It Was Not the Constitutional Primary!

There are often complaints about the candidate selection process.  Some complain about the use of political conventions (rather than primaries) to select the nominees of a party.  They say that primaries are much more fair than are conventions, but when they make that complaint, they are simply showing their ignorance of the political process.  These same people would not necessarily suggest that every time a national issue arises, such as gun control, that we simply decide the issue on the basis of a national plebiscite.  The Founders would never have approved of that.  They worked hard to create a republic, not a democracy.  In a democracy, where the general population speaks quickly, emotion often rules the day, but in a republic where elected representatives take time to inform themselves and deliberate, reason more often prevails.

The problem with primaries is similar to holding a general plebiscite.  You and I want our elected officials to rationally debate and deliberate important issues on the basis of facts, not emotion.  That’s why the Founders studiously avoided any process that could be rushed or accelerated to satisfy a passing public fancy. 

Let’s talk about primaries.  There are obviously different types of primaries.  The very worst ones are like those held in Washington State where anyone of either party can vote in either primary, selectively by office.  In other words, they can vote in the Republican Primary for US Senate nominee, and then vote in the Democratic primary for gubernatorial nominee.  What commonly happens in such primaries is that there are a large number of crossover voters when there is an incumbent assured of re-nomination.  For example, if an incumbent Democratic Senator has no opposition, why not vote in the Republican Senatorial primary for the weakest candidate?  It makes sense and that’s what happens regularly in the awful Washington State primary system.

But frankly, straight Republican and Democratic primaries are not much better than the outlandish Washington State primary.  In nearly every Presidential election, those supporting the incumbent President (who is often assured of re-nomination) will go out of their way to vote in the other party’s primary, to pick the candidate who is least distasteful to them.  John McCain was the beneficiary of huge numbers of Democratic votes in primaries.  These renegade Democrats may well have provided the margin he needed to win the Republican nomination.

Some folks, who don’t contribute to candidates or canvass voters on behalf of a particular party, insist that they should have the right to pick the nominee of that party.  Why?  What right does a nonparticipant in either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party have to select the nominee of that party for any office?  Frankly, the most informed individuals on candidates and the issues reside inside those parties.  They have expended their time, their talent and their money to advance that party’s goals.  Why should they not be the ones who choose who will carry their party’s banner in November?  Remember, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are private organizations.  They are not obligated to let non participants in their internal processes to participate in the selection of nominees for public office. 

Those who are much less informed on the issues and the principles of a party generally pick bad candidates for public office.  It’s the same reason that democracies always govern much more unwisely than do republics like the United States of America.  The rank and file political activist, Democrat or Republican, gives up hundreds of hours of time and contributes vast sums of money to advance a cause just because they believe in it.  More than 99% of all donors and volunteers get nothing directly for all their effort and work.  They are involved to advance their cause, not for political gain.

If you choose to be uninvolved in the affairs of your political party of choice, please do not whine about the fact that your party choose to select their nominees via political convention.  Contrary to the way political conventions are often portrayed in history text books, as being manipulated by political bosses, they have distinct advantages over the primary process.  The more we rely on primaries to select candidates, the more money rules, and the less impact principles and ideas have.

Obviously, there are no perfect processes for selecting political candidates, but in my view, the convention process is vastly superior to the primary process.  After all, the Founders held Constitutional Conventions, not Constitutional Primaries.  They intentionally sought a deliberative process whereby reasonable and thoughtful men could deliberate and debate to come up with the best solutions to the problems at hand.  I cannot imagine that any sort of plebiscite could have arrived at conclusions and established a framework more beneficial to freedom and justice than the United States Constitution.

Only individuals who are informed on the issues and knowledgeable of the US Constitution and the views of the Founders are truly qualified to serve in public office or even to choose those who will run for public office.  This disqualifies a huge number of Americans and a very large number of individuals who bestir themselves every two years or so to vote in political primary elections.

This is not to say that the two major political parties are perfect, or even ideal.  The fact is, at times they have conspired together, with success, to use the government to make it difficult for third parties to gain access to the political process.  Big corporations and very large nonprofit organizations have often manipulated government (though the enactment of certifications, licenses, fees, registrations and other legal artifices) s to make it difficult for competition to enter the marketplace.  The leaders of the Republican and Democratic Parties have done exactly the same thing.  Working hand in hand, the two major political parties have created laws that make it difficult for third parties to compete effectively with them.  In fact, the Republican and Democratic parties colluded to create federal election laws that give powerful advantage to the incumbent Congressman or Senator over challengers.  This government intervention weakens the fabric of our republic.

Today an electorate uninformed on the issues and the candidates, and with little or no knowledge of the Founder’s principles of limited government is eroding the foundation of our free society.  Thomas Jefferson noted…

"If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

Considering the far greater knowledge of convention delegates on the issues and on the Founders principles (at least in the Republican Party), I trust the candidate choices of the convention process over a primary.  You should too.

Founders as Standard

The Virginia Republican Convention took place in Richmond this past weekend.  It nominated three men of character to run for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and for Attorney General.  Ken Cuccinelli, Earl Jackson, and Mark Obenshain are not only men of integrity, they are dedicated to the principles of the Founders. 

In spite of this, they were immediately attacked as extremists.  Because the Democrats have difficulty debating on the issues, they resort to personal attacks.  When your policies fail, your ideas are old, and your candidate for governor is ethically challenged, your only recourse is to attack the messenger.  If this election was limited to issues, the election would be over.  But the politics of personal destruction launched by the Democrats during the Bill Clinton administration, continue to this day. 

So what about the personal attack that the Republican ticket is extremist?  Is that true?  And, on what basis do the Democrats argue that the Virginia GOP ticket is not in the mainstream?  We have a standard by which we can judge whether any candidate for public office in the United States is extreme.  That standard is the values, ideals, and principles of our Founders.

I have done a little research to see what, if anything the Founders said applies to the views of the two dominant parties in the United States and, more specifically, to the Virginia 2013 election.  As best I could, I have tried to accurately represent the views of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Founders on the important issues of the day.  You may be surprised to see how visionary the Founders were in seeing issues that would continue to arise in the political sphere.

There are distinct differences between the Democrats running for statewide office in Virginia and the Republicans running for those same positions.  I encourage you to compare the views of the Democrats and the Republicans with those of the Founders.  Once you have done that you can decide for yourself who are the extremists, and who is aligned with the Founder’s principles.

Issue	Democrats	Republicans	Founders
Public Debt	The Commonwealth of Virginia has a balanced budget amendment.  The budget must be balanced.  However, if the Democratic statewide candidates have a personal commitment to a balanced budget, it would run contrary to the national Democratic Party and President Obama who had no fear of deficit spending.  Because Virginia requires a balanced budget, the Democrat’s solution is nearly always higher taxes, not more efficiency in government or reduced government intrusion into the lives of its citizens.	Virginia Republicans believe in a balanced budget through limited government and low taxes.  As Governor, Ken Cuccinelli would never raise taxes.  The entire ticket believes that higher taxes would hurt the economy of the state.	"I place…public debt as the great danger to be feared.  To preserve your independence, we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt.  We must make our choice between economy and liberty... or profusion and servitude." --Thomas Jefferson "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.  One is by sword. The other is by debt." –John Adams "Avoid likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington
Right to Bear Arms	Like President Obama, Virginia Democrats claim to be supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, but their support of this right is driven primarily by their fear of political defeat, not by a principled commitment to own and use firearms.	The Republican team is genuinely supportive of your right to keep and bear arms.  They would propose any legislation that would infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.	Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. --George Washington "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” --George Washington “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison
Taxes	The current Democrat candidates for statewide office claim that they will be fiscally responsible, but that can accurately be interpreted as raising taxes to cover expanded spending.  Every Democrat Governor of Virginia in recent history has been a big spending governor.	The Republican candidates for statewide office believe that taxes are too high, not too low as the Democrats think.  They believe high taxes destroy jobs and hurt the economy.	"Taxation follows public debt, and in its train, wretchedness, and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson "The power to tax is the power to destroy." --John Marshall
Media Bias	The Democrats do not believe there is any media bias.  Why should they?  The Virginia news media, along with The Washington Post act as attack dogs for the Democrats.	Republicans do not trust the news media.  Much reporting is biased in favor of the Democrats.  Running for office is always an uphill battle if you are a conservative Republican.	"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." --Thomas Jefferson
Free Speech	Politically Correct Speech is endorsed and supported by Democrats	The Republican ticket believes in free speech, not PC speech that intimidates and limits the freedom of Virginia citizens.	"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own.  Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." --Benjamin Franklin
Government	Like President Obama, Virginia Democrats see government as a force for good.  They do not fear large government, but welcome it.  “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices are doing their best to gum up the works.  They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” --Barack Obama	All three members of the Virginia Republican ticket believe in the Founder’s vision of limited, Constitutional Government.  Like the Founders, they understand the danger of big, powerful government that usurps individual freedom.  Their record is one of fighting for minimal government and maximum individual freedom.	"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” --George Washington “When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” --Thomas Jefferson
Values	National Democrats, led by President Obama, support abortion on demand, gay marriage, oppose posting of the Ten Commandments, prayer in schools, seemingly condone extramarital sex (Bill Clinton), and forcing God and prayer out of the public square.  The Virginia Democrat team has not repudiated these positions by nearly every prominent national Democrat.	Virginia Republicans are strongly pro-life (oppose abortion and infanticide). They support marriage between a man and a woman, support posting of The Ten Commandments and prayer in school, support the free exercise of prayer in the public square.	"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams "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." --Patrick Henry It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. --George Washington
Ballot Integrity	As reported by NBC Channel 4, Washington, “The requirements were updated by the Republican General Assembly this year and decried by Democrats and minorities as a voter suppression effort. The legislation requires voters to present valid identification at the polls.”  Polls show that such cards are favored by Republicans, Democrats and Independents as well as black and Hispanic voters, yet Democrats continue to resist such efforts.  A cynic might believe that the reason is that it would impede voter theft efforts.	In May 2012, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed a ballot security bill into law that was opposed by the Democrats and supported by Republicans.  The bill was co-sponsored in the State Senate by Mark Obenshain, Republican candidate for Attorney General.  The entire Republican ticket believes in protecting the integrity of the ballot for all Virginia citizens.	While there was no public plebiscite in the 1700s, the Founders were men of character and integrity.  It is very hard to imagine that they would oppose using any means available to make sure that the public would have confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
Highway Construction	The Democrats emphasize mass transit at the expense of road and highway construction.  Their goal is to force people out of their cars.  They support leaving tolls on highways to pay for mass transit after the capital cost of the highways have been retired.  The Democrats support using only union labor to build highways and mass transit at an additional cost of tens of millions of dollars to taxpayers.	Republicans have initiated imaginative approaches to highway construction including HOT lanes, the widening of I66 by one lane, and private highway construction and ownership.  They do not favor raising taxes to pay for mass transit or highway construction.  They also oppose burdening taxpayers with additional costs due to the use of union contractors only.  Instead, they believe in hiring the lowest cost, qualified contractor to do the work.	There are no pertinent thoughts by the Founders on road construction, but they firmly believed in free markets, and would have been opposed to any social engineering such as forcing people out of their automobiles.
Constitution	Virginia Democrat candidates have not distanced themselves from President Obama who said… “It [the Warren Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution…that 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.” --Illinois State Senator Barack Obama	Ken Cuccinelli, as Virginia Attorney General, defended the rights of Virginia citizens against the encroachment of growing Federal power when he filed suit against Obamacare.  Mark Obenshain, candidate for Attorney Generalhas promised to continue to defend the rights of Virginia citizens.  All three Republican candidates are committed to the rule of law, the Virginia Constitution and to the US Constitution as written and intended by the Founders.	"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." --Patrick Henry “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” --Thomas Jefferson
Honesty	Terry McAuliffe was known as the “bag man” of the Bill Clinton Administration.  He made more than $18 million from a modest investment in Global Crossings, while thousands of other investors lost everything.  He has been involved in numerous shady deals, including most recently a green automobile fiasco.  With such a track record, how can you expect honesty in state government?	While all men are imperfect, Virginia Republican candidates have proven themselves to be trustworthy and honest.  As Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli defended the Virginia Constitution and Virginia laws whether he agreed with them or not.	Known as a leader of unquestioned honesty and integrity, George Washington set the standard for character and integrity when he gave up command of the Continental Army.  To give up power in Washington’s time was unheard of.  Upon hearing that it was Washington’s intention to give up his command of the Continental Army, King George III said of Washington, "[He will be] the greatest man in the world."
Redistribution of Income	President Obama has made no bones about the fact that he favors redistribution of income.  In fact, as a state senator, he bemoaned the fact that…”…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…”  No Virginia Democrat for statewide office has distanced himself from the idea of redistribution of income.	Virginia Republicans believe with Democrat President John F. Kennedy that “A rising tide lifts all boats.”  The surest way to prosperity for all is lower taxes, less regulations and minimum government.  Virginia Republican candidates for statewide office reject the politics of envy, and the Marxist concept of redistribution.  They believe in equal opportunity for all.	“…democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” --Thomas Jefferson “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” --Thomas Jefferson “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” --John Adams
Welfare	Democrats in Virginia, as well as nationally, created the welfare state.  It has robbed the poor of their character, while ensnaring them in permanent poverty.  When school choice came before the Virginia state legislature, all Democrats voted no.  Efforts to rescue the poor through school choice, low taxes, less regulations and lower fuel costs have been rejected by the Democrats.	Republicans favor school choice as a means of bringing quality education to poor communities in Virginia.  Because high fuel costs and regulations disproportionately hurt the poor the most, Republicans seek to expand access to low cost energy and to trim regulations that impede opportunities for entrepreneurship.	“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” --Benjamin Franklin
Access to low Cost Energy	Virginia Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to expand off shore drilling that would provide money and jobs to the state of Virginia, as well as access to low cost energy.  Like national Democrats, Virginia Democrats are wedded to green energy.  Democrat nominee for Governor Terry McAuliffe even started a green car company (that failed) with the help of a Mississippi subsidy.	The Republican ticket favors the development of all forms of energy, based on the ability to produce it without government subsidies.  Republicans support safe exploration and production of oil and gas off shore.  This would mean more jobs, more tax revenue for Virginia, and less expensive energy for the residents of Virginia.	The Founders did not believe in subsidies, and encouraged freedom and free enterprise.  Since the development of automobiles and the expanded use of oil and gas for energy did not begin until the end of the 19th century, there are no quotes from the Founders on this issue.

After comparing the views of the Democrats and Republicans with the views of the Founders, what is your conclusion?  Is there any area in which the Founders are in accord with the big government views of today’s Democrats?  If the standard is the views of the Founders, the Democrats get an F and the Republicans get at least a B+.  But that has not deterred the Democrats from calling the Republican ticket extreme.

The Republican’s choice for Lieutenant Governor, Earl Jackson, has come in for particular abuse.  Why, because he is an African American.  It is a title that Jackson himself rejects.  In his speech to the convention he said, “I am not an African American, I am an American!”  Earl Jackson is a Tea Party Republican.  He loves America and fears for its future.  He served as a US Marine, he is a graduate of Harvard Law School, he is an ordained minister, and he is the great grandson of slaves.  Why have the Democrats so severely attacked Jackson?  The reason has something to do with what George Will said a few years ago.  I don’t know the exact quote, but the gist of what he said was that while Democrats hate white conservatives, they fear black conservatives.  They know that every black conservative is a threat to their maintaining control over the black vote.

Indeed.  Are the Democrats simply closet racists?  Perhaps, but their fear of black conservative candidates is real.  They know that their current success in American politics hangs by the slender thread of a lie.  That lie is that Republicans and conservatives are racists.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The truth is that Republicans, especially conservatives, support quality education in poor areas through the implementation of school choice (school vouchers), while the Democrats, under threat from the teacher’s unions, continue to oppose school choice.  In other words, the Democrats oppose providing quality education to children in poor neighborhoods. 

School choice is not a theory, it is a proven solution to the horrendous public education provided to African Americans and others in poorer areas.  Democrats also favor higher fuel costs, but higher fuel costs hurt the poor the most because it accounts for a much higher share of their limited income.  Democrats continue to support legislation that hurts black employment.  The current unemployment for black teenagers is nearly 50% due to Democratic policies, but still the Democrats push forward.

The truth is that the Democrat’s policies are anti-black, anti-poor.  That’s why the candidacy of Earl Jackson is so threatening to them.  When Earl Jackson was much younger he filed for bankruptcy.  This, say the Democrats, disqualifies him for higher office.  But, of course, by those standards Milton Hershey, Henry Ford, H.J. Heinz, and Walt Disney would have been disqualified also. 

The truth is, the Democrats don’t care about Earl Jackson’s qualifications or his previous bankruptcy, they simply fear that he will expose their great lie.  I know Earl Jackson.  I have known him for a number of years.  He is a proud and very talented American of great personal character.  He deserves better than the smears of the desperate Democrats.

The Republican’s candidate for Attorney General is Mark Obenshain.  Mark is a state senator, a talented attorney, and a man of great personal integrity.  He also happens to be the son of the man who many credit with the creation of the modern Virginia Republican Party, Richard Obenshain.  My wife, Kathi, and I were at the state GOP convention in 1978 that nominated Dick Obenshain as our US Senate candidate.  He was a man of sterling character and clearly he passed that character along to his son, Mark.  Mark has pledged to carry on the policies of current Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, if he is elected.  He will make a great Attorney General.

Ken Cuccinelli is the GOP standard bearer for Governor and he is undoubtedly the best candidate for Governor the Republican Party has had for many, many years.  He is a man of principle and integrity.  As Attorney General he has led the charge against Obamacare, has freed an innocent man accused of murder, and has insisted that all branches of state government follow the spirit and the letter of the Virginia state constitution.  Ken is respected nationally for his leadership in stopping the encroachment of the Federal government that threatens the rights of Virginia citizens.  He is a devout believer in the Founder’s principles of limited government.  He will make a great Virginia Governor in the tradition of our first governor, Patrick Henry and our second governor, Thomas Jefferson.

Scandals x4 and More

Shocked?  You shouldn’t be.  Corruption is an inherent characteristic of big government.  For instance, consider the soft tyranny of socialism light in Italy.  On the record, the Italian economy stinks.  It’s in the tank.  However, if you visit Italy, the economy looks rather healthy, all things considered.  How can that be?  The answer is that as much as 20% of the Italian economy is conducted in the so-called Black Market, i.e. sales of goods and services conducted off the books in cash, thus avoiding taxes.  In essence, it is this Black Market that mitigates the natural negative impact of socialism on each citizen.  The Black Market is, in reality, the free market.  While government endeavors to fix and set prices of goods and services as well as wages, the free market always exists.  Like water seeping through cracks and crevices to reach the lowest ground, the black/free market seeks the lowest prices of goods and services, and the best quality.

But the negative impact of the soft tyranny of socialism goes far beyond the creation of an illegal Black Market.  It corrupts the soul and the character of its citizens.  If you need a building permit, you must bribe the building inspector.  No bribe, no permit.  You want to run a taxi service?  You must bribe the local city councilman.  You want to get faster medical care?  You bribe the bureaucrat in charge.  Every bureaucrat and government official has his hand out.  Nothing happens without bribery.  Everyone knows about it, everyone accepts it.

It’s worse yet.  If you are a politician in power, you use every arm of government to destroy your opposition.  You use the taxing agency to audit your opponent’s tax returns.  You hold up approval on permits he needs to run his business.  You make sure he is last in line for medical care.  You lie and cheat and steal because you have convinced yourself that the end justifies the means.  And, you believe so strongly in your socialist ideology that anything goes.  Laws and the constitution are meant to be bent to satisfy your political goals.  You appoint judges who ignore the laws and the Constitution.  You appoint political operatives who skirt and ignore the law.

There is, as Solomon said, nothing new under the sun.  The creation of the Internal Revenue Service here in the US gave unprecedented power to the ruling class.  The enactment of a Constitutional Amendment to levy income taxes was the most destructive, most damaging, most dangerous Amendment ever approved.  The vast sums of money that became available to the federal government, thanks to the income tax, changed everything.  It enabled the US government to grow and expand beyond a size not previously possible.  The result was to give almost unlimited power to the bureaucrats and politicians.  Without that access to nearly unlimited funding, the welfare state under which we labor could never have been constructed. 

The four scandals of the Obama Administration—Fast and Furious, Benghazigate, AP Wiretapping, and IRS Gate—are not unique to this particular administration.  They are systemic of leviathan government.  When you elect those of the far left who reject traditional moral values, the floodgates will be thrown wide open.  They will punish their enemies by using the power of the ATF, EPA, the IRS, and most deliciously, Obamacare.  Today, the IRS terrorizes American citizens, treating them as guilty until proven innocent.  The IRS even operates its own administrative judicial system that is a far cry from justice.  But, if you think having the IRS notify you that you are being audited is terrifying, imagine the power of the Obamacare bureaucrats who will have life and death power over you.  You had better not wear that anti-government pin into the waiting room under Obamacare if you want to be treated.  You had better not donate to conservative candidates if you want to receive high quality care or any care at all.  You had better not oppose any new government program if you want to stay healthy.

Paranoid?  Ask the leaders of the patriotic conservative organizations whose legitimate applications for 501(c)(4) status was denied if this can happen.  And by the way, don’t think you are safe if you are just a church going Christian.  The ideologues on the left have no use for the morals or values of Christians.  Moreover, those on the left are just naturally inclined toward government service.  They will continue to populate the government, using its power to accomplish their political goals.

Let’s look at the toll of all powerful government run by a thoroughly corrupt administration…

Fast and Furious

Clearly, Fast and Furious was a scheme hatched by the White House political team to advance their anti-gun agenda.  The idea was simple…put thousands of high power guns and ammunition into the hands of narco-terrorists on the south side of the border with the hope and intent that mayhem would ensue.  Blame the spread of these firearms on legal firearms dealers and make a case for restricting the use of firearms.

Not only did the scheme get exposed, thanks to FOX News, it backfired.  But before it was shut down, hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition were sent across the border.  As a result, US Border agent, Brian Terry, was killed by one of the weapons sent south.  In addition, more than 100 Mexican citizens, many innocent teenagers, were killed with these weapons.

Benghazigate

Not only were calls and warnings from the CIA ignored by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration, they denied it was a terrorist attack.  The order was given to rescue forces to stand down.  American citizens died.  Why did Benghazi happen?  It’s simple.  Everything with the Obama Administration has to do with politics.  Benghazi happened shortly after the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Speaker after speaker at that convention shouted out, “Osama’s dead, Al Qaida’s on the run!”  The Administration had worked hard to call all terrorist attacks, such as the one at Fort Hood, something other than a terrorist attack.  The idea was that the War on Terrorism had been won when Osama bin Laden was killed.  The White House could not tell the American people, especially voters, that the attack on the US compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, so it was blamed on a non-existent spontaneous demonstration caused by a video that no one has ever seen.  It was a flat out lie.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama knew the truth from the very beginning, but they lied and directly or indirectly caused the rescue team to stand down in hopes that it would all go away. 

As Hillary Clinton screeched during her hearing before the US Senate, in regard to the death of Ambassador Stevens and the other dead Americans “What difference at this point does it make?”  The fact is that the Presidential election was looming and the Benghazi attack threatened to derail the false narrative put forward by the President that terrorism was no longer a threat.  The story had to be killed in the best interest of the nation, which was the re-election of President Obama.  The left’s rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian moral values as embodied in the Ten Commandments sets them free to manipulate people, encourage jealously and envy, and even downplay the deaths of Americans in pursuit of absolute political power.

AP Snooping

Hey, what’s going on here?  We are on your side.  You are not supposed to secretly subpoena our telephone logs and check on who we have been talking to.  That’s about the reaction of the Associated Press when they found out that the telephone logs of their reporters had been secretly collected and reviewed.  In this case the subpoena was so broad that it went well beyond any national security concerns.  The story that the AP had was about a Yemen terrorist plot foiled by the CIA.  The Agency had stopped another underwear bomb attack.  The AP had the scoop and they agreed to hold up its release until cleared by the CIA.

But, when the White House learned about the foiled plot, they wanted all the credit.  The apparent reason for snooping on the AP was that the White House was afraid that the AP would take credit for the story before they House did.  If that’s the case, it had absolutely nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with politics.  Remember, this happened right in the middle of the Presidential campaign.  The White House wanted all the glory to promote the candidacy of President Obama.

But when the Obama White House feels threatened for any reason, no one is safe.  Doesn’t it make you feel better about the drone fleet that the EPA and other civilian government agencies are assembling?  Surely, they would never use drones to spy on their political enemies, would they?  While the mainstream media totally ignored the Fast and Furious scandal to protect the Obama Administration, they are up in arms in regard to being snooped on themselves.  This one is as rotten as are the others, but at least no one died as a result of this one or the IRS scandal, as they did in Benghazi or as a result of Fast and Furious.

IRS Gate

As you may recall, the Obama machine sanctimoniously accused Republicans and conservatives of endeavoring to suppress the minority vote.  Conservatives and the GOP sought to protect the integrity of the electoral process through the use of voter ID cards, something supported by every segment of the population, including minorities.  But while the White House and Eric Holder was smearing conservatives, they were doing exactly what they were accusing others of.  They were using the IRS to suppress the vote of conservatives. 

As early as 2010, the IRS was systematically harassing groups who had Tea Party, Patriot, or Constitution in their name if they applied for tax exempt status.  This status should not be confused with the tax deductible status of foundations.  All this meant was that these groups were not taxable, not that contributions to them were tax deductible.  As to where this scheme originated, I have only one question to ask…

When, in the past, the IRS was used to harass political enemies, where did the effort originate?

In the 1930s, the Franklin D. Roosevelt White House directed the IRS to harass William Randolph Hearst and other “enemies.”

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used the IRS to go after political opponents.

Again in the 1960s, probably the most corrupt President in the history of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, used the IRS to harass and hinder Republicans and Conservatives.

In the 1970s, President Richard M. Nixon, sic’d the IRS on his leftwing opponents.

And, of course, Bill Clinton illegally ordered the IRS to send the tax returns of his political opponents to the White House so that he could attack and intimidate them.

In each and every one of these cases, using the IRS to attack opponents originated in the White House.

So, I ask you, what are the odds that the harassment of patriotic groups by the White House originated with low level IRS employees?  I’d say that they are about as good as me running a four minute mile.  And, what are the odds that the IRS swung into action against the Tea Party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-family groups without any input from the Obama White House?  I’d say those odds are about as good as predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

The Alfred E. Newman Presidency

What is President Obama’s reaction to all these scandals?  It reminds me of the feckless Alfred E. Newman character of Mad Magazine fame—“Who, me?  Why, I didn’t know anything about it.  I heard about it when you did.  I’m as angry as you are, and I’m as innocent as the wind driven snow.”  To hear the President tell it, he’s on the outside looking in.  What did he know about Fast and Furious?  Nothing, but he invoked Presidential privilege to make sure that no one found out that his political team was behind the entire scandal.

What about Benghazigate?  “Shucks, I was in bed.  I told the folks to just take care of it.”  Now, we don’t really know that he was in bed, the record certainly does not account for his whereabouts.We do know, however, that he left the next day to do a fund raiser in Las Vegas.  I guess he figured out that it was time to “get out of Dodge.” 

But, he was clearly in the loop in subsequent days as they made up the story about the mysterious video.  He knew the facts within 24 hours, but for more than a week thereafter continued the fiction that it was that video that was the cause of the attack.

The question I want answered is—who gave the order to the rescue team to stand down?  It came from higher ups in the military, but who told them to issue the order?  Was it President Newman?

The truth is that President Barack Obama is not the unknowing, bumbling, goofy Alfred E. Newman.  No, he is the calculating, dissembling, untrustworthy man with the joy stick.  He refuses to make any decisions that could put him in political jeopardy.  He intentionally ignores governing, and concentrates on campaigning.  His number one objective is not the well-being of the United States or its citizens, it is politics.  He is focused on retaking the House of Representatives in 2014 and then pushing the nation even further to the left during his last two years.

I do not personally dislike the President.  I honor him and the office he holds, but he has forgotten his role.  In a republic like ours, elected officials, including the President, are public servants.  Obama is not a king.  In our nation the people are the rulers, and those elected are to be their servants.  No one is above the law.  When he breaks or bends the law or the Constitution, he dishonors himself.

I pray for the President’s safety and that he be granted Godly wisdom.  While I do not dislike him, I do dislike his misguided, dangerous policies.  I do dislike the fact that he rejects the values and the principles of the Founders.  I do dislike the fact that he does not recognize the United States as an exceptional nation, a beacon of hope and freedom to the world.

God help us if he is successful in re-capturing control of the US House of Representatives and is able to cram his entire far-left, anti-American agenda down our throats.  If he succeeds, this nation will never again be that “Shining city on a hill” that John Winthrop envisioned, or Ronald Reagan spoke about.  We will become, as Obama desires, just another nation, no more free than any other, offering no more opportunity than any other, and providing no better future than any other. 

Much More than Just a Simple Difference of Opinion...

President Obama gave a commencement address at Ohio State University on May 5.  What he said to the graduates was much more than a simple difference of opinion with his political opponents, it was antithetical to the Founders foundational principle of limited government.  In other words, he did not just express a political opinion that was different from the Republicans, he directly disagreed with and attacked the Founders themselves.  He expressed an opinion that the United States of America was founded on bad ideas that are simply wrong.  Here is what he said…

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works.  They'll warn that tyranny [is] always lurking just around the corner.  You should reject these voices.  Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

The statement itself is a little bit nonsensical and contradictory.  The President equates big government with self-rule, which is a non sequitur.  The only way you can say they are related is that as government grows and becomes more powerful, the less the people rule, and the more they are ruled.  It's similar to another silly phrase the President likes to use, "We are the government."  No, we are not the government, we are to be masters of the government and we are to control the government, but we are not the government.  It is Orwellian.  It tracks with calling government spending "investments," saying lower taxes "costs" the government (as if the government created the wealth and owns all money), or calling taxes "contributions."  If your children talked in riddles like that you would probably take them to a doctor to see what is wrong with them.

Fifty years ago, any politician who attacked the Founders and their principle of limited government would have been rightly treated as a radical who was dangerous.  Sadly, thanks to more than fifty years of systemic brainwashing by our public education system, such far left thinking is accepted as within he mainstream of public discourse. 

Although the President has openly advocated redistribution of income, with this latest statement he has made it clear that he rejects the foundational principle that protects our freedom—limited government.  I suppose it is to be expected of someone who sat in the church of Jeremiah Wright for more than 20 years hearing him say things like, "God D*** America") and citing "Frank" in his bio as someone who he greatly respected and learned from.  "Frank" was, of course, Frank Marshall Davis, a sort of surrogate father who imbedded many radical ideas in the young Barry Obama.  Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA.  A photographic copy of his signed Communist Party membership card can be found in the book, The Communist, (© 2012, Threshold Editions/Mercury Ink, a division of Simon & Schuster) by Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College. 

It is because we have tolerated the radical indoctrination of our children in our public schools that our nation is today on the brink of succumbing to ideas that lead directly to tyranny.  President Obama may be well-intentioned, but he is simply wrong.  And being wrong should not be confused with being stupid.  Being wrong comes from believing things you have been taught as correct that are in fact, false.

The American experiment is so very unique in history.  Never before, in the history of the world, has there been a nation like the United States of America.  It is built upon a simple idea—freedom.  But, the Founders understood that freedom did not exist throughout history.  The norm was monarchs, dictators, tyrants, and other forms of centralized government that existed to benefit those in power. 

What was it that made it possible for the American Founders to create an entirely new form of government?  How did they create a country that was the envy of the world?  What did they do to create a nation to which millions came to escape the tyranny of their homeland?

As a starting point, the Founders were well-read in history.  Moreover, they had personally experienced unimaginable freedom as Americans.  And make no mistake about it, although they were proud British subjects, they thought of themselves as Americans first.  After all, the founding of America began in the early 1600's with the establishment of the first colonies in Virginia and in Massachusetts.  By the time of the American Revolution there were generations of Americans going back more than 150 years.  Americans were independent and self-reliant.  Their commitment to faith and freedom can be traced to the Pilgrims and to men like John Winthrop who saw America as a shining city on a hill, a direct reference to Matthew 5:14. 

Of course, even by the 1700s, it took weeks, even months for a ship to cross the Atlantic.  Because of this, there was little interference by the distant English monarch into the lives of the colonists.  This made it possible for the colonists to enjoy an extraordinary level of individual freedom.  Even during the period leading up to the American Revolution, there was little interference, in terms of regulations and taxes, by the Crown.  Another reason for the lack of interfere in the colonies was the fact that they were an important source of commerce that benefitted the British empire.  It was because the men and women of the colonies had experienced such an unprecedented amount of freedom that they fiercely defended this right.  This positive experience, combined with the sudden and unprecedented efforts to tax the colonists by King George III, shocked them.  They had no representation in Parliament, they were trading almost exclusively with England, and now, they felt set upon by the Crown as simply a new source of tax revenue. 

The American colonists understood quite clearly that the power to tax is the power to limit freedom.  When their hard earned dollars were taken by the colonial government or by the Crown, their freedom was diminished.  Instead of the earner deciding how, why, and when to spend his money, the British government would now seize a larger share of their dollars for its needs.  To be sure, seize is not too strong a word.  If the colonists did not pay the taxes they would be thrown in jail by men who carried guns.  The same thing is true today.  When you pay taxes, your personal freedom is diminished, it is shrunken.  It's not a contribution freely given; taxes are seized at the point of a gun.  If you don't pay them, you go to jail, and there's no get out of jail free card.  Every dollar taken from you diminishes your freedom, i.e. your power, and conversely, it increases the power of those in government who spend it.  The American Founders had a clear understanding of the danger posed by big, powerful government.

What did George Washington say about government?  He said…

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Thomas Jefferson had very strong opinions about centralized, powerful, government.  The first one clearly applies to Obamacare and all the other government programs that give power to the politicians and bureaucrats in the guise of taking care of us.

"If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

Jefferson must have been one of the "voices" that President Obama was warning against listening to when he wrote the next two quotes.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

Similar to Jefferson and Washington, John Adams understood the frailty of man and the danger of unlimited government, something our current President apparently sees no danger in at all.

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Not to be outdone by Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, Patrick Henry, one of the most important and influential founders of the American Republic, had this to say about all-powerful government…

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

In a 2001 radio interview then Senator Barack Obama said …

"…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.  [It] 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."

Is there any doubt that he rejects entirely the thinking and the wisdom of the Founders?  He stands with those the Founders most feared, men who promised the people that if they would only surrender a little bit of their freedom to government, the government would take care of them.  To that Benjamin Franklin would surely retort…

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But where did the Founder's fear of government power come from beyond their personal experience and their reading of history?  The most commonly read book in the colonies and the one book read the most by the founders was the Bible.  Today, secular skeptics assert that the Founders were Deists, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.  I believe this dispute can easily be laid to rest by Patrick Henry, perhaps the most underrated and unsung leader of the American Revolution.  Henry played an essential role as Governor of Virginia, by far the largest colony at the time of the Revolution.  He was critical to the success of the Revolution and to the new republic that was formed.  His integrity was beyond challenge or doubt.  This is what he said about the Founders…

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

As Patrick Henry said, the Founders were grounded in the Christian faith, they had an understanding of Godly justice, and Godly love.  Perhaps more important, they understood human nature.  The Founders knew what it meant to both fear and love God.  They feared God because they knew he was a just God, and they loved God because they were thankful for sending Jesus to save them from their sins.  Because the Founders knew from the Old and New Testament that they were flawed mortals, they knew that men, when given too much power, would always be corrupted.

Anyone who has lived any length of time would have to be willfully blind to not understand that they are not perfect.  Only a fool would claim to be perfect and beyond the temptation of corruption.  How many people have you known throughout your life who were unable to handle wealth and power?

This is exactly what the Founders understood.  They knew that the centralization of power in government would lead to tyranny.  They knew that mortal men, no matter how well intentioned, when given too much power, would use it to their own benefit, not to the benefit of those they serve.  And so it is today. 

The fact is that the Christian faith of the Founders helped them to understand many things.  As the pyramid nearby shows, the Founders realized that faith was the foundation of freedom.  Without faith in God there can be no public virtue.  Virtue manifests itself in compassion and self-restraint.  Without public virtue, there is no compassion and no self-restraint.  Without compassion, churches and associations would not take care of the poor and needy.  And without self-restraint, liberty cannot exist, chaos ensues.  As faith declines in society, morals decline, self-restraint declines, crime increases and government, of necessity, increases its police power to maintain order.  As police power increases, individual freedom declines.  That's why John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and the other Founders felt so strongly about the need for public virtue.  George Washington said…

"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 oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."

Similarly, Benjamin Franklin said,

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

John Adams, who even the most ardent secularists concede was a Christian, said…

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."

And, finally, the voice of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry, summed it up…

"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."

Sadly, our young President does not reverence freedom.  He does not understand the nature of man.  He is out-of-step with the men who created the most free, the greatest nation in the history of the world.  Freedom is fragile; it is, as Ronald Reagan said, "Only one generation away from extinction."

Today, the future of freedom in the United States of America hangs in the balance.  Valiant, wise, God-fearing Americans bequeathed to you and me a nation exceptional in the annals of history.  It has its flaws and failures, but, in the end Americans have rallied to right wrongs, and to recapture public virtue.  When the need arose they fought and died for freedom in the Revolutionary War, in the War of 1812, in the Civil War, in World War I, in World War II and in numerous other wars and skirmishes around the globe.  Never seeking to gain territory or advantage, Americans have helped to rebuild those they defeated in war, and to come to the aid of those who have suffered from natural disasters.  Americans have proven to be the most generous, the most compassionate, and the most caring people in the world.

Today as the tide of statism and public corruption rises, there is a countervailing groundswell of patriotism—men and women dedicated to the virtues and values of our Founding Fathers.  The outcome is yet undecided.  No doubt the result will be a close run thing.  If freedom and virtue are to triumph, God will need to answer our prayers.  In addition, we must be prepared to join the Founders in pledging our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to preserving the United States of America as the last great hope of freedom on the face of the earth. 

You and I have enjoyed the blessings of freedom.  Will our children and grandchildren and generations yet unborn also enjoy the blessings of living in the United States of America, or will it like all nations before it pass into the dustbin of history?  Will you and I be members of the generation that failed the Founders?  Will we go down in history like Esau who gave up his inheritance for a bowl of stew provided by the federal government?

Who Are the Extremists?

USA Today is the largest circulation newspaper in the United States.  Some say it is to newspapers what McDonalds is to a sit-down restaurant—fast, but sometimes hard to digest.  It is the ubiquitous newspaper found in every hotel and motel across the US.  It is found on newsstands everywhere.  The folks at Gannett like to think of it as America's newspaper, slightly to the left, but not extreme.  I'll let you judge for yourself…

The March 1-3, weekend edition of USA Today featured this above-the-fold lead story—Why You Should Sweat Climate Change.  Here are a few excerpts from that story…

"More American children are getting asthma and allergies, and more seniors are suffering heat strokes."

"Food and utility prices are rising.  Flooding is overrunning bridges, swamping subways and closing airport runways."

"People are losing jobs in drought-related factory closings.  Cataclysmic storms are wiping out sprawling neighborhoods.  Towns are sinking."

"…these scenes are already playing out somewhere in the United States, and they're expected to get worse in the years ahead.  In fact, a remaking of America is likely in our lifetimes…This will transform how and where we live, work and play."

"Massachusetts' climate will start to look more like North Carolina's, and Illinois will begin to feel like Texas.  Montana's Glacier National Park…will likely lose its glaciers."

"Scientific research shows that [climate change is] increasing the risk and intensity of heat waves, downpours, drought and wildfires."

Sounds pretty scary, doesn't it?

President Obama expressed similar dire warnings in his second inaugural address, saying…

"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can ignore the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."

This is pretty overheated, emotional stuff.  Is the sky falling?  Is the end near?  Are we truly facing cataclysmic changes to our climate that will alter our lives and that of our grandchildren?  Are you and I to blame for driving cars, using energy, and indeed breathing out carbon dioxide?  Must we sacrifice the poor around the globe on the altar of global warming?  Must we stop using fossil fuels, reduce our lifestyle, learn to live with less?

Are the poor to be sentenced to permanent poverty and be denied economic prosperity because we must stop global warming?  Inexpensive, easily accessible energy is the key to building a prosperous society.  The more accessible energy is, the less expensive it is, the faster a society moves up the ladder of prosperity.  Cheap and accessible energy means a higher standard of living, greater access to food, higher per capita wealth, and the ability to educate and train men and women to work in better paying jobs.

I'm sure the President believes in global warming just as much as do the editors of USA Today, but do the facts back them up?  In other words, is the US experiencing increased wildfires, greater droughts, and more massive storms?

Let's use the official statistics provided by the United States government to see if the emotional rhetoric and alarmist language of the President and the USA Today editors is backed up by the facts.

Are wildfires on the increase?  Not according to the government's own figures.  The graph below shows that since the 1960s the number of wildfires is actually decreasing.

OK, that data only covers the last 40 years.  What about other claims that increasingly violent storms, such as major hurricanes are on the increase?  Again, from the government's own records, I'll let you judge for yourself.  This data covers 100 years.  As you can see from the graph shown below, the number of major hurricanes has actually been on the downswing since the 1940s.  In other words, while the rhetoric has been on the rise, the actual number of major hurricanes has declined

But, what about droughts?  Is the United States suffering from more droughts of greater severity than ever before?  Sorry, but that's strike three for the global warming alarmists.  The fact is, according to Wikipedia (that uses government data)…

"Over the contiguous United States, total annual precipitation increased at an average rate of 6.1 percent since 1900…"

So, to sum it up, neither USA Today, nor President Obama is right, no matter how insistent they are or how extreme their language.  The number of wildfires is on the decline in the US, the number of major hurricanes is on the decline, and annual precipitation is on the increase.  Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that glaciers are melting, only non-verified reports from hikers.  In fact, with few exceptions, scientists verify that glaciers are growing in India, in Norway, in the US, in Antarctica, in Greenland and in the Artic.  Snowfall is increasing as the earth continues to cool over the past decade.  Yes, you heard me right, the earth is currently in a cooling cycle.

The extremists who have a political and financial stake in global warming are in a panic and their rhetoric reflects it.  This cooling cycle has run counter to the catastrophic models upon which the theory of man-caused global warming is based.  In fact, many true scientists believe that the earth is entering into a long period of global cooling, not global warming, as it has in the past.  Data confirms that the earth has gone through long periods of warming.  In fact, Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle.  Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st century.

While political scientists shout and rage about man-caused global warming (now they call it climate change) the truth is we puny humans don't have the power or the capacity to affect global temperatures.  What do the vast majority of engineers and scientists believe about mancaused global warming?

According to Contributing Editor, James Taylor, writing in Forbes magazine…

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.  By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims."

Accordingly, we can conclude that President Obama and USA Today editors are right about one thing, there is a scientific consensus on the theory of man-caused global warming—64% of all scientists and engineers do not believe that there is such a thing as man-caused global warming.  Now, as I have stated previously, scientific fact is not a matter of taking a poll of scientists and engineers.  However, the fact is that the theory of man-caused global warming is just that, a theory.  Thus far, it is not supported by the facts, nor has it been verified according to the scientific method.

So let's stop the doomsday rhetoric.  Let's stick with the facts and let's rely on true science.  We know the much touted "hockey stick" graph supposedly validating global warming was concocted by falsifying the data.  Science is reliable, it doesn't need to be falsified or manipulated to arrive at the truth.

Many politicians are wedded to global warming as a political tool for expanding government power and control over our lives.  Americans rejected socialism as did much of the world just a few years ago.  So, the left tried a back door approach.  They created and/or imagined a mythical climate crisis so that they could impose government power over our lives. 

President Obama is not a scientist, nor are the writers at USA Today.  They have just been conned by pseudo scientists and political scientists who have a political, not a scientific agenda.  After all, hundreds, if not thousands of otherwise objective scientists are on the government dole, receiving millions of dollars in grants to promote man-caused global warming.  They are hardly objective observers because they have skin in the game.

Let's hope that soon we can put this nonsense behind us and quit wasting hard earned tax dollars on another hair brained pseudo crisis invented by the left.

Consumer Driven Public Education

The current state of public education in the United States is not only an embarrassment, it is a national calamity.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranks a lowly 18th out of the 36 nations whose education systems were evaluated.  Who is at the top of the rankings?  The answer is South Korea, where 93% of all high school students graduate on time.  This compares with the US where only 75% of the students receive high school diplomas.  But, actually the situation is much, much worse than that.  The fact is that many of those in the US who graduate from high school are functionally illiterate.  They have just been passed through the system.

The US is not in this sorry state of affairs because we do not have great teachers, or because we are not spending enough on education.  South Korea spends $3,759 (in US dollars) per student annually on education.  In contrast, the United States spends $7,743 per pupil.  It's not because parents, and the public in general, do not care about the education of American children.  The problem is the system.

Today the US ranks 4th behind Japan, China and Germany in automobile manufacturing.  The United States also ranks 15th in broadband access.  The United States will, of course, continue to fall further behind in manufacturing, broadband access, technological development and every other economic indicator if our public schools continue to deteriorate.

To better understand the situation, let's recall what happened in divided Germany.  East Germany was the showcase of socialism.  The East Germans lived better, produced better, than any other group of people living in the socialist paradise of the Soviet Union.  Since 1936 East Germans had lived under socialism, first under Hitler and then under the Communists.  Because they were hard working by nature, East German socialism is probably an example of socialism at its best.

Socialism is a weird invention built upon weird ideas.  Nowhere in a socialist system is there any mechanism to regulate or set a logical wage level or price for the goods and services produced.  And, of course, there is no reward or incentive to create or produce quality goods and services.  The only virtue of socialism (if you can call it that) is that, with the exception of the rulers, everyone lives in common misery.

All socialist systems are designed by ideologues who feel that they are not only smarter and wiser than the lesser members of their society, but also more ethically advanced.  Based on this false premise, they endeavor to create a "fair" society where everyone shares equally in the wealth of the society.  Of course, wealth is never expanded (as it is under capitalism), and there are no further advances in science or technology or manufacturing.  Worse yet, the those forced to live under socialism live a meaningless life of drudgery.  There is simply no hope of improving your family's economic standing under socialism unless you become one of the apparatchiks.

Fortunately, Germany gives us an opportunity to compare the results of socialism side-by-side with capitalism.  East Germany after World War II was the showcase of socialism and West Germany, in that same period, was the showcase of economic freedom, i.e. capitalism.  Both began at the same starting point—utter devastation from the war.  Neither one had an economic advantage over the other.

What happened?  West Germany became an economic powerhouse in a very short order.  Adapting a free market approach, Germany soon became the producer of some of the greatest automobiles in the world—Mercedes Benz, Audi, Porsche, BMW and Volkswagen.  From the top of the line to the bottom of the line these automobiles set the standard for the world in terms of quality, innovation, reliability, and performance.

On the other side of the border, in the socialist showcase of East Germany, progress was very slow, if at all.  In fact, after the wall fell nearly 50 years after the close of World War II, West Germans were shocked to find that nothing had changed in East German factories since the reign of Hitler in the 1930s.  But they should not have been surprised.  Socialism grinds economic production and innovation to a halt.  Not only were the factories operating with circa 1930 machinery, nothing had been done to update and maintain the infrastructure.  The telephone system was the same, the plumbing was the same, the electrical service was the same, the roads were the same, the railroads were the same, and the sewer system was the same.  And when I say the same, I'm referring to the fact that nothing had been done to update or even maintain this infrastructure.  The infrastructure had crumbled into total disrepair.  All of it had to be replaced at great cost by West Germany, after the wall came down.

It is no wonder that the only automobile produced in this socialist paradise was the Trabant.  To say that the East German Trabant was a poor car would be to give it far too much credit.  The Trabant was junk.  Quality was non-existent, it performed poorly, the two-stroke engine was inefficient and it was totally unreliable.  And, as bad as they were, they were almost impossible to obtain.

When you compare the Trabant to the automobiles of West Germany, you are comparing socialism in its purest form to capitalism.  Whereas the automobiles of West Germany were world leaders and every family had at least one, the Trabant wasn't as reliable as the Model A Ford and it certainly wasn't designed or built with as much quality.  Moreover, only a very few East Germans ever had enough money to purchase one.

That's socialism—poor quality, shortages, and general economic misery.  It stands in stark contrast to an economic system where freedom is the foundation.  Socialism never works, no matter how many times it is tried, no matter who designs it, no matter who operates it, and no matter what product or service it operates.  It is a total and complete failure.  Yet, otherwise smart people still cling to the utopian idea of socialism as something to be desired.

In a similar fashion, the systemic failure of American education has been brought about by government intervention at the highest levels.  The homogenization of education combined with a complete and total lack of competition will continue the decline in quality of education in the United States.  Again, it's not a matter of reform, or teachers or money, it's a function of a flawed system that will never achieve any level of excellence.  In short, American education is plagued—from grade school, through high school, and into college—with inevitable mediocrity.

But when you get down in the weeds and start talking about the individual failures, you are missing the main point.  American education is systematically designed to fail.  There is only one solution and that is consumer driven education.  You can't let the inmates run the institution and expect to produce excellence or sanity.  Excellence and quality always begin and end with a consumer driven free market solution.  Unless and until consumers, i.e. parents, drive education, it will continue to wallow in an intellectual wasteland surrounded by a moral abyss. 

If we don't trust socialists to design and build our cars or brew our beer, why in the world should we rely on a socialist system to educate our children?  Socialism ruins everything it touches, from health care to religion.  Have you ever wondered why Europe, for centuries the home of Christianity in the world, is today a nearly Christian free zone?  Authors of the book, God is Back, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, contrast European Christianity with American Christianity.  They come to the conclusion that in Europe it is government support (i.e. control) of the various state religions that has neutered them.  When someone is born in Germany he or she is automatically a Lutheran, or in England that person would be an Anglican, or in Italy or Spain, he or she would be a Catholic.  In other words, it is something you become by birth, not something you actually buy into or make a personal commitment to.  How can there be any ownership of the mission of the church when it gets its support from the government?  In stark contrast, Micklethwait and Wooldridge mark the relative robustness of Christianity in the United States as being a product of free churches working hard to bring in converts and to undertake programs benefitting those inside and outside the church.  He sees their competitiveness with each other as a benefit to all participants.  Perhaps this explains why only 2% of those in Europe regularly attend church, while some 40% of Americans identify themselves as regular church goers.  In effect, religion in Europe has gone socialist and the result is the near death of Christianity.

Keeping that lesson in mind, if we want to create intellectually strong schools, we must introduce the competitive forces of the marketplace.  This is the central failing of our public schools at every level.  The funds spent directly on education by the federal government and the various state governments (collected through taxes) must be put into the hands of parents to spend for their children when and where they choose. 

After all, children belong to their parents, not to the government or to society in general.  Of course, that's not what many progressive/liberals believe.  MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry recently stated, "We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to their communities."  But government is not God and neither is Melissa Harris-Perry.  In fact, God made it clear in the Bible that children are a gift from God to their parents and children are to obey their parents.

So, what will happen if we take a consumer driven approach to education in America?  Competition is a wonderful thing.  It brings out the best in all participants.  All the children will not leave our public schools if we put parents in charge of deciding what school to send their children to and thereby decide what their children will be taught.  In fact, public schools, like their competition in the private sector, will have to be responsive to the wants and desires of parents.  Public schools will compete and become better and better, focusing on education, not social engineering.  And they will become trimmer, and more efficient and responsive to the needs of parents and their children.  Socialist monopolies are always bloated, inefficient, and mediocre by definition.  But, through competition, public schools and their private school competitors will become the best in the world at the primary, secondary, and collegiate level.

Such schools will become better run, and the teachers will become happier and more engaged, knowing that they have the freedom to do their very best.  All parties will win, especially the students whose parents can choose the right school to meet their particular needs.  It won't be a panacea, but free market schools driven by parents will return American education to the top of the heap.  Sure, some parents will choose the wrong schools for their children and their children will suffer.  The parents have the right to make the wrong choices for their children in a free society.  However, the bottom line is that by and large, many, many more students will advance and succeed under a free market, competitive educational system than they do today.  The big winners will be the poor, especially minorities, who will be able to escape the failing government schools to get good educations for their children.

If you want to get a glimpse into the power of schools that are parent driven, visit the website of St. Marcus School at www.stmarcus.org/school/.  This school became possible because Milwaukee public schools were ranked 47th in the nation and because a liberal African-American state legislator championed choice in education.  Democrat Polly Williams put the welfare of the children ahead of the teacher's unions and, under her leadership, Wisconsin passed school choice for the children whose parents are in poverty.  Once her bill became law, the powers of competition were unleashed.  Located in one of the poorest areas of Milwaukee, today St. Marcus School has nearly 600 students and an incredible track record of success.  More than 97% of all the students at St. Marcus go on to get their high school diploma, and a large number of those graduates have gone on to get their college degrees.  Before St. Marcus, the graduation rate from high school was not only miserable, but of those who did graduate from high school, their academic achievements were limited.

St. Marcus School has broken the cycle of poverty in their community.  By promoting hard work, discipline, and providing quality education, the students of St. Marcus have a very bright future.  Academically, St. Marcus is modeled after KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools that are found across the nation (www.kipp.org/).  Thanks to many generous benefactors, including Bill and Melinda Gates, there are now nearly 100 KIPP schools across the nation breaking the cycle of poverty.  But, frankly, it is just a drop in the ocean.  Choice in education needs to be extended to all parents to the benefit of every school child in America and every teacher in America.  Everyone wins when competition exists.

Yes, monopolists will always complain and resist competition whether businesses or labor unions, but it is always to the detriment of the consumer.  As a liberal might put it, monopolies are not fair and in the case of education, they hurt the students the most.

School choice is a powerful and proven free market solution to the decline of public education.  Its triumph cannot come to soon.

The Night I Had Dinner with Terry McAuliffe

Yes, it's really true.  Kathi and I did have dinner with Terry McAuliffe one evening.  But, truth is, it wasn't quite the way it sounds.  There were just seven of us.  But, it wasn't pre-planned.  It was right during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  We have a tradition in our family that when your birthday comes around, you get to pick the restaurant.  It was Kathi's birthday and she picked a Japanese Steak house in Northern Virginia.  Our son, Matt, joined us for dinner that evening.  We just happened to be seated with this nice young couple and their two very well behaved children. 

The other family was Terry McAuliffe and his wife and children, but out of context I did not recognize him.  They were just a nice family out to dinner.  We made occasional small talk during the dinner and then when the dinner was about finished, we talked some more.  It went the way a conversation goes with folks you have never met before until it came out that he had raised money for Dick Gephardt in Missouri.  That's when I mentioned that I had raised money for Missouri Senator John Ashcroft.  That sort of changed the tenor of the conversation.  Then when Terry mentioned that he had golfed with President Bill Clinton that day I realized who he was.  It was almost comical.  Here we were, quite by accident, sitting at the same table with Terry McAuliffe, the President's bag man.

It was actually quite entertaining.  He told us that the scandal didn't seem to bother the President or his golf game, but he did joke that his only friend at the time was Buddy, his dog.  Of course, McAuliffe had already gained quite a bit of notoriety himself for his fund raising prowess and for his "luck" at making some $18 million through his timely investment in Global Crossings.  As you may recall, McAuliffe invested $100,000 in a new high tech company and 18 months later that investment turned into $18 million.  It was sort of like the Hillary Clinton investment of $1,000 that turned into $100,000 in the space of a year's time.

McAuliffe cashed out and shortly thereafter, Global Crossings collapsed.  Stockholders lost everything, except for McAuliffe and a few insiders, of course.  The collapse was on an Enron scale, but because McAuliffe had the right connections the scandal eventually went away.  It pays to have friends in high places.

For those of you who remember Bobby Baker, Lyndon Johnson's fix-it man, McAuliffe fits into the same mold.  Baker was a Capitol Hill aide to Senator Johnson and thanks to the connections of the Senator and the wheeling and dealing of his aide, both Baker and Johnson got rich. 

Judicial Watch conducted an extensive investigation of the Global Crossings Scandal and from that investigation they reported that McAuliffe's connection to Global Crossings was much more than just an investment.  The CEO of Global Crossings was Gary Winnick.  McAuliffe arranged for Winnick to play golf with President Clinton.  Shortly thereafter, Winnick gave a $1 milliongift to the ClintonPresidential Library.

Apparently it wasa pay to play arrangement.  By 2001, Terry McAuliffe was in the news in regard to the Global Crossings scandal.  The story runs like this…Global Crossings was given a $400 million contract by the Pentagon.  However, it turned out that there were "irregularities in the bidding process" that resulted in the Pentagon cancelling the agreement.  Perhaps a better word than the sanitized "irregularities in the bidding process" phrase might have been shenanigans.  Anyway, when the contract was cancelled, Global Crossings collapsed.

The Judicial Watch report goes on to state, "Like Enron, Global Crossings had artificially inflated its stock price while executives engaged in massive stock selling in the year leading up to filing for bankruptcy. While Global brass made billions, employees lost their life's savings as their 401(k) retirement plans were casualties in the Chapter 11 filing."

But, McAuliffe escaped scot free and $18 million richer.  Again, it pays to have friends in high places.

There's no doubt about it, McAuliffe has had an amazing career.  At just 22 he was the national finance chairman of the Jimmy Carter re-election campaign for President.  Carter lost the election in a landslide, but then, after graduation from law school, McAuliffe landed on his feet as a founder of the Federal City National Bank.  Just three years later, at the tender age of 27, McAuliffe was elected President of the Bank.  Why, because McAuliffe, like Bobby Baker, understood how to use his political connections to garner large bank deposits and to make big loans.  It was crony capitalism at best, and shady wheeling and dealing at worst.  But Terry McAuliffe wasn't finished, in fact he had just begun.

He set up a real estate company in Florida, and once again, using his political connections persuaded the trustees of union pension funds to invest millions in his little venture.  This time the political connections weren't sufficient and the real estate company was unable to re-pay a $6 million loan from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.  This time the Department of Labor sued and in 2001 the trustees were forced to pay the union $4.95 million.  Once again, McAuliffe escaped without a scratch.

When Bill Clinton got elected President, McAuliffe hit his stride.  It was a simple approach.  You had to pay to play.  If you wanted to have access to the President, you had to pay up, and if you wanted special connections inside the Administration that would be financially beneficial to you, you had to shell out.  Selling a night's lodging in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House was small potatoes for McAuliffe.  He had bigger fish to fry and he got even richer in the process.  After the Clinton years, McAuliffe played an instrumental role to obtaining backing for Global Crossings.

McAuliffe's most recent enterprise was a heavily subsidized electric car venture.  He tried to arrange for a sweetheart deal in Virginia providing special treatment for Chinese investors, but when he got turned down by Virginia, he simply moved his action to Mississippi.  McAuliffe's company, GreenTech, was supposed to begin production of tens of thousands of electric cars by 2011, but it didn't happen.  In fact, the company has now been sued by the county in which it resides for back taxes.  And, oh yes, no electric cars have come off the production line.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall, McAuliffe quietly resigned from GreenTech last December.  He stole off into the night with no public notice at all.  And now he claims no knowledge of unpaid taxes or the financial mess he left behind.  And so the saga of Terry McAuliffe goes.  Others lose their life savings, but McAuliffe walks away richer than ever.

And now this paragon of virtue wants to serve in the same office held by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson—Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  What a disaster that would be.  I could see someone like McAuliffe running for Governor of Louisiana.  He would fit right it with the Longs and Governor Edwards and all the other shady characters that have served as Governor of that state.

But knowing McAuliffe's penchant for a grand vision, I'm sure he must feel that being Governor of Virginia would put him in a lot better position to run for President than to try to run from Louisiana. 

Maybe McAuliffe can win.  I certainly hope not.  We don't need a wheeling-dealing Governor, we need a man of principles and dedication to the rule of law as our next Governor.  And we are blessed with the opportunity to elect just such a man, Ken Cuccinelli.  What impressed me the most about Ken as Attorney General was his commitment to the law and to the Constitution of both Virginia and of the United States. 

Early on he was called into a case involving one of our state universities.  He did not agree with the position taken by this particular university, but he concluded that it was lawful and within the Virginia Constitution.  He vigorously defended the University and won the case.  That is character.  Too many judges and AGs let their political views take precedence over existing law and the Constitution.  In the case of the law, it should not make any difference whether you are a conservative or a liberal.  If you believe in the rule of law, then the outcome will be the same.  However, if you allow your political perspective to corrupt your judgment, the rule of law suffers.  And when the rule of law suffers, our entire society is wounded.

Do you really want a Governor with the questionable past of Terry McAuliffe?  What a stark contrast his character is to that of Ken Cuccinelli.  I would be embarrassed to see McAuliffe buy his way into the Virginia Governor's mansion.  Governors Henry and Jefferson will roll over in their graves if that happens.