This is what Dr. Carson says about racism…</p><p><em>“Although much overt racism has been eliminated in America, there are still too many people who make sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people based on a negative encounter with a person of a different race. In order to resolve this problem, we must first admit that it exists even in our own families or ourselves—and African-Americans are just as likely to harbor racist attitudes as white people.”<strong></strong></em></p><p>E pluribus Unum is the Latin phrase that appears on the Great Seal of the United States. It means, out of many, one. In other words, it means that while we come from different countries to the United States, we are united as one people speaking a common language. But, that’s not the view of the leaders of the Democratic Party. They promote diversity, not unity. Sadly, President Obama has been a divider, not a uniter. Thanks, in part, to the President’s continuing efforts to divide Americans, we are more divided today than we have been since the Civil War.</p><p>I believe Dr. Carson will bring this shameful episode to a much needed end. We are all Americans. We love this great nation. We know our nation has flaws and we know it makes mistakes, but we know that there is no other nation on the face of the earth that is as good and great as the United States of America. If we are to bring Americans together, we need a man who will unite us, not divide us, and that man is Ben Carson. I believe he is the one person who can end the rancor, the distrust, the divide that has been crassly exploited by the cynical and unprincipled leftists who control the Democratic Party.</p><p>Ben Carson has been a kind, compassionate, and skilled healer his entire life. And, he is a proud and unrepentant American! He will be a President who never apologizes for America. Whereas, Barack Obama does not see America as a great, good, and exceptional nation, Ben Carson sees it exactly that way. He sums up his view of our nation this way in his book, <em>America the Beautiful</em>…</p><p><em>“…there is no country I’d rather be a citizen of and call home than America. Where else, but in this land of opportunity, are people given so much freedom to pursue their dreams, with the potential to bring out the best in everyone?”</em></p><p>Ben Carson is a man whose life story defies the liberals’ notion of what a black American can accomplish. He would make a great President. While Dr. Ben Carson is not perfect (and, of course, no one is), he is the nearly perfect candidate for President.</p><p>No Democrat candidate for President, even Hillary Clinton, can defeat him. No Republican candidate for President is as articulate, courageous, and as full of common sense as Ben Carson. And, most important of all, no other candidate for President can heal our broken land.</p><p>But, you may be asking yourself, will Ben Carson actually run for president? You can decide for yourself when you read this exchange he had with a reporter from the <em>New York Times. </em>The reporter asked him if he was going to run for President and he said…</p><p><em>“Certainly if a year and a half went by and there was no one on the scene and people are still clamouring, I would have to take that into consideration. I would never turn my back on my fellow citizens.”</em></p><p>I think his answer is pretty clear. If enough American citizens encourage him to run, he will run. He believes, like the Founders, in the idea of citizen statesmen serving their country, not as a career, but as a duty. But, he also believes he must be called to serve by American citizens before being entitled to run. He sees public service as something to be called to, not something to seek for personal gain.</p><p>Are you ready to clamor? I am. I want to not only win in 2016; I want to elect a genuine conservative as President. That’s why I have donated to the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee (<a href="http://www.runbenrun.net">www.runbenrun.org</a>) and I have signed the petition asking him to run for President.</p><p>If you feel the same way as I do, if you want to win in 2016 and you want to elect a solid, Constitutional conservative, then I urge you to go to <a href="http://www.runbenrun.net">www.runbenrun.org</a> and <a href="http://www.runbenrun.org/petition">sign the petition</a> encouraging Dr. Ben Carson to run for President. And, if you feel so inclined, I urge you to <a href="https://secure.piryx.com/donate/DavGQK4l/Run-Ben-Run/">support his candidacy with your dollars.</a></p><p>Run, Ben, Run.</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-42712726409662445272013-08-13T07:16:00.000-07:002013-08-13T07:16:41.057-07:00The Political Center<p>There is a new book out by Jonathan Alter by the title, <em>The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies</em>. This book tells the story of the 2012 election from the perspective of someone hailed by <u>The Washington Post</u> as, <em>“One of America’s most highly respected political journalists…”</em> The promo on the book begins this way…</p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCf9NY2B99i0I5h1alkvHxf1AOcJ2T6jivDPzTbn-sklviSZvIB257DkVrUEDdxLphSEvMQuFSe1NRuT_0yWhJjPDb7i84RZew6qVe0zrkVd4WdmVdLCxFCIbkmlp2BqIi7wnFd9hlWs4/s1600/political+center.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCf9NY2B99i0I5h1alkvHxf1AOcJ2T6jivDPzTbn-sklviSZvIB257DkVrUEDdxLphSEvMQuFSe1NRuT_0yWhJjPDb7i84RZew6qVe0zrkVd4WdmVdLCxFCIbkmlp2BqIi7wnFd9hlWs4/s320/political+center.jpg" </ ></a><p><em>“The election of 2012 will be remembered as a hinge of history. With huge victories in the 2010 midterm elections the Republican Party had blocked President Obama at every turn and made plans to wrench the country sharply to the right. 2012 offered the GOP a clear shot at controlling all three branches of government and repealing much of the social contract dating back to the New Deal. Facing free-spending billionaires, Fox News, and a concerted effort in 19 states to tilt the election by suppressing Democratic votes, Obama repelled the assault and navigated the nation back to the center.”</em></p><p>When I first read the promo information printed above I was a bit incredulous. I realize that when you have an ideology, right or left, your perspective is quite different, but I must admit that I was surprised that Alter places Barack Obama in the center of the political spectrum. It’s not that all politicians don’t attempt to characterize their positions as centrist, but rather that Obama has unabashedly characterized his intent and his ideology as from the left. His hero was Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book, <em>Rules for Radicals</em>, to Satan. Since Alinsky was not known for his humor, I think it is fair to assume that his book dedication was serious. <em>Rules for Radicals</em> is, of course, the book that young Barack Obama read and then taught while some sort of an assistant college professor. He was and is committed to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.</p><p>What does Alinsky’s book, <em>Rules for Radicals</em>, have to say about ethics? Essentially the message is to do whatever you have to do to achieve the ends you desire. Always tell audiences what they want hear, but do what you want to do. Here is a direct quote taken from <em>Rules for Radicals</em>…</p><p><em>“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was ‘They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.’ And it was.” — </em>P.36-37</p><p>Saul Alinsky is the man Hillary Clinton worked for. This is the man Obama reveres. It so happens that Saul Alinsky spoke on my college campus when I was in school. He was a far left radical through and through. He had no ethical or moral principles. He had no love for America. He was as cynical, scheming and potentially bloodthirsty as his hero, Vladimir Lenin. His goal was nothing less than the overthrow of our nation as it was created by the Founders, men whom he openly detested.</p><p>That’s why I found it hard to believe that Jonathan Alter would suggest that the views of President Obama are centrist. Nevertheless, it brings up a good question: What is the political center of the United States? Is it defined by winning an election? In other words, if you win an election in some overwhelming fashion, does that mean you are now the political center? That seems to be the assertion of Alter’s book, but it’s not totally clear. Is he saying that his electoral victory defined Obama as holding center ground? Or is he is saying that the policies and ideas of the Obama presidency were the center and that they succeeded in carrying the day when the votes were tabulated? Let’s look at the idea that by winning an election you define the political center.</p><p>It is true that President Obama won two consecutive elections, both by relatively narrow margins (52.9% of the 2008 vote and 51.1% in 2012). It was a comfortable margin, but certainly not a landslide of the proportions won by Ronald Reagan in two successive elections (55.3% of the 1980 total vote for both Reagan and Carter; 58.8% of the total vote cast in 1984). Moreover, while Obama was winning the White House, the Democrats lost ground in races for governor, and made virtually no headway whatsoever in recapturing control of the US House of Representatives or making gains in state legislatures.</p><p>In contrast, Ronald Reagan had strong coattails. His 1980 election swept the Republicans to power in the US Senate for the first time in nearly 30 years. More recently, the 2010 election was a stunning repudiation of the policies of the Obama Presidency, especially the strong-arm passage of Obamacare. In 2010 the GOP not only won control of the US House of Representatives, but also flipped control of more than a dozen state legislatures, and turned over seats in local elections that had been held by the Democrats since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. The 2010 election was truly a watershed election. </p><p>Now that we have put a few facts on the table, let’s get back to the Jonathan Alter thesis that Obama policies and the Obama presidency in particular hold the center political ground in America today. The first thought that comes to mind is; if Obama represents the political center, who is to his left? The Unabomber is locked up. Joseph Stalin is dead. Hugo Chavez is pushing up daisies. Joking aside, it is hard to imagine any American politician to the left of Barack Obama.</p><p>This brings us back to the original question; does winning a national election define the political center of the United States? Clearly, that is not the case. If it were the case, it would mean that the center gyrated from Barack Obama in 2008 to the Tea Party in 2010 and back to Barack Obama in 2012. Alter’s thesis sounds more like wishful thinking than any sort of astute political analysis. </p><p>The review of the Alter book in the mainstream press says a lot more about the bias of those publications, than it does about political and philosophical reality. Here is what those reviewers said…</p><p><em>The New York Times, “Highly informed…”</em></p><p><em>The New York Daily News, “A calm, virtuoso work of journalism…”</em></p><p><em>Los Angeles Times, “Excellent reporting…”</em></p><p>I have not, of course, read the book. And, the book may contain some very interesting and informative information, but I do take issue with the implications of the title. It seems a little silly to me to assert that the most leftwing President in history now occupies the political center of our nation. Yikes!</p><p>But, the concept of the political center is worth considering. In fact, I think it is a topic that should be considered when we hold elections. What should be the philosophical center of politics in our nation? The truth is that the left puts their entire political future in peril if the American people consider the true political center of our nation.</p><p>What else can be considered the political center of a nation other than the principles upon which that nation was founded? Politicians come and go, trends come and go, issues come and go, but foundational principles remain constant.</p><p>Of course, those principles are open to interpretation. Strong, honest disagreements can and will take place as to what the Founders intended. The Founders themselves vigorously disagreed with each other. One of the leaders of the American Revolution who played a critical role in securing victory over the British, Patrick Henry, opposed ratification of the United States Constitution. Many other vehement arguments took place between the various Founders. But, an honest disagreement over the interpretation of founding principles is far, far different than advocating a complete change in principles. Appreciating the wisdom of the Founders is radically different that rejecting and denigrating those principles.</p><p>Using the ideals and principles of the Founders as a yardstick to identify the legitimate political center of the United States is not as difficult as it might seem to be. The Founders were learned men. They were well educated and well-read. And, while they disagreed strongly on a number of issues, there were a number of vitally important principles upon which there was near universal agreement.</p><p>Among those principles that gained universal or near universal agreement were…</p><ol> <li><strong>Human Nature. </strong> Men are not angels, they are morally imperfect and subject to corruption if given unlimited power over others. No man, no matter how enlightened, will always make the right decisions. Therefore the power of any elected individual must be restrained and limited. <em>"It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good."</em>—Thomas Jefferson<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Government. </strong>As George Washington said, <em>“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”</em> Not one Founder would take issue with this clear warning of George Washington. The greatest danger to individual freedom is and always will be powerful, centralized government. In order to create a free society, the overall power of government over the lives of American citizens must be limited.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Law.</strong> The nation must be a government of laws, not a government of human whim. No matter how brilliant or smart or ethical a political leader is, he should never be able to override the law, especially the United States Constitution. Crossing the line from a government of law to a government of man leads to tyranny. <em>“Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.”—</em>Dr. Benjamin Rush<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Freedom.</strong> Maximum individual freedom was the overriding goal of the Founders. They sought to limit the power of government and to maximize the power of the individual. They realized that there is a direct relationship between the size and power of government and individual freedom. As government size and power grow, human freedom inevitably declines. As the size and power of government declines, human freedom expands. <em>“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”—</em>Thomas Jefferson<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Justice.</strong> Justice must be blind and administered equally to all citizens. The wealth and power of an individual, or the meager circumstances in which he lives, should not impact his treatment under the law. Similarly, your ethnic background should not alter your treatment under the law. While slavery certainly existed at the time of the American founding, the Constitution written by the Founders contained the principles of equal liberty and justice for all Americans. <em>“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political.”</em>—Thomas Jefferson </li>
<li><strong>Opportunity.</strong> The objective of the Founders was opportunity for all, regardless of the circumstances into which an individual was born. God chose how and where an individual is born; how that individual takes advantage of opportunity is his responsibility. The Founders would have summarily rejected any idea of government social engineering designed to determine economic outcomes.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Fiscal Responsibility.</strong> The Founders repeatedly warned of fiscal irresponsibility. They warned against indebtedness, especially to other nations. They expressed fears for future generations if the government did not live within its means. “<em>I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse, and in a Republican Government a greater curse than any other,”—</em>James Madison</li>
<li><strong>Public Service.</strong> Elected officials are to be servants of the people who elected them. They are not to be masters and, following the example of George Washington, no man should view elective office as a career. <em>“[A citizen] must love private life, but he must decline no station [office]…when called to it by the suffrages [votes] of his fellow citizens.”—</em>Benjamin Rush<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Virtue.</strong> Virtue is an outgrowth of faith in God. A free society cannot exist if the vast majority of the citizenry are not of a virtuous nature. This seems to contrast with the idea that men are corrupt, but in reality, it does not. The Founders believed in the laws of God and knew that if the people had faith in God and humbled themselves before Him, striving to do his will, freedom would thrive. <em>“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”</em>—Patrick Henry<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Compassion.</strong> Compassion is an outgrowth of virtue. The Founders understood that the only true compassion is that expressed and given by one individual to another individual. The use of government to extract wealth from one man and give it to another is not compassion, and the Founders understood that. True compassion occurs only when men are virtuous and free.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Self-Restraint.</strong> Like compassion, self-restraint is an outgrowth of virtue. Unless men exercise self-restraint, a free society cannot exist. When there is a breakdown in virtue, self-restraint declines and mobocracy replaces democracy.<strong></strong></li>
<li><strong>Prosperity.</strong> Every man was expected to work and take care of his own family. The Founders understood that near universal prosperity occurs only when men are free to exchange goods and services without the interference of government. And they knew that whenever government interferes in the free marketplace someone suffers and someone unfairly gains.<strong></strong></li>
</ol><p>While this list is not necessarily comprehensive, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the writings of the Founders that is in conflict with the statements listed above. Yes, the Founders disagreed on the precise form of government, how much centralization of government was necessary, but none would disagree with the foundational principles listed above.</p><p>If, indeed, the Founders are the political center of our nation, who is closest to this political center, the followers of Saul Alinsky or those in the Tea Party who advocate a return to Constitutional principles?</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-40615828846048830102013-08-08T14:39:00.002-07:002013-08-08T14:39:43.932-07:00Character<p>Why is character important in our leaders? What’s the big deal if a President commits adultery? Why is honesty so important? Are these virtues simply out of date? Are having the right objectives more important than the character of the individuals who seek to achieve those objectives?</p><p>It’s true, there are no perfect people. You and I are imperfect. We lie, we cut corners, we break all of God’s commandments. But, do we still strive to follow the Ten Commandments? Do we accept them as absolutes, and as true virtues, or do we pick and choose which ones we will follow and which ones we think are antiquated?</p><p>In the apocryphal story of George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, and then telling his father about it, he says, <em>“I cannot tell a lie.”</em> Abraham Lincoln was known as <em>“Honest Abe.”</em> And, while the founders of our nation often disagreed vigorously, they were fairly circumspect in not launching personal attacks against each other. That is not to say that their followers did not do this. In fact, when Thomas Jefferson ran for President, the followers of John Adams circulated absolutely false and erroneous attacks on Jefferson. Yet, the leaders of our nation believed in truth and they sought to tell the truth.</p><p>Today, however, lying seems to be an art form among politicians. When, during an interview at the White House, President Bill Clinton answered a question from the grand jury about whether or not he lied to his top aides when he told them there was nothing going on between himself and Monica Lewinsky, he responded, <em>“It depends on what the definition of is is.”</em> Most saw this response as evasion and dissembling. It was an effort to avoid directly answering the question and telling the truth. Yet, one observer said that Clinton’s response <em>“</em><em>brilliantly sends the questioning in a new direction.</em><em>” </em>In other words, he praised Clinton for evading the question and successfully avoiding telling the truth.</p><p>The current occupant of the White House, Barack Obama, has, with the help of a compliant news media, taken prevarication to a new level. There are so many examples of the dishonesty of President Obama it is hard to sort them all out. One of the most bald face lies was his treatment of the tragedy in Benghazi. We now know that within an hour of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi the White House knew it was a terrorist attack. In that attack, four Americans were killed, including our Ambassador, Chris Stevens. While the President was off the grid at that time, he soon learned the facts. But, because it was politically inconvenient, he denied it was a terrorist attack. In fact, for several weeks thereafter, he kept saying it was a video that caused the attack, although he knew that was a lie.</p><p>The President denies any involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, and the Associated Press/Fox News scandal. His denials strain credulity. Now, in a change of plans, he calls the scandals, that he once proclaimed to be serious, <em>“phony scandals.” </em>The President can’t be trusted and many of his top advisors and Cabinet members, such as Eric Holder, can’t be trusted.</p><p>I don’t mean to pick on Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Lying in politics is not limited to one political party, but, in fact, when the ideology of a particular political party rejects traditional moral values, truth becomes a common victim. There is a price to be paid when your active efforts include speeches and policies designed to set one group of people against another. Encouraging jealousy and envy is morally wrong, unless, of course, you reject traditional moral standards such as the Ten Commandments. Intentionally dividing people instead of uniting them is morally wrong. The Bible has nothing good to say about people who create disharmony.</p><p>It may be smart politics in the 21st century to reject historic moral concepts such as marriage between a man and a woman, but when our society does so, it erodes the foundation of our nation. Marriage is an institution that God created between a man and a woman. We can reject God’s definition of marriage, but we do so at our peril.</p><p>We can dissemble and talk about the reproductive rights of a woman, but those words are no more valid than those of the slave owner who tried to use the Bible to justify having slaves. Can anyone seriously believe that the United States could have continued with some citizens living free and others living in slavery? Similarly, how can character and virtue exist when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out for our convenience, and when we thumb our nose at God’s Commandments? Today, we are a divided nation, a situation encouraged by our President when he identifies his political opponents as his <em>“enemies.” </em>Division and disharmony are never good for a nation.</p><p>As Abraham Lincoln said…</p><p><em>“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.”</em></p><p>We can use all sorts of fancy words designed to evade the truth, and we may be hailed as <em>“brilliant”</em> by today’s commentators, but in the end, the truth is still the truth. We can call taxes <em>“contributions,”</em> government spending <em>“investments,”</em> and reductions in the rate of spending growth <em>“cuts,”</em> but those are just intentional efforts to confuse and mislead American citizens. These are thinly disguised lies.</p><p>When lawyers and politicians pretend that the United States Constitution means things that are not expressly written, they are simply making it up. When we were children, and other children did that, we would say <em>“you are lying.”</em> Indeed, that is exactly what is going on when men and women take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then ignore what it says and simply rule on the basis of their own views. That is when we cross the line from being a government of laws to a government of men.</p><p>Character is important in any relationship. Who wants to be married to someone you can’t trust? Who wants to have a friend that is not reliable? Honesty is the bottom line in any lasting relationship. When honesty is skirted or fails, only a contrite apology and forgiveness holds the relationship together.</p><p>Character counts in the business world. Who wants to buy a product or a service from someone who can’t be trusted? No one would do that. And, those in the business world who persist in trying to con the buyer are doomed to eventual failure. </p><p>Character should count in our political leaders. It should be their compass, their guide in all their dealings. It takes character to accept the fact that as an elected official you are a public servant. You are someone who was elected by the people. You are not the master, you are the servant. You are beholden to the people of the United States to be honest and to do your very best to serve them. </p><p>Our founders certainly felt this way. George Washington said…</p><p><em>"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government...can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."</em></p><p>And, Benjamin Franklin said…</p><p><em>"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."</em></p><p>Franklin also said…</p><p><em>"Laws without morals are in vain."</em></p><p>Thomas Jefferson counseled…</p><p><em>"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and... their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice…These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."</em></p><p>James Madison stated…</p><p><em>"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."</em></p><p>John Adams advised…</p><p><em>"The only foundation of a free constitution, is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.</em></p><p>And, to further emphasize his point, Adams said…</p><p><em>"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."</em></p><p>George Mason concurred…</p><p><em>"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."</em></p><p>Signer of the Declaration of Independence and, after Washington and Franklin, perhaps the most highly regarded leader of his time, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote… </p><p><em>"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."</em></p><p>But, perhaps Patrick Henry summed it up best when he wrote…</p><p><em>"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."</em></p><p>Were the founders alive today, what would distress them the most? Would it be the huge government that inserts itself into the lives of every citizen? Or perhaps it would be the willful disregard of the intent of the Constitution? Would they be shocked most by the diminution of individual freedom? Or would they be appalled by our military adventurism? Would they be most concerned by the restraints on opportunity for individuals who are born into the lowest economic state, or the near financial bankruptcy of the government? Would they be most upset by the heavy tax burden on the citizens of the United States? </p><p>I’m sure all of these serious issues would greatly trouble them, but I am equally sure that the lack of virtue and character in our society would distress them the most. They understood that virtue among the people, that we would define today a character, was essential to maintaining a free society, a republican form of government. It was, as you can see from their stated opinions, the bedrock that made a free society possible.</p><p>When we elect men and women to office without character, without virtue, and without commonsense, we are electing the demolition crew to public office. You cannot build or maintain a free society with a wrecking ball. We need responsible citizens who seek to serve, who are dedicated to maintaining a free and just society based upon the founders principles.</p><p>Ronald Reagan had it right…</p><p><em>“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”</em></p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2708132558368610238.post-35677661232009881462013-08-05T07:43:00.000-07:002013-08-05T07:43:05.580-07:00The Future Confronts the Past<p>Who is Thomas Massie? What does he have in common with the Founders, with men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Washington? Mr. Massie was the subject of a front page article in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> on Friday, August 02, 2013. He is a freshman Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Kentucky. He is a healthy, tea party conservative who has not yet come down with Potomac fever, that insidious disease that corrupts well-intentioned and principled men and women who are elected to Congress. Potomac fever muddles their mind and causes them to forget their principles, their idealism, and the very reason they were elected to Congress in the first place. Potomac fever causes their head to swell, their ego to expand and grow to proportions that blind them to the principles they formerly held. They then lose their direction and forget that they are not to be masters of the people, but servants of the people. They no longer think of themselves as residents of their home town, but residents of Washington, DC.</p><p>But, Thomas Massie has, thus far, avoided catching Potomac fever. In fact, he helps those recovering from this disease regain their ideals and commonsense. Who is Thomas Massie? Mr. Massie and his wife are both graduates of MIT. Thomas has degrees in both Mechanical and Electrical engineering from MIT. While at MIT the Massies started up a company in their apartment, using 24 patents that Thomas Massie had developed. By 2003 they had 60 employees and had raised $30 million from investors. At that point, the Massies sold their share in the company and moved back to their hometown in Kentucky. Thomas Massie is smart like Thomas Jefferson, wise like George Washington, and principled like Patrick Henry.</p><p>When Thomas Massie ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives in 2012 Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and other old bulls of the Republican Party contributed $50,000 to now Congressman Massie’s opponent. Perhaps that’s one reason why Mr. Massie doesn’t feel beholden to the Republican leadership.</p><p>While the Republican establishment is dedicated to maintaining the status quo and enjoying their careers, Thomas Massie is a man of principle. In short, he can’t be bought. Thomas Massie is the future of the Republican Party; the old bulls, Boehner, McCarthy, etc. are the past of the Republican Party.</p><p>The old bulls profess that they are against Obamacare and that they will do anything in their power to derail Obamacare. However, their opposition to Obamacare is driven less by principle and an understanding of Constitutional principles, and more by the reality that it is good politics. The Republican leadership is big on symbolic votes to defund Obamacare, but when push comes to shove, they run for cover.</p><p>The old bulls counsel patience, and promise that victory will come in the future, if we will only bide our time, and wait for the right opening. But, the right time never comes. Socialism rolls forward, crushing freedom, stopping progress, perpetuating poverty, restricting prosperity, and remaking America into something the Founders hated—a powerful, centralized government that pries into and controls every aspect of our lives. In reality, the Republican establishment lives in fear. They fear the news media. They fear failure and defeat. Unlike those who signed the Declaration of Independence, they are unwilling to take risk in the defense of freedom. They calculate, they ponder, they wait, and they eventually cave.</p><p>If the current Republican leadership had been living at the time of the Declaration of Independence, you would not have found their names on that document. They would have been the ones counseling patience with King George III and they would have promised that if we only wait, King George III would come around.</p><p>But, this is not the time to shrink from the task before us. Now, is the time to defund Obamacare. What use is a majority in the US House of Representatives if it is not used to block funding of Obamacare by removing funding for it from the Continuing Resolution that comes before Congress this October? But, the leadership is scared. Karl Rove is scared. Their knees knock together as they fear the wrath of the news media.</p><p>The media evokes visions of 1995 when Bill Clinton shut down the Federal Government. Of course, the left stream media characterized it as a shutdown of government by the Republican controlled House of Representatives. That is simply untrue. Here is what happened.</p><p>The Congress (House and Senate) passed a spending bill that cut wasteful spending from the budget. It provided for funding of all essential functions of the government, but President Clinton vetoed it, thus shutting down the government. There was another, more lengthy shutdown in 1996. Clearly, these shutdowns were caused by Clinton, not the Republican controlled House and Senate. They were simply fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities of sending a spending bill to the President for his approval. Because the news media were cheerleaders for Clinton, they falsely portrayed it as a Republican shut down of government. </p><p>So what happened? Politics aside, the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns of the government led to the first balanced federal budget in 1997. That was the first balanced budget in more than 50 years. </p><p>But, what happened politically? Well, as Karl Rove, Senator Saxby Chambliss and the news media tell it, the Republicans were <em>“handed their heads”</em> in the 1996 election. Sadly, that is political revisionism. It is a fabrication.</p><p>In 1996, a very weak Republican candidate, Bob Dole, was nominated to run against Bill Clinton. Bob Dole had once been a very principled conservative when he was first elected to Congress. He was in the vanguard of Congressmen who were idealistic and driven. But, Bob Dole caught Potomac fever. By the time he was elected to the US Senate, and eventually became the leader of the Senate, he was no longer a public servant, or a resident of Russell, Kansas. He was an entrenched, establishment Republican who was a resident of Washington, DC. He was a member of the ruling class.</p><p>In spite of Dole’s weak candidacy, the results were not at all as they are recounted by the news media or the RINOs in Congress. In 1994, the GOP won a smashing victory, taking control of the United States House of Representatives for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in 1952. They picked up 54 seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate. Because it was such an exceptional year for the GOP, they won almost all marginal races, some in districts where they were heavily outnumbered by Democrats.</p><p>According to the news media and Saxby Chambliss they overreached in 1995 and were handily defeated in 1996.</p><p>Not so!</p><p>In the 1996 elections, Democrats did gain nine seats in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans maintained their majority. The seats lost were less than expected. The losses were in extremely vulnerable districts. And, while the GOP experienced minimal losses in the House of Representatives, they added two additional seats in the US Senate, increasing their majority in that body!</p><p>The story of the 1995 government shut down as told by the RINOs and the news media is a far cry from the reality of what happened. By having backbone and standing firm for fiscal responsibility the Republicans not only held their own, but just one year later were able to force Bill Clinton to sign the first balanced budget in more than 40 years! The 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns are a story of success, because the Republicans showed courage and leadership.</p><p>It’s that type of courage and leadership that is dearly needed today if we are to save this nation from total financial collapse. If you think the deficit is dangerous today, consider the fact that if Obamacare is fully implemented the deficit will more than double over the next few years! That’s right, double.</p><p>That’s why it is so important for the Republicans to stop fooling around and get some backbone. It’s time to defund Obamacare now. As Charles Krauthammer and others have noted, this is the last opportunity to stop Obamacare. We will not have another chance. Why? Because once they start enrolling millions in Obamacare it will be too late. Socialism has never been repealed once it becomes entrenched. Like opium, it is addictive and destructive. Obamacare will drive our economy into a permanent, never-ending recession. What’s more, Obamacare will destroy the best, the most universal health care coverage on the face of the earth. And finally, it will end opportunity and prosperity for your children and your grandchildren. </p><p>To stop Obamacare we must defund it. We can do that via the Continuing Resolution that comes before Congress in October of this year if Congressmen and women like Thomas Massie succeed. Massie and others personify Jefferson, Adams and Washington who had the courage and the character to put their names to the Declaration of Independence. We are in a time much like that described by Thomas Paine who wrote on December 23, 1776…</p><p><em>“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”</em></p><p>Men like Saxby Chambliss tremble with fear that they might offend the mighty news media. He and others counsel caution and patience. They simply do not have the courage of their convictions.</p><p>Our nation deserves our prayers, but it also deserves our help. We don’t have to sit idly by and let the Republican Establishment once again cave to the Obama juggernaut. Although members of Congress don’t like to be reminded of it, they are not our masters, they are our elected public servants. </p><p>Between now and October there will be a giant rally held on the mall in Washington, DC. You will hear ads on the radio and even television ads calling for the Republicans in Congress to stand up and be counted. Nearly 70 members of the House of Representatives have already pledged to vote against any Continuing Resolution that does not defund Obamacare. </p><p>The Republicans in Congress wonder why their standing in the polls is so low. It’s not because they have opposed Obama, it’s because they have not had the courage to refuse to go along with him. Romney did not garner 2 million votes less than McCain in 2012 because he was too conservative; he lost because he was an ineffective, cardboard conservative candidate. His performance as Governor of Massachusetts, passing Romneycare, and other non-conservative legislation made him suspect. That’s why millions of conservatives stayed home and did not vote. It takes more than conservative words to make a conservative, it takes courageous action!</p><p>You and I need to stand up and be counted. We can do that by…</p><ol> <li>Refusing to support the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Senatorial Committee until and unless the Republican Party regains its will and its principles.</li>
<li>Attending any and all rallies in support of the courageous conservatives in the House and the Senate who are fighting to defund Obamacare, not just symbolically, but in reality by removing funding from the approaching Continuing Resolution.</li>
<li>Letting your Congressman and Senator know that regardless of whether they are a Republican or Democrat you will not contribute to them or vote for them in 2014 unless they vote to defund Obamacare.</li>
</ol><p>Believe me, if even a few hundred thousand, or better yet, a few million conservatives tell members of Congress they will lose votes if they fail to defund Obamacare, they will change their tune quickly. Those without conservative values and principles have one inviolate principle—getting re-elected. Anything that threatens their cushy lifestyle and threatens their career will be treated with the utmost seriousness.</p><p>These times are really no different than those faced by our Founders at the time of the American Revolution. The Virginia House of Burgesses was dominated by cronies of the British Governor. They were our first crony capitalists. Just like the crony capitalists of today, they received special economic privileges from the Colonial Government for kowtowing to the wishes of King George III. King George wanted to continue slavery because he was personally benefiting from it, and the slave owners fell into lock step. When George Mason and George Washington and Patrick Henry tried on several occasions to stop the slave trade, these crony capitalists blocked their efforts.</p><p>And, when Patrick Henry gave his speech in the House of Burgesses opposing the stamp act, concluding with the words…</p><p><em>“Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — .”</em></p><p>At that point he was interrupted by cries of <em>“Treason!”</em> from Delegates who easily recognized the reference to assassinated leaders. Henry paused briefly, then calmly finished his sentence:</p><p><em>“...may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”</em></p><p>Those interrupting Patrick Henry and charging him with treason were the same Delegates to the Virginia House of Burgesses who were the crony capitalists who strongly supported the continuation of slavery, and who were willing to accept the curtailment of individual freedom in order to feather their own nest. </p><p>There will always be men (and women) like those who accused Patrick Henry of treason, who falsely charge conservatives as being racist and against the poor. There will always be small, timid men who know what is right, but do not have the courage of their convictions.</p><p>But, the future of the Republican Party, indeed the future of the Republic is in the hands of those who will dare and challenge and stand for principles. Today, young men like Thomas Massie are challenging the old bulls in the Republican Party. They are standing up courageously against those who are satisfied with half-measures and compromises and who quail in fear of losing their seat as a member of the ruling class.</p><p>We must support them with our dollars, our volunteer efforts, and our prayers. They are the hope of America. They are, God willing, the future of our nation.</p></body><br />
</html><br />
Bruce W. Eberlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552544064649509952noreply@blogger.com0